ARMS-D-Request@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU.UUCP (02/14/87)
Arms-Discussion Digest Friday, February 13, 1987 10:52PM
Volume 7, Issue 103
Today's Topics:
Weinberger's latest on military release of nuclear weapons
Re: Out of the blue
American Policy
dismantling submarines
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 87 16:55:44 PST
From: "Clifford Johnson" <GA.CJJ@STANFORD.BITNET>
Subject: Weinberger's latest on military release of nuclear weapons
This is an update for those interested in my suit seeking
a declaration that LOW is unconstitutional. Updates will be
infrequent. This reports a final(?) definition of Weinberger's
position re nuclear release authority. The case is now reset for
hearing on March 4, 1987. LANAC (Lawyer's Committee for Nuclear
Arms Control) has filed a petition to appear as an amicus.
I previously reported that Weinberger first argued that the
military didn't need presidential authorization to use nucs. Then
he introduced a declaration of Colonel Hope stating that "positive"
presidential authorization was needed. Now he seems to have gone
back on this declaration, claiming that delegation of nuclear
release authority is A-OK. For example, here is the opinion of the
Air Force's Judge Advocate General re the delegation of nuclear
launch authority -- I wonder if the Judge Advocate General of the
Navy is comfortable with it? It specifically asserted that CINCSAC
could command the Navy's nuclear weapons, under certain
circumstances.
"We are unaware of any constitutional or statutory limitations on
the President's ability to structure the chain of command in any
manner he may choose. The authority to do so is inherent in his
Constitutional role as Commander in Chief set forth in Art. II,
sec. 2, cl. 1... (W)e believe that the only legal limitation on
"delegating or sharing" command authority is that imposed by the
President and the SECDEF... Command, although never shared, may be
delegated to subordinate commanders in the chain of command...
(A)t the direction of the President and under circumstances he
deems appropriate, CINCSAC (Commander-in-Chief, Strategic Air
Command) could, in our opinion, be legally authorized to command
all strategic nuclear forces of the United States. 10 U.S.C.
Section 124." (OpJAGAF 1981/ 42, Jul 9.)
The cited statute states merely that combatant commanders have full
operational autonomy in performing missions assigned by the
President and Secretary of Defense. Nuclear weapons are not
mentioned. According to same myopic reasoning, the October 1,
1986, Defense Reorganization Act, which grants combatant commanders
dictatorial authority "Unless otherwise directed," a LOWC could be
legitimized even though the President does nothing. (10 U.S.C.
Section 164 (c).)
To: ARMS-D@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 87 16:31:02 est
From: wanginst!infinet!rhorn@harvard.HARVARD.EDU (Rob Horn)
Subject: Re: Out of the blue
One of the major reasons to worry about having no warning of an
impending attack by the Soviet Union is that in their published
military literature, in their training operations, and in their recent
military operations (Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan) there is a
powerful emphasis on surprise attack. The surprise attack is
dominant theme in all of their official publications and it is the
dominant mode of operation for their military operations. It would be
gross negligence on the part of the U.S. military to not be concerned
about a surprise attack.
Rob Horn
UUCP: ...{decvax, seismo!harvard}!wanginst!infinet!rhorn
Snail: Infinet, 40 High St., North Andover, MA
------------------------------
Date: Friday, 13 February 1987 09:17-EST
From: Not more than a Swallow's flight away <"NGSTL1::SHERZER%ti-eg.csnet" at RELAY.CS.NET>
To: arms-d
Re: American Policy
>From: pom@along.s1.gov
> Larry asks:
>I hope you are correct and yes we should be aware of that struggle. BTW,
>how does one join Amnesty International? Do you have an address?
>
>pom responds:
> There are two ways of joining. 1) You call our local (California)
> office at (415) 563-3733 and ask to be put on their mailing list.
> They will send you an introductory packet. You than decide if you
>...
First of all, that was me (not Larry), but thanks for the info anyway.
> Few month back, when Mr. Hasenfus was tried in Mannilla, White House
> reffered to his trial as a 'show' trial. I am quite happy that Hasenfus
> was released and could celebrate X-mass with family. Nevertless,
>...
In the case of Mr. Hasenfus (who was tried in Managua not Manila), the
verdict and sentance were known before the trial. Although he was guilty,
that didn't matter. If he was not guilty, nothing would have changed.
That makes it a show trial. In addition, he was not allowed to select his
own defence counsel, and the counsel he was given had only 3 days to
prepare his case.
>> ... many of the guerrillas in the world today are "our"
>>guerrillas, in places like Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Angola, and
>>Cambodia, and our support for most of them has elicited little public
>>dissent. =============
>========== They for sure are not 'mine'. Yes, under Carter we have been
> humiliated as a nation. If we want to demonstrate our capabilities,
> let's go and clean up Libanon of terrorists.
How do you think we should do this? Blow up the entire country? If not,
how do we ID the terrorists so we can clean them up?
>Picking up fights with
> small nations who never did anything to us, will not impress anybody.
There are no American troops directly fighting in any of the war's you
speak of. We are, however, supporting groups which are if not democratic,
are people we can influence to become democratic.
> I wonder what we have do to show our dissent. Break up windows and
> overturn cars? In the last elections, the vote was about %60 for contras, %40
> against.
It is a shame that the people the contra's are fighting don't allow voting
or demonstrations of dissent.
>That was before our moral bancruptcy was made public. I think
> now it would be majority against the senseless sloughter.
> We should not go to war unless 66% is for it.
If the vote had been 66% for the contras, would you say that we needed 70%
to go to war? While doing research for a paper a while back, I fould a poll
taken in 68 which showed about 75% of americans supported the Viet Nam war.
From this, I take it you alow supported that war? (Because they had the
required 66%).
> Yes, during the Carter's years we, as nation were humiliated and insulted.
> So, how many lives of Iraquis, Iranians, Nicaraguans, Afganistanians we will
> demand in vengenace?
The war's mentioned, with the exception of Nicaragua started under the Carter
administration. Are you saying, for example, that the US made the SU invade
Afganistan because we were humiliated? How did we manage that?
As to Iraquiis and Iranians, I think it is safe to say that over 66% of
Americans would favor a war with Iran when that war started, so I don't see
why that bothers you (unless you feel that we should be more directly involved
from the beginning).
Allen Sherzer
SHERZER%NGSTL1@TI-EG.CSNET
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1987 22:49 EST
From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: dismantling submarines
One big issue in the debate over SALT compliance is that the number of
MIRVed missiles. The problem is that when we deploy something like a
cruise missile carrying bomber (which counts as a MIRVed missile in
some ways), we must dismantle a compensating system. Often that
system is a ballistic missile submarine, which has several MIRVed
missiles. Thus, to get one newly deployed missile, we may lose as
many as 15 old MIRVed missiles.
A solution would be to somehow plug up the missile tubes in a
submarine, say by filling the tube with concrete.
Anyone have any ideas as to how to implement this idea?
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************