ARMS-D-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA (Moderator) (01/04/86)
Arms-Discussion Digest Saturday, January 4, 1986 10:45AM
Volume 6, Issue 4
Today's Topics:
Killing
MAD is meaningless
Childishness of nuclear weapons
Aircraft Carriers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri 3 Jan 86 18:45:32-PST
From: Jim McGrath <J.JPM@Epic>
Subject: Killing
Reply-to: mcgrath%mit-oz@mit-mc.arpa
> From: foy@aero
> ... This study indicated that something like 50% of the
> combatants in WWII did not fire their rifles. Most of us have a
> strong built in mechanism that prevents us from killing one of our
> own species. It takes a lot of dehumanising of the enemy to get
> troops to kill each other.
Throughout most modern wars the fighting man has not fought well (or
at all). Haven't you ever wondered why it takes tens of thousands of
enemy rounds to kill one soldier? Most are fired blindly. Things
were arguably better in the old days, with simplier, mainly
non-missile weapons and greater self selection as to who goes into
combat. None of this shows anything other than a battlefield is a
frightening and confusing place. It certainly does not show than man
naturally will choose not to kill, since whenever you can get them to
make a choice it is usually to fight (although often badly). Like it
or not, on a battlefield you do not have the option of turning the
other cheek.
Jim
------------------------------
Date: Fri 3 Jan 86 20:50:24-PST
From: Jim McGrath <J.JPM@Epic>
Subject: MAD is meaningless
Reply-to: mcgrath%mit-oz@mit-mc.arpa
From: Nicholas.Spies@H.CS.CMU.EDU
MAD is also meaningless; if we were in fact attacked, in that
awful moment of decision before launching a retaliation, I
would hope the President would not push the button
Then you must be strongly in favor of increasing conventional arms
(perhaps even if this involves a draft) and SDI. Afterall, you cann't
just wish nuclear weapons away. And I submit that a stronger
conventional force and SDI are much better alternatives than either
being red or dead.
Jim
------------------------------
Date: Fri 3 Jan 86 20:51:15-PST
From: Jim McGrath <J.JPM@Epic>
Subject: Childishness of nuclear weapons
Reply-to: mcgrath%mit-oz@mit-mc.arpa
From: Mills@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
Just for the record, I do believe the Soviets are essentially evil and
that we must oppose them. However, we should do this in a way we can
win with conventional forces. If we keep trying to defend ourselves by
threatening to end the world, eventually someone is going to call our
bluff. At the point we, the U.S. etc., loose or we all wind up dead.
This is a rather stupid and childish way to "defend" our selves.
No, it is a cheap way. It is well documented that the reason we rely
so heavily upon nuclear forces is that we (and to a much greater
extent Western Europeans and Japanese) want cheap security, and
nuclear weapons are an order of magnitude cheaper than conventional
forces. While I think there is a role for nuclear weapons in warfare,
I agree that our present over reliance is "childish." But remember
that Americans have NEVER been able to prepare for war very well.
It's amazing that we have the forces we do.
Given the political realities, you are going to have to work
extensively with nuclear weapons. This is why SDI is important. It
might be the only major anti-nuclear program that can garner long term
public support (as opposed to a conventional buildup, which will be
under attack from day one).
Jim
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 86 22:24:03 PST
From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Aircraft Carriers
Jim Morton writes:
> I can think of several reasons for Aircraft Carriers. ... fleet defense...
> ...force projection... the Falklands...
Carriers should be seen as what they are: floating airbases. They have all
the uses, and *all* *the* *problems*, of conventional airbases.
The strong point of a carrier is that it's an airbase that you can put
anywhere you want it (subject to the constraints set by coastlines). Being
able to put an airbase wherever it's needed is tremendously useful when
somebody in some far corner of the world starts doing something you disapprove
of. The Falklands and Jim's "force projection" example are cases in point.
It's a very important capability that's hard to get in any other way.
The weak point of a carrier is the same as that of a conventional airbase:
it is big and conspicuous and vulnerable. As Bill Gunston once wrote (quoted
from memory, wording not exact): "...when the Big E steams up over the
horizon, you can practically feel the menace... and the most ham-fisted pilot
in the most decrepit Third World air force could hardly miss a target that
big". Carriers are very vulnerable. Historically, US carriers that took a
hit or two from kamikazes -- quite similar in size and effect to the current
breed of Soviet cruise missiles -- were almost invariably unable to operate
aircraft without extensive dockyard-level repairs. It is very hard to believe
that a carrier's defences would be leakproof against a sophisticated enemy.
The British, whose antisubmarine gear is relatively modern, were unable to
prevent an Argentine submarine getting within torpedo range of their carriers;
the lack of dire consequences was a combination of defective torpedos and a
rather timid sub captain (more common than you would think: peacetime
submarine training emphasizes stealth, while wartime effectiveness requires
boldness). The Hawkeye/Tomcat combination looks impressive until you note
that there aren't many of either aboard one carrier, so defensive strength
will dwindle quickly once combat losses start to occur and round-the-clock
operation takes its toll in maintenance problems. You don't need nuclear
weapons to sink a carrier, although the US Navy has done a fine job of
deluding itself to the contrary. Persistent heavy attack with conventional
weapons will suffice.
So the role for carriers is force projection and air support in areas which
are not subject to intensive attack by a sophisticated opponent. There's
nothing anywhere near as good for intimidating Idi Amin or retaking the
Falklands, but sending a carrier task force to attack Soviet coasts in
a full-scale war is a suicide mission. Given this, it is legitimate to
ask questions like "do we need this many carriers?" and "would we be better
served by fifty Harrier carriers instead of a dozen monsters?".
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************