ARMS-D-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA (Moderator) (12/26/85)
Arms-Discussion Digest Thursday, December 26, 1985 11:07AM
Volume 5, Issue 71
Today's Topics:
Test Ban & Legality
Neutral Country Bias
Lincoln's estimate of 1000-year war
Deterrance must include limited retaliation too, I agree
LOW, pro and con
Deterrance must include limited retaliation too, I agree
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Test Ban & Legality
Date: 24 Dec 85 08:45:39 PST (Tue)
From: foy@aero
An article I read recently said that the Limited Test Ban Treaty has a clause
in it which requires the parties to the treaty, US and USSR, to negotiate in
good faith for an Unlimted Test Ban Treaty.
Does anyone on the net know the exact wording of this clause?
Is not the total rejection of the Soviets offer to continue their moratorium
on testing, if the US stops testing, a violation of this clause?
Would not a law suit against the government on this violation be perhaps as
fruitful as the lawsuit concerning the legality of Launch On Warning?
Many people, who are not totally into the black and white, the Evil Empire vs
the Savior Democracy, including such people as Admiral Stansfield Turner ex
CIA Director, the Heads of State of the six countires of the Five Continent
Peace Initiative and others believe that the best way to reverse the arms
race, the drift toward the extinction of the human species is to negotiate
a Total Test Ban Treaty.
Any comments any one?
richard foy
------------------------------
Subject: Neutral Country Bias
Date: 24 Dec 85 12:11:04 PST (Tue)
From: foy@aero
Jeff Miller's comments about the opinions from Finland being suspect because
they are under the domination of USSR don't fit the facts.
T. Siilli said, "among other things - deep distrust towards ANYTHING a super
power does - regardless of its name". It seems to me that he obviously d
distrusts both the US and the USSR. From the things I learned aboaut the history
and culture of Finland, on vacation there this summer, that seems to be a rather
wise attitude to take. I suspect that if more people in both this country and
the USSR took that attitude there would be a much greater possibility of
eliminating the risks of being dead and being red.
The rest of T. Siilli's comments relate to the nuclear force size needed to
deter the Soviets. His remarks are consistant with those of many people in
this non-neutral country who have quite a bit of technical knowledge in the
field.
Thus I think it is quite inaccurate to accuse him of having suspect opinions
just because he lives in a country on the borders of the Soviet Union, which
incidentally has fought many wars with them including fighting them in WWII.
Perhaps T. Siilli could recommend a good book written by a Finnish historian
which views the cold war from the neutral perspective of Finland.
------------------------------
Date: 1985 December 22 15:48:15 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@IMSSS.STANFORD.EDU>
SUBJECT:Lincoln's estimate of 1000-year war
Reply-to: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA (temporary until IMSSS.STANFORD.EDU registered)
J: Date: Mon, 16 Dec 85 13:38:15 EST
J: From: Clifford Johnson <GA.CJJ at Forsythe>@MIT-MC.ARPA
J: Subject: The Founding Fathers and LOW
[Quote from A.Lincoln...]
L: All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, ... could not
L: by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track in the Blue
L: Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.
Lincoln obviously assumed that technology would stand still during a
1000-year war. I consider that a gross mistake in judgement (most
likely an oversight, or a big lie thinking his audience wouldn't
notice the goof), considering that war is when technology is pushed
the fastest. If we had been under constant transatlantic war since
Lincoln's day, probably we'd have conventional-warhead ICBMs being
actually used in war in the 1930's with thermonuclear warheads added
to them shortly thereafter again in actual combat. (Just my
guesstimate, would be interested in hearing contrary or supportive
conjectures or guesstimates.) If so, the Ohio River would be rendered
unpotable long before 1000 years had passed and the joke about sipping
its water would be moot. (I take these things too seriously, but then
somebody has to whip our thinking into shape from sloppiness.)
------------------------------
Date: 1985 December 21 04:51:14 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@IMSSS.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:Deterrance must include limited retaliation too, I agree
Reply-to: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA (temporary until IMSSS.STANFORD.EDU registered)
| Date: Mon, 16 Dec 85 09:27:28 EST
| From: Clifford Johnson <GA.CJJ at Forsythe>@MIT-MC.ARPA
| ... The reason for damage limiting SIOP options is to deter
| the Ruskies from a damage limited first strike because all out
| retaliation would not in such circumstances be credible.
In my opinion, from the point of view of game theory, this is an
excellent reason for such operation plans. We have to believe a small
thermonuclear strike is very likely to escalate to allout
thermonuclear war, else we might be tempted to use nukes in random
bush wars from month to month; but we have to be alert lest some enemy
try to put us in a terrible dilemma by making a small strike against
us and maybe even pretending it was an accident. We have to have some
way to reasonably respond; doing nothing, and destroying the world,
are equally unacceptable. The Failsafe (book&movie) response is one
kind of limited reply to our own accident. We need lots of other small
scale response plans that can be called into action quickly in an
emergency, which means they must be planned ahead of time as SIOPs,
even if we think they'll never be used (we hope all out nucwar never
happens!!, yet we plan for that too in MAD).
| Date: Mon, 16 Dec 85 09:44:28 EST
| From: Herb Lin <LIN at MIT-MC.ARPA>@MIT-MC.ARPA
| If your statement were true, there would be no need for small nuclear
| options.
I don't understand. Our deterrent won't be credible unless we have (1)
battle plans (2) manufactured & tested equipment (3) trained staff.
This applies to small nukes just as well as allout destruction. 100%
of it could be merely to counter an enemy small-strike, and 100% of
that could be deterrence rather than actual desire to engage in
exchanges of small strikes. Did I misunderstand the statement?
| Date: Mon, 16 Dec 85 09:44:39 EST
| From: Clifford Johnson <GA.CJJ at Forsythe>@MIT-MC.ARPA
| But the declaratory policy is that nuclear war cannot be
| limited, but small nuclear options are needed to deter the
| Soviet first-use of limited options.
Good.
| Essentially we are in agreement that the *actual* US strategy is
| limited nuclear war.
I hope nobody quotes that out of context, as it seems seriously poorly
worded. You mean to say that our actual strategy is to deter nuclear
war at all levels from tiny (limited) nuclear wars to total
anihilation, while striving to prevent any such war from ever
happening by accident or misunderstanding or evil, right?
------------------------------
Date: 1985 December 21 05:35:37 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@IMSSS.STANFORD.EDU>
SUBJECT:LOW, pro and con
Reply-to: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA (temporary until IMSSS.STANFORD.EDU registered)
| Date: Mon, 16 Dec 85 09:45:13 EST
| From: <Martin C. Jordan <jordan%marlin at nosc.ARPA>@MIT-MC.ARPA>
| What has this to do with my point? Simply this, History is
| showing us that you cannot expect an aggressor nation to "play war
| by the rules."
Yes, the sad truth, I agree things are that way.
| To conclude, a law prohibiting LOW and such like does not get
| our head out of the hangman's noose. Either way, we, the Russians, and
| the world lose. With LOW, we have deterrence and the knowledge that we
| are getting our money's worth out of the President.
You have looked at only one half of it here. Indeed having LOW
deterrence decreases chance of nucwar due to USSR trying a first
strike. But LOW increases chance of nucwar due to computer
malfunction. Which is more likely? (We've had hundred of malfunctions,
but USSR has tried to put something over on us only once in 1962. In
that one case, we had time to chase the Russians with their missiles
out of Cuba, and we didn't need LOW. All other other times, it's a
good thing we didn't have LOW or we wouldn't be around to debate it now.)
| p.s. All flames, comments, and meaningful discussions welcomed
Sho 'nuff.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 85 11:09:26 EST
From: Nigel Goddard <goddard at rochester.arpa>@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
In V5 #69 John Mills writes:
"Just for the record, I do believe the Soviets are
essentially evil...."
All 200+ million citizens of the USSR?! The political and economic system?
The government/military? Just exactly who your enemy is is of paramount
importance when discussing military options. This kind of vague throw-away
line only serves to reinforce Cold War attitudes, without informing or
enlightening us.
Nigel Goddard
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************