randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) (10/18/89)
From: Randy Appleton <randy@ms.uky.edu> How many people on the net would agree with me in saying we (the U.S.) have too many nuclear weapons? Here are my reasons: 1)We have about 10,000 tactical nuclear weapons. I find it difficult to imagine a situation where we could use even 1/10 of that force. Can anyone imagine us using even 1,000 tactical nuclear weapons. I understand we have to stockpile more than we're gonna use, but don't you think we've passed that mark long ago? 2)We have 13,000+ startegic nuclear weapons. Why? They say 400 effective megatons would destroy 1/2 the Soviet industry, and 1/4 the people. That's less than 1,000 250kt warheads. And even if they do a "bolt from the blue", we would have *many* times that amount. So if we kept 1,000 warheads under the sea at all times, and kept say another 2,000 warheads on a 10-hour alert as a war-fighting force, wouldn't that be enough? I understand that our stedy-state alert rate is not 100%, but even at 50% for sub's and 30% for bombers and 90+% for ICBM's, the current force is overkill. I'm told by the moderator to keep this a military question, and not something about arms control. So I guess that makes the question, "Can anyone imagine a scenario where we would have to use a large fraction of our nuclear forces?" 'Cause if not, then we have to many, and should spend the money somewhere else (like F-15's or education). And if so, I'd be curious what it is. [mod.note: I posted this because the questions are good ones, and I think there's room for technical discussion. However, given the very high volume in this group lately, I'd prefer any replies to be mailed directly to Randy, who, I hope, will then summarize the important points in a week or so. - Bill ] Randy randy@ms.uky.edu Sex can be beautiful between a man and a woman--You just have to get between the right man and the right woman. :-) Disclaimer: My discaimers often vary from second to second.