ARMS-D-Request@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (Moderator) (01/07/87)
Arms-Discussion Digest Tuesday, January 6, 1987 9:45PM
Volume 7, Issue 91
Today's Topics:
B-52's don't fly out of Moffett Naval Air Station
Ethics and Morality of U.S. Foreign Policy...
But are there any angels? <-- Morality of US policies.
A couple of nuke B-52's a day keeps the Russkies away...
Re: Offensive uses of SDI
U.S. motives
zero ballistic missiles, good or bad?
nuclear armed P-3 Orions
Soviet history
WSJ II
administrivia
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 5 Jan 87 17:44 PST
From: William Daul / McDonnell-Douglas / APD-ASD <WBD.MDC@OFFICE-1.ARPA>
Subject: B-52's don't fly out of Moffett Naval Air Station
I spoke with a person that was a crew member of a P3-ORION out of Moffett.
Although the Navy will not admit or deny the presence of nuclear
depth-charges...he said that they routinely carry them during training...in
case the training turns into the REAL thing while they are in the air. FWIW,
--Bi//
(For What It Is Worth)
------------------------------
From: hplabs!pyramid!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 87 16:54:17 pst
Subject: Ethics and Morality of U.S. Foreign Policy...
> ... that usually more than one-half of
> the fleet ballistic missile force is kept at sea...
References, please? The usual rule of thumb is that it takes five subs
to keep one on station ready to fire (subs in transit are not usually in
position to fire). This is why the British Polaris fleet was planned as
five boats, and why its subsequent cut to four caused (and continues to
cause) considerable difficulties.
> ... On the other hand the Russians
> keep 15% or less of their fleet ballistic missile submarines at sea at any
> given time...
This has little or nothing to do with lack of offensive intent; the reasons
are that (a) Soviet subs work their crews very hard and sustained operations
exhaust the crews, and (b) the Soviets do not trust their sub commanders,
who of necessity are capable of initiating nuclear war without consulting
Moscow. Item (b) may be a significant consideration in unreadiness of other
Soviet nuclear forces.
> ... their obsolete
> bomber force is only considered a serious threat by the most paranoid...
It's insignificant compared to their missile forces, true, but it's not a
totally ineffective threat. Remember that the B-52 fleet is older than
most of its crewmen now; old weapons can remain dangerous. Especially when
you consider that bomber forces (a) can "launch on warning" without making
an irrevocable commitment to attack, (b) can be pursued and destroyed if
launched without proper authorization, and (c) face feeble and antiquated
North American air defences that haven't a prayer of stopping them all.
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
------------------------------
From: hplabs!pyramid!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 87 17:03:19 pst
Subject: But are there any angels? <-- Morality of US policies.
> ... When [Hitler] attempted to implement that, lot of the
> other nations, including US and SU got so scared, that they united to
> defeat him ...
Although individuals within both nations may have been scared, neither the
US nor the SU moved against Hitler until he (or his allies) actually attacked
them. The Soviet Union was Hitler's *ally*, and fellow land-grabber, until
Hitler let his anti-Communist paranoia run away with him and stabbed his
buddies in the back. The US joined in the war against Hitler only because,
when Pearl Harbor had made war between the US and Japan a fact, Hitler
made the incredible mistake of declaring war on the US. If he had wimped
out and let Japan go it alone, the anti-Hitler faction in the US would have
had a much harder time justifying war against Germany.
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
------------------------------
From: hplabs!pyramid!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 87 17:03:41 pst
Subject: A couple of nuke B-52's a day keeps the Russkies away...
> Although I have no proof to back it up, I have heard numerous oral
> reports that Moffett Naval Air Base, less than a mile from where I
> live, sends two nuclear-armed B-52's out each and every day of the year.
> Can anybody confirm or deny this, or such policies at other installations?
My recollection is that -- officially at least -- there is *no* operational
flying with live nuclear weapons since the spate of weapons accidents
(notably Palomares and Thule) some years ago. Vague memory says McNamara's
(nearly?) last act as Secretary of Defense was to halt all such flying, on
the grounds that the added readiness could not justify the rate of accidents.
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
------------------------------
From: hplabs!pyramid!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 87 17:04:05 pst
Subject: Re: Offensive uses of SDI
> ... Any boost-phase intercept method would have to
> reach down into the atmosphere over the Soviet Union and destroy ICBM's
> on their way up. If boost-phase intercept can do that, it could destroy
> civilian targets on the ground...
Mmm, "boost phase" normally extends beyond the effective limits of the
atmosphere, as I recall. Furthermore, the ability to reach down some
distance into the atmosphere does not imply the ability to reach to the
ground. Most of the mass and optical density of the atmosphere is very
close to the ground. I've seen at least one semi-related power-satellite
proposal using an infrared laser which could reach a cruising airliner (to
power it, not destroy it!) but could not reach the ground with any useful
amount of power.
> Either boost-phase or mid-phase weapons would also work well against
> Soviet satellites...
Yes, although it is important not to scream "SDI is an offensive weapon!"
just because of this; it is technically true but misleading, since attacks
on satellites are not what most people think of when "offensive" is used
without further qualification.
> Nuclear-powered X-ray laser battle stations in orbit might be viewed as
> orbiting nuclear weapons by an unsympathetic foe :^)
Probably, although my recollection is that at least some of the treaties
on such matters refer to "weapons of mass destruction" rather than "nuclear
weapons"; it is not clear that a pulsed beam weapon which can't penetrate
atmosphere would qualify under the strict definition.
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
------------------------------
From: hplabs!pyramid!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 87 17:04:26 pst
Subject: U.S. motives
> Essential point is that US has no plans and reasons to attack SU...
There was a considerable "strike first" faction in the US in the late 40s
and early 50s, which had the support of John von Neumann among others.
If I were a Soviet planner, I would not find the idea of a US first strike
totally ridiculous.
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
------------------------------
From: hplabs!pyramid!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 87 17:04:52 pst
Subject: zero ballistic missiles, good or bad?
> Reagan proposed at the recent Iceland summit to eliminate ballistic
> missiles from the arsenals of the U.S. and the S.U. Is this a good
> idea? Why?
I would say it's a good idea. It eliminates the major class of strategic
weapons with an extremely short flight time. Minimal travel time is of
little value in strategic weapons except for the implementation of counter-
force strategies, which are destabilizing and dangerous. Short flight
times are themselves destabilizing and dangerous, since they create
great pressure for fast decisions and fast response to perceived attacks.
The near-synchronized attacks that result from short flight times also
tend to eliminate launch-after-confirmed-attack as an alternative to
launch-on-warning (very dangerous) or ride-out-attack (much harder).
Ballistic missiles are also extremely difficult to intercept, because of
the short flight time available for interception and the high relative
velocities. This may sound like an advantage in a weapon, but it's not
clear that *extreme* difficulty of interception is a great idea in a
strategic weapon. In the interest of preventing global wars due to
accidents, human failure, or malicious third parties, it is desirable that
effective interception of *small* strategic-weapon attacks be possible.
The malicious-third-party problem won't really be addressed completely
by a bilateral renunciation of ballistic missiles, but possibly such an
agreement could be extended further, by superpower pressure if nothing
else. (If it happens during the next few years, it *will* probably take
the British strategic force out of the running by denying them Trident
missiles.) (Also, if the superpowers renounce ballistic missiles for
use against each other, then ABM systems to counter third-party attacks
will not destabilize superpower relations.)
> What do ballistic missiles give the U.S. that we would
> not have without them?
Plausible grounds for believing that the US could mount either (a) a
disabling first strike, or (b) an effective counterforce attack (same
thing but less ambitious). Since a realistic assessment (obviously there
is some element of opinion here...) shows (a) to be impossible anyway
and (b) to be perhaps impossible and certainly a bad idea, this loss
strikes me as a fine idea.
It is not surprising that this proposal came from the US, since the SU
is more dependent on ballistic missiles and more committed to counterforce
strategies. (US strategic-weapons doctrine originated in the obliteration-
through-airpower doctrine of WW2 and before, which emphasized destruction
of civilian infrastructure, while Soviet doctrine is more the descendant of
artillery tactics, in which attacking the opposing artillery batteries is
obviously a high priority.) Whether the Soviets would go for it, other
issues permitting, is a good question...
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 87 15:09:00 PST
From: G. R. Gircys <decwrl!fiasco@nsc.NSC.COM>
Subject: nuclear armed P-3 Orions
Reply-To: ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!decwrl!nsc!fiasco (G. R. Gircys)
The P 3 Orions flying out of Moffett are armed with nuclear warhead
torpedoes. My suspicion of this fact was verified several years ago
during an open house visit to Moffett. While on board one of the craft
I was talking to a crew member who in his enthusiasm told me about the
weapons capabilities. Another point of interest he related was that
the Orion is not a sub hunter. They at all times know were soviet subs
and that their job is to see that those subs never even get a chance
to launch their missles in case of war.
Of course you'll get nothing but official denial of the above data.
After all, can you imagine how comfortable silicon valley folks would
feel if they new that the numerous daily overhead flights of the
Orions exposed them to megatons of nukes.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 87 17:49:13 PST
From: Steve Walton <ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Subject: Soviet history
There was an extremely depressing editorial in the Sunday, January 4
issue of the Los Angeles Times by Robert Gillette on the subject of
what Soviet schoolchildren are taught about the United States in the
fourth grade. (Gillette is the Times's correspondent in Warsaw at
present, having just finished duty in Moscow.) Some highlights:
"Under capitalism, children labor in heavy industry from 4 a.m.
until 8 p.m., in constant fear of suffering 25 lashes for even the
most minor infraction--such as breaking a tool. For emphasis, the
book offers a color illustration of a bearded shop foreman holding a
whip poised over the back of a kneeling child."
"The Red Army crushed both Germany and Japan [in World War
II], only to have the United States drop its atomic bombs on an
already-defeated Japan." "For Soviet fourth-graders, World War II
began not in September, 1939, when Germany (and its then-ally, the
Soviet Union) attacked Poland, but in June, 1941, when Germany invaded
the Soviet Union. 'For a long time before, the capitalist countries
had prepared to attack the USSR,' the book says. 'They hated the free
socialist state.' The United States, Britain, and France appear only
as they advance through Germany in the closing days of the war in
1945. The Western allies are said to have 'met with almost no
resistance,' while Soviet forces waged a fierce battle to capture
Berlin.
"Then, with Germany defeated, 'Soviet soldiers dealt a shattering
blow to the Japanese army and annhilated it. On Sept. 2, 1945, Japan
lay down its arms.
"In fact, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan on Aug. 8, 1945,
and attacked Japanese forces in Manchuria two days after the United
States dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. Nagasaki was destroyed on Aug.
9 and Japan announced its surrender on August 15, but the formal
surrender ceremony did not take place until Sept. 2. Yet, by the
book, 'even as the Red Army was destroying the Japanese army, the
government of the U.S.A. sent its pilots to drop atomic bombs on the
cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to frighten the people of the world
with these fearful weapons. The atomic bombing was a crime of the
capitalists of the U.S.A. against humanity, which the people of the
world will never forget.'"
The overall picture presented is of a US which is completely and
utterly evil, oppressing both its own citizens and those of other
lands, wantonly murdering others for no very good reason, and desiring
the complete and utter destruction of the "free socialist state." So
much for glasnost. No wonder _1984_ is a banned book in the SU.
Stephen Walton ARPA: ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu
Ametek Computer Research Div. BITNET: walton@caltech
610 N. Santa Anita Ave. UUCP: ...!ucbvax!sun!megatest!ametek!walton
Arcadia, CA 91006 USA
818-445-6811
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 87 17:28:38 PST
From: Steve Walton <ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Subject: WSJ II
Well, the letters in response to the Wall Street Journal's SDI
editorial of December 16 appeared today (January 6). There were
three. The first and longest one (more than six column inches) was
from a spokesman at the Soviet embassy in Washington, DC, essentially
saying that the claim about Soviet SDI spending was in the same
category as the "bomber gap" of the mid-50's and the "missile gap" of
the early 60's. (Probably true.) However, he also denied that the
Soviets were doing any research into strategic defense at all, which
certainly damaged his credibility. The second letter was from someone
from the Center for Defense Information. It quoted Gen. Abrahamson of
SDIO as follows: out that of 14 critical areas of technology for SDI,
the US was ahead in 8 (including optics, sensors, and computers), and
the Soviets were abreast of us in the other six. They are ahead in
none. The third letter was from a citizen who said, simply, "Why
don't you hand the editorial page over to the Defense Intelligence
Agency?"
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1987 21:34 EST
From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: administrivia
==>> someone please tell rhall@ardec.arpa that he is an unknown user,
according to the BRL mailer, and that he will be deleted from the BRL
redistribution point.
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************