dcn@ihuxl.UUCP (Dave Newkirk) (08/16/84)
I want to present some of the positive aspects of a Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) to balance the previous article. I am not an all-out proponent of BMD, but I think it should be honestly evaluated before condemning us to live with the MAD policy. A full-blown BMD would protect against limited nuclear war or accidental launches, and provide reasonable protection in a full-scale war. The 5% of the warheads that may get through would hit random targets thoughout North America, many of them military targets. It would be a horrible disaster, but not total annihilation, and maybe no nuclear winter either. The satellites can be a weak link, but precautions can be taken. Armor can be added (mirror finish?) to protect against ground based threats, and missile carrying satellites can destroy killer satellites. The shotgun attack can be avoided by moving the satellite slighty to evade the cloud of debris. I agree the fleet of SSBN's are formidable, but it really depends on the enemy's perception of them. If the Soviets think they can survive or neutralize enough of the warheads, then the subs are not enough to be an effective deterrent. Cruise missiles are hard to detect, but I think that problem is solvable. During WW II the British destroyed many V-1 cruise missiles with spotters, radar and fighter planes. Our defense technology has lagged the offense too long. If by some means we could deploy similar systems together (us and them), it could be the end nuclear war as we imagine it today. We would still have to deal with conventional warfare in Europe, the Middle East, etc, but it wouldn't be the first time, or the last!
alle@ihuxb.UUCP (Allen England) (08/17/84)
+ I am not a scientist, and I wouldn't be so quick to discount this idea. If we can truly stop 95% of the incoming missiles, then I think we should give some serious thought to this plan. I also heard on the news that several imminent scientists testified before congress in favor of this plan and I have to believe that they have a better understanding of the merits and faults of this plan than either Gary or myself. I would be interested in hearing some discussion of this idea as opposed to seeing a mass of knee-jerk reactions to this idea. --> Allen <-- ihnp4!ihuxb!alle
gsp@ulysses.UUCP (Gary Perlman) (08/17/84)
> I am not a scientist, and I wouldn't be so quick to discount this idea. I do not feel that I have been quick to discount the idea, and being a "scientist" should not be a person's first concern. > If we can truly stop 95% of the incoming missiles, then I think we > should give some serious thought to this plan. Yes, I agree, but still the other 5% would cause some problems. > I also heard on the news that several imminent scientists testified before > congress in favor of this plan and I have to believe that they have a > better understanding of the merits and faults of this plan than either > Gary or myself. Imminent means "about to happen". The word you mean is eminent. In any case, there is as much eminence on either side, except that one side has a special interest, namely: they will be the ones funded to do the work. You are right to point out that these scientists know more about the problem, but who is to say whether their conclusions are correct? > I would be interested in hearing some discussion of this idea as opposed > to seeing a mass of knee-jerk reactions to this idea. I resent my reaction being thought of as a reflex without thought. I too wuld like to see a discussion. For example, one person said he disagreed with me because he thought the Star Wars project would be good for space research in general. That's a good point, I think, because I support space research, but my impression is that the proportion of results useful for space development would not be worth the overall investment. I would prefer to see space research adopted by the military than the other direction. I simply cannot support a project like Star Wars simply because it would aid an area of research I see as lacking. Just because people are scientists does not mean they are right, and it des not mean that their interests are noble. If you like, call me ignorant, but at least question the establishment, and consider the issues. I think I'll get off my soap box now.
matt@oddjob.UChicago.UUCP (Matt Crawford) (08/17/84)
> I am not a scientist, and I wouldn't be so quick to discount this idea. > If we can truly stop 95% of the incoming missiles, then I think we > should give some serious thought to this plan. > I also heard on the news that several imminent scientists testified before > congress in favor of this plan and I have to believe that they have a > better understanding of the merits and faults of this plan than either > Gary or myself. --> Allen <-- ihnp4!ihuxb!alle Since my thesis defense is coming up I guess I am an imminent scientist also. Let me say then that this sort of "trust your government, child" attitude can lead easily to disasters of the worst sort. The technical aspects of the space-based BMD have been discussed in accessible sources such as Scientific American and you can read them for your self. Rather than debate technical points in this forum let me just say that if the United States began to deploy such a defense that even had the appearance of effectiveness without first ACHEIVING an enormous reduction in armaments, I would leave the country, the hemisphere, and if it were feasible, the planet. Imagine that such a defense were about to be completed next month and that the Soviet weapons would be nearly useless thereafter, while those of the US were still in place. Given Mr. Reagan's acknowledged wish to destroy the Soviet Union by force, what might they be tempted to do? ___________________________________________________________ Matt University ARPA: crawford@anl-mcs.arpa Crawford of Chicago UUCP: ihnp4!oddjob!matt
ignatz@ihuxx.UUCP (Dave Ihnat, Chicago, IL) (08/17/84)
Gary Perlman has express extreme distress at the idea of the 'Star Wars' defense plan. Now, I am not defending the current plan--or sacking it--here. What I think about it will wait for another time. What I'm getting on to say is more general: The apparent attitude that "Anything we come up with won't stop everything, so why bother at all??" This has been the heart of MAD philosophy, and I firmly believe that it's the major reason we still are sitting like two cowboys at a poker table, with cocked six-shooters at each others' heads, after more than 30 years. Trouble is, there are other players joining the game. The truly dangerous and terrifying thing about the position espoused by Gary is that it will *never* admit the possibility of a defense system. For the same argument will be coupled with the "If they think their missiles will be stopped by a system that will take 5 years to implement, they'll attack sometime sooner to prevent it." And with these two arguments, the human race is doomed to wait...and wait...and wait... with no respite, and no recourse, until some one of these damnfool overgrown kids with their hellish toys pushes the goddamn button. And all I and my loved ones can do is sit at the top of the Sears Tower and toast the end of the world. For the kids, despite grand words and protestations of love of peace, aren't ever going to say, "Ok. I'll decommission 50 missiles. How about you see my 50, and raise me 50?" Frankly, I wouldn't either. For I wouldn't trust either side, nor any of the ones joining the club. The current Star Wars defense may not work. In fact, I think 95% is an *extremely* over-confident statement, given the complexity of the problem. But I DO want to see someone, somewhere, in our government say, "THIS IS IT. I am THROUGH sitting with a loaded missile at my head--first priority will NOT be a first-strike capability. It will be the capability to laugh at THEIR first-strike capability." How? Hell, I don't know. It's not my field. But it takes money, research, and time to solve these things. And if we don't start somewhere, we're doomed to this ghastly, unending, MAD course of action. Dave Ihnat ihuxx!ignatz
elt@astrovax.UUCP (Ed Turner) (08/17/84)
I would like to make a few points in favor of ballistic missile defense systems: 1) The criticism that such a system would not be 100% reliable is a complete straw man. When was any defense system of any kind 100% reliable? The point is that such a complex and not realistically tested system would create great *uncertainty* in the mind of any would be attacker thus improving deterence. It would enormously reduce the lure of a pre-emptive counterforce attack during times of crisis, probably the most realistic scenario for a "rational" descision to use strategic nuclear weapons. 2) If a massive attack ever did occur, such a system could only help to reduce the death and destruction terrible though they might be. It is simply not true that being hit by 10, 100, 1000, or 10,000 warheads are all equivalent. 3) By the time such a system could be developed and deployed, it is fairly likely that a substantial number of new small nuclear powers will have appeared. A defense system might well be perfectly effective against such a small attack, or an accidental launch, or a "demonstration" attack. These arguements are fairly straightforward and widely appreciated but there are other MORE IMPORTANT reasons which I think are less widely understood. They are as follows: 4) A missile defense system is an attractive project to (at least some elements of) the military industrial complex. It offers the opportunity of opening up a huge new military enterprise. This may seem like a drawback to idealists who would like to see as few resources as possible "wasted" on military activities; realistically, however, the military industrial complex is such a powerful and influential economic interest that it is hard to imagine us giving up the development of new *offensive* weapons systems without some substitute activity to replace it. A defense system could serve this purpose as well. 5) A missile defense system would make it far easier to imagine a negotiated reduction of offensive missiles to low levels (even zero!) since it would mean that a small amount of cheating or deception would not be too important. Thus the usual verification roadblock might be bypassed. 6) Finally and most speculatively, it is hard to feel confident about the prediction that defense systems could never work very well. Technological developments are notoriously hard to forecast, and it should be noted that as compared to offensive weapons research very little effort has yet been devoted to defensive weapons. One could imagine a (relatively) happy future in which both sides had elaborate, expensive, and effective defense systems based in space. In the event of war, the issue would be decided in space at little cost in human life; a space battle would give one side the command of space and destroy the other's defense system. The losing side would then be forced to yield to avoid a nuclear attack to which it could not effectively respond. This may not sound great but compare it to the current MAD strategy. Ed Turner astrovax!elt
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (08/17/84)
When we're talking about the formidable nature of missile submarines,
let us not forget the one major discovery that came out of the Seasat
project: the precise shape of the sea surface tells you a lot about
what's underneath. Seasat radar images of shallow areas often showed
accurate bottom detail, even though the radar was very definitely not
penetrating the water. It would appear that the surface tends to mimic
the shape of the bottom!
The implications of this for submarines are obvious: the "transparent
oceans" breakthrough that submariners have feared for some time may have
happened. Nobody is saying anything in public about tracking submarines
using Seasat-like radar techniques, but I would be very uneasy about
assuming that missile subs are invulnerable because you can't find them.
It ain't necessarily so any more.
--
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henrykurt@fluke.UUCP (Kurt Guntheroth) (08/18/84)
Lets say the Star Wars defense plan is 95% effective (as effective a defense
as you could construct, certainly). Now lets say the Russians have 10,000
nuclear warheads, a relatively good estimate for their strength by the time
we could implement Star Wars). 0.05 * 10,000 = 500.
500 bombs. 500 times 10 megatons each? 500 times 500,000 people killed per
bomb (maybe not so many since some cities might accidentially get two bombs
and one is enouch to kill a city).
500 bombs. According to the newest theories, 100 bombs is enouch to cause a
global climatic catastrophe. The bombs throw dust into the stratosphere
which blocks incident sunlight. Imagine a year of twilight and average
temperatures of 20 F. No crops. Such a disaster is likely even if the Star
Wars Defense is 99% effective. 99%. Not to mention the bombs we drop.
A couple hundred US cities wiped, a global climatic catastrophe, lingering
radiation. And this is after the SUCCESSFUL application of the Star Wars
Defense. Maybe the defense (which cannot be tested) is much less effective.
There is exactly one defense against nuclear war; proscription of nuclear
weapons. Until then, there is no safety in any defense plan.
--
Kurt Guntheroth
John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc.
{uw-beaver,decvax!microsof,ucbvax!lbl-csam,allegra,ssc-vax}!fluke!kurtalle@ihuxb.UUCP (Allen England) (08/18/84)
> Lets say the Star Wars defense plan is 95% effective (as effective a defense > as you could construct, certainly). Now lets say the Russians have 10,000 > nuclear warheads, a relatively good estimate for their strength by the time > we could implement Star Wars). 0.05 * 10,000 = 500. Suppose the Soviets go for a pre-emptive strike against military targets and only launch 1000 bombs. 50 get through which is not enough to cripple our retaliatory capability. > 500 bombs. According to the newest theories, 100 bombs is enouch to cause a > global climatic catastrophe. The bombs throw dust into the stratosphere > which blocks incident sunlight. Imagine a year of twilight and average > temperatures of 20 F. No crops. Such a disaster is likely even if the Star > Wars Defense is 99% effective. 99%. Not to mention the bombs we drop. First, these are only theories and no one knows if they are correct. Second, I believe the number of bombs in the estimate done by Sagan (a worst case estimate mind you) was placed at around 1000 - 2000 for triggering the nuclear winter. Not only that, the bombs have to hit cities. It isn't dust which is thrown into the air which is the major problem, but the soot from burning cities. > There is exactly one defense against nuclear war; proscription of nuclear > weapons. Until then, there is no safety in any defense plan. > Kurt Guntheroth > John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc. > {uw-beaver,decvax!microsof,ucbvax!lbl-csam,allegra,ssc-vax}!fluke!kurt This is the kind of defeatist attitude which prevents progress in all areas. Make the flat statement that something can't be done without researching the topic to find out whether it can or not. Come on! Let's do some research into the topic and find out the feasibility. --> Allen <-- ihnp4!ihuxb!alle
matt@oddjob.UChicago.UUCP (Matt Crawford) (08/19/84)
I always had hoped that I would never post an article that had quotes- within-quotes, but here I go. ">>" denotes Kurt Guntheroth <fluke!kurt> and ">" denotes Allen England <ihuxb!alle>. >> Lets say the Star Wars defense plan is 95% effective ... >> Now lets say the Russians have 10,000 nuclear warheads, >> a relatively good estimate for their strength by the time >> we could implement Star Wars). 0.05 * 10,000 = 500. >Suppose the Soviets go for a pre-emptive strike against military targets and >only launch 1000 bombs. 50 get through which is not enough to cripple our >retaliatory capability. I can only think of one proponent of arms build-up who is skillful at hiding the holes in his logic, and Dr. Teller does not spend his time arguing on USENET. Allen England would have us believe that our hypothetical defense is 95% effective and at the same time have the Soviets disbelieve it so strongly that they would attempt a first strike with only one-tenth of their weapons. >> According to the newest theories, 100 bombs is enouch to cause a >> global climatic catastrophe. ... >First, these are only theories and no one knows if they are correct. How shall we test these "theories"? Shall we just hope that they are false? How shall we test the hypothetical defense? Shall we just hope that the "theories" on which it is based are true? >> There is exactly one defense against nuclear war; proscription of nuclear >> weapons. Until then, there is no safety in any defense plan. >This is the kind of defeatist attitude which prevents progress in all >areas. Is the opposite attitude, which claims that a large enough military budget will make us safer, leading to progress? There is very little rational debate in your statements, Allen England. Could you please think harder or move your remarks to net.flame? I, for one, will promise not to argue with you in that newsgroup. ___________________________________________________________ Matt University ARPA: crawford@anl-mcs.arpa Crawford of Chicago UUCP: ihnp4!oddjob!matt
mwm@ea.UUCP (08/19/84)
#R:ihuxl:-129200:ea:3400023:000:1269
ea!mwm Aug 18 20:08:00 1984
I just had a thought (surprise!). If a space-based ABM system will work,
what about the US & USSR funding the R&D&D of such a system, then turning
it over to a neutral, non-nuke country (I nominate the Swiss)? This would
seem to eliminate the possible problem of the Soviets (or the US) attacking
just before their ICBMs were made useless, and (unlike mutual disarmament)
would be equally effective against other countries joining the ICBM/nuke
club. Of course, it won't effect other delivery systems, but it's a start.
Comments before I rush off and write my congress-critters?
Other commentary: Blaming the whole thing on greed is as silly as any other
fanatical stand. Some of the people who've been advocating space-based ABM
systems since *before* the star wars speech won't make a dime on either the
research or the possible deployment. ("Before", I hear you ask? Surely you
don't think RR was bright enough to come up with the idea himself, do you?
:-)
As for the systems themselves, I don't know if they will work. I don't
think anybody, no matter how imminent or eminent, does. I do think that a
defense would be better than MAD, so the research is worth funding. After
the research is over, we can argue about whether the thing is worth
deploying.
<mikemmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (08/19/84)
I also heard on the news that several imminent scientists testified before
congress in favor of this plan and I have to believe that they have a
better understanding of the merits and faults of this plan than either
Gary or myself.
Allen England
************************
I'd be more likely to go along with this statement if the scientists had
already acquired their credentials.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmtalle@ihuxb.UUCP (Allen England) (08/19/84)
% = Matt Crawford >> = Kurt Guntheroth <fluke!kurt> > = my comments quoted earlier % I always had hoped that I would never post an article that had quotes- % within-quotes, but here I go. ">>" denotes Kurt Guntheroth <fluke!kurt> % and ">" denotes Allen England <ihuxb!alle>. >> Lets say the Star Wars defense plan is 95% effective ... >> Now lets say the Russians have 10,000 nuclear warheads, >> a relatively good estimate for their strength by the time >> we could implement Star Wars). 0.05 * 10,000 = 500. >Suppose the Soviets go for a pre-emptive strike against military targets and >only launch 1000 bombs. 50 get through which is not enough to cripple our >retaliatory capability. % Allen England would have us believe that our % hypothetical defense is 95% effective and at the same time have the % Soviets disbelieve it so strongly that they would attempt a first % strike with only one-tenth of their weapons. Funny you should mention the lack of rational debate in my arguments as you are emotionally reacting to my article. One of the significant military strategies (and one of the scenarios considered most likely by military planners) is that of the "Surgical First Strike" in which one country attempts to take out the offensive capability of the other country. In other words, the most likely scenario is not all out nuclear war, but a smaller strategic strike. My entire point in "playing the numbers game" was to show that a 95% effective defense removes the possibility of the strategic first strike as an effective strategy against the United States. Therefore the Soviets couldn't even consider it. >> According to the newest theories, 100 bombs is enouch to cause a >> global climatic catastrophe. ... >First, these are only theories and no one knows if they are correct. % How shall we test these "theories"? Shall we just hope that they are % false? How shall we test the hypothetical defense? Shall we just % hope that the "theories" on which it is based are true? You have missed the point of all of my articles on this subject. I am not suggesting blind acceptance of any theories. I propose that we research the theories to determine what basis they have in reality. But WE SHOULD NOT ASSUME THAT THE NUCLEAR WINTER THEORY IS A FACT and base our military planning on that unproven assertion. Especially when the person quoting the "theory" didn't even bother to get the magnitude of the numbers correct. >> There is exactly one defense against nuclear war; proscription of nuclear >> weapons. Until then, there is no safety in any defense plan. >This is the kind of defeatist attitude which prevents progress in all >areas. % Is the opposite attitude, which claims that a large enough military % budget will make us safer, leading to progress? Where did I say that? In all of my articles on this topic, I have taken the stand that we shouldn't just rule out this idea because some of arms control advocates are against it. % There is very little rational debate in your statements, Allen England. % Could you please think harder or move your remarks to net.flame? I, % for one, will promise not to argue with you in that newsgroup. % Matt University ARPA: crawford@anl-mcs.arpa % Crawford of Chicago UUCP: ihnp4!oddjob!matt This is a very interesting statement. I have noticed that whenever someone takes the viewpoint that some military objectives are desirable, there is loud and indignant outcry from many netters. It must be very comfortable to *know* all of the answers and then sit back and attack those with the *wrong* viewpoint. Matt, why don't you join me in the endeavor to "think a little harder?" For the record, let me state that I am not in favor of a massive arms build-up. However, I do not believe that we should just lay down our weapons and depend on the good will of the rest of the world. I believe that a strong military is important to our national well-being and I am willing to listen to new military ideas (which it seems, Matt Crawford doesn't want to hear since they can't possibly be rational). Allen England ihnp4!ihuxb!alle
chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (Chris Torek) (08/19/84)
I've often thought that Presidents and other people in ``positions of
influence'' should be required to take a look (in person) at a crater
from a ``small'' nuclear weapon. It's one thing to say ``1 megaton'';
it's quite another to actually *see* the effects of one of these
``tiny'' bombs.
How are those holes we blew in the desert some ~40 years ago doing?
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci (301) 454-7690
UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!chris
CSNet: chris@umcp-cs ARPA: chris@marylanddmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (08/20/84)
Dramatis Personae: KG Kurt Guntheroth AE Allen England MC Matt Crawford Some of the following has been summarized to prevent this from getting overly long. Irrelevancies, such as comments on the other disputants motives, intelligence, or ancestry, have been removed. <In an exchange about the Star Wars defense, KG points out that the Soviet Union will have an estimated 10,000 warheads. With a 95% effective defense, 500 warheads would get through. AE offers an alternative scenario in which The Russians launch only 1000 bombs in a preemptive attack on military targets, of which only 50 get through. MC expresses disbelief in the assertion that, faced with a 95% percent effective defense, the Russians would launch only 1000 bombs. AE responds: > AE> ...(and one of the scenarios considered most likely by military planners) AE> is that of the "Surgical First Strike" in which one country attempts AE> to take out the offensive capability of the other country. In other words, AE> the most likely scenario is not all out nuclear war, but a smaller strategic AE> strike. My entire point in "playing the numbers game" was to show that a AE> 95% effective defense removes the possibility of the strategic first strike AE> as an effective strategy against the United States. Therefore the Soviets AE> couldn't even consider it. You should have made you purpose clear in the first place. We really thought that you really thought that the Russians are idiots. Of course, if it is possible for the Russians to disarm the US in a first strike with only a fraction of their total nuclear force, it raises the question of why they haven't done it. I can think of a couple of possible reasons: 1) American radar can detect Russian missiles coming over the pole. This give the US time to launch some of their land-based missiles. By the time the Russian missile hits the American silo, the silo may be empty. 2) It is difficult, probably impossible, to launch a preemptive strike that will get all the American submarines without evaporating the oceans. KG> According to the newest theories, 100 bombs is enouch to cause a KG> global climatic catastrophe. ... < AE has stated that the figure 100 should be 1000. I have no way to check to see who is right at the moment.> AE> First, these are only theories and no one knows if they are correct. MC> How shall we test these "theories"? Shall we just hope that they are MC> false? How shall we test the hypothetical defense? Shall we just MC> hope that the "theories" on which it is based are true? AE> I propose that we research AE> the theories to determine what basis they have in reality. But WE SHOULD AE> NOT ASSUME THAT THE NUCLEAR WINTER THEORY IS A FACT and base our military AE> planning on that unproven assertion. Okay with me, provided that, while the research is going on, the US doesn't base its military planning on the unproven assertion that the Nuclear Winter theory is false. It would also be nice if, somehow, US leaders could be forced to accept the results of research. They have been known, sometimes, to call for more research whenever they didn't like the results of the previous research. David Canzi, watmath!watdcsu!dmcanzi
res@ihuxn.UUCP (Rich Strebendt) (08/20/84)
| There is exactly one defense against nuclear war; proscription of | nuclear weapons. Until then, there is no safety in any defense plan. Fine. Go ahead a proscribe nuclear weapons all you wish. Go to Moscow and tell the Soviets that using nuclear weapons is a no-no. Do the same with the rest of the countries that have or will soon have nuclear weapons ... as will their ancient enemies. Go ahead and engage in all of the wishful thinking you like. In the meantime, quit bugging the realists who are, in good faith, trying to keep your ass from being toasted to a cinder by trying to come up with a reasonably effective defense. Rich Strebendt ...!ihnp4!ihuxn!res
atkins@opus.UUCP (Brian Atkins) (08/20/84)
Throwing reality to the winds, wouldn't it be nice if BOTH
super-powers got together and developed a star wars defense together,
with no secrets!!!
Both systems could be implemented together, thus eliminating the preemptive
strike problem. We could then begin to bilaterally disarm, and the world
could live happily ever after.
If fact, let it be a UN project, with as many observers/participants as
possible. If we let every Tom, Dick and Harry in, nobody would get
hyper and start nukin' the others. At lease all the current nuke powers
should be involved.
Twenty years from now, people might be looking at Nukes as the totally
unfeasible idea. After all, they'd just get zapped.....
"Fantasy, what a concept..."
Brian Atkins "With the new and improved addr.."
UUCP - {hao | allegra | ucbvax}!nbires!atkins
NBI, Inc. - 444-5710 (x3036)henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (08/21/84)
> 500 bombs. 500 times 10 megatons each? 500 times 500,000 people killed per > bomb (maybe not so many since some cities might accidentially get two bombs > and one is enouch to kill a city). Most of those bombs will probably fall on military targets like ICBM silos. Remember that *which* 5% gets through is random. Also, the warheads are more likely to be 1 megaton or a fraction of a megaton; really big bombs are much less common than people think. This is not to minimize the problems; 99.9% effectiveness would be a lot better than 95%. -- "The trouble with a just economy is, who runs the Bureau of Economic Justice?" Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
mwm@ea.UUCP (08/21/84)
#R:ihuxl:-129200:ea:3400025:000:1413 ea!mwm Aug 20 18:29:00 1984 /***** ea:net.followup / oddjob!matt / 6:31 pm Aug 18, 1984 */ >This is the kind of defeatist attitude which prevents progress in all >areas. Is the opposite attitude, which claims that a large enough military budget will make us safer, leading to progress? There is very little rational debate in your statements, Allen England. Could you please think harder or move your remarks to net.flame? I, for one, will promise not to argue with you in that newsgroup. ___________________________________________________________ Matt University ARPA: crawford@anl-mcs.arpa Crawford of Chicago UUCP: ihnp4!oddjob!matt /* ---------- */ Of course, misreading someone statements isn't exactly the height of rationale debate, either. I haven't seen *anyone* claim that a larger military budget - or even a better military, in this particular argument - would make us safer. I *have* seen statements, like Allen's, to the effect that spending money on a defense would make us safer than not spending any money at all. I've also seen claims that a significantly smaller military budget would do bad things to the economy. The first seems obvious to me, given that we have a possible adversary. The second makes sense, unless you start some other industry to create jobs for the people that should be unemployed by such a cut. Calling Alan irrational was uncalled for. Unrealistic, maybe, but not irrational. <mike
riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle) (08/21/84)
>> Throwing reality to the winds, wouldn't it be nice if BOTH super-powers >> got together and developed a star wars defense together, with no secrets!!! Yes, but if we could achieve that level of cooperation, wouldn't simple step-by-step arms reduction be a much cheaper solution? --- Prentiss Riddle ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.") --- {ihnp4,harvard,seismo,gatech,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddle
emjej@uokvax.UUCP (08/21/84)
#R:ihuxl:-129200:uokvax:18700007:000:399 uokvax!emjej Aug 21 10:03:00 1984 /***** uokvax:net.followup / ulysses!gsp / 10:43 pm Aug 16, 1984 */ In any case, there is as much eminence on either side, except that one side has a special interest, namely: they will be the ones funded to do the work. /* ---------- */ Indeed. Then there are the folks who make a cottage industry out of pandering to the technophobes. There are vested interests on all sides. James Jones
rodrique@hplabs.UUCP (Mike Rodriquez) (08/21/84)
There is ONLY one way to prevent nuclear war!!
Organization: Hewlett Packard Labs, Palo Alto CA
Lines: 28
Nuclear weapons must be dismantled.
This is not a defeatist attitude, rather, it
is a reflection of sanity.
However....the question is how??
The concept of a freeze is appealing at first
thought, but, realistically, it won't ever happen.
I don't know what the answer is to be honest.
I think the first step is awareness by the general public
that we(MANKIND) possess the ability to destroy ourselves.
The point is...we are not talking about regular power plays
by 'little boys' in the government...we are talking possible
destruction of civilization as we know it.
This is kind of rambling so I will sign off for now.
Send flames if you want....but remember that for the first time
in man's history we control our own destiny, above and beyond
natural disasters,etc. I mean, just think about it, man has
never before had the power to DESTROY everything.
"if the game is lost, then we're all the same,
no-one left to place or take the blame"wcs@ho95b.UUCP (59577) (08/22/84)
Well, I'm against Star Wars too, but there are some strategic purposes for it that are more realistic than trying to stop an all-out attack. Consider several possible scenarios for a war: - All-out attack by Russia: 5000 warheads from MIRVed ICBMs, 100-1000 cruise missiles, 1000-5000 warheads in bombers, etc. This scenario has been beaten to death already, but remember that bombers and cruise missles are a credible threat too. - "Poker"-style war: Land-based war in Germany or Palestine, followed by tactical nuclear warheads; both sides threaten to escalate and shoot a few ICBMs just to show they're serious; six months or so of conflict followed by either surrender or Armageddon. The latter scenario is one that military planners seem to be considering seriously; it's a level of conflict somewhere between conventional war and suicide, and one that either side might risk rather than lose a major conventional war. A 95% effective defense may not help much against 10,000 warheads, but against a few dozen missles it reduces the damage to "acceptable" levels. (If we're talking about total destruction of Europe, the government might be willing to risk an additional 20 or 30 million Americans). What the Star Wars defense does is give the military (from their perspective) a more flexible response to situations of major conflict, a more credible deterrent against Russian attacks, and a margin of security in case things start to get out of hand. Unfortunately, this makes them more willing to risk a major war, especially if there is a period of imbalance while one side has it and the other doesn't. On the Nuclear Winter issue: wasn't it nice when all we had to worry about was radiation poisoning? Cheers; Bill -- Bill Stewart AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ ...!ihnp4!ho95b!wcs
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (08/22/84)
Bill Stewart suggests:
" A 95% effective defense may not help much against 10,000 warheads,
but against a few dozen missles it reduces the damage to
"acceptable" levels. (If we're talking about total
destruction of Europe, the government might be willing to risk
an additional 20 or 30 million Americans)."
If the purpose is to launch a "demonstration" of a few dozen missiles
which might effectively be thwarted by a Star Wars defense, it would
be a safe bet that a Soviet (or American, for that matter) leader
would make that demonstration with SLBM's or Cruise missiles which
were relatively immune to a Star Wars defense. As I pointed out in an
earlier article, even an effective Star Wars is effective only against
land-based ICBM's.
The 95% figure that's bandied about by proponents not only assumes
technological success, but also assumes that the Soviet nuclear force
stays fixed in size AND composition. I'll break the news to you now:
it won't.
David Rubin
{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!davidcm@unc.UUCP (Chuck Mosher) (08/22/84)
Anyone seriously interested in the nuclear arms race and what can be done about it MUST read "Weapons and Hope", by Freeman Dyson. The book has a chapter devoted to "Star Wars" plans and the like and discusses all of the points so far brought up on the net, as well as many others. He concludes that while a defense-oriented approach IS the way to go, the Star Wars system is not capable of performing this function. He mentions other plans which are less expensive as well as more effective. Dyson is a renowned physicst who is highly qualified to speak on these issues. He has consulted with the government many times in the past and is a member of a "think-tank" which devotes itself to these problems. He is also staunchly opposed to nuclear weapons of any sort. Chuck Mosher !decvax!mcnc!unc!cm
matt@oddjob.UChicago.UUCP (Matt Crawford) (08/22/84)
Let me address the suggestion that we would have greatly improved security if both the US and USSR had a space-based ballistic missile defense. Such a defense consists of some apparatus capable of destroying perhaps 5000 targets in a short period of time, either while the targets are in the atmosphere or just above it. No matter what the exact technology involved, such a system would seem to be capable of destroying other satellites as well as missiles. While satellites do not emit as much heat as a missile in the boost phase, they are available to sight at for a longer time and possibly easier to verify as "killed". An attack by either country, whether all-out or "surgical", would logically begin by destroying all satellites which might be part of the enemy's defense. Creating a single defense system and putting it international hands would be an alternative, but if that were politically possible, why could we not do the same with the nuclear weapons themselves? Does anyone believe that that could ever happen? ___________________________________________________________ Matt University ARPA: crawford@anl-mcs.arpa Crawford of Chicago UUCP: ihnp4!oddjob!matt
karn@mouton.UUCP (08/22/84)
Some of those in favor of the Star Wars defense system say that we're being "defeatist" by saying that it will never work and/or cost an unacceptable amount of money. Who's being more defeatist here? The engineers for raising perfectly valid concerns based on technical issues or the politicians for saying that a far cheaper (and the only practical) solution, namely arms control agreements, isn't feasable? Reagan wants to build Star Wars because he's been an utter failure at arms control. No other reason. Phil
wkb@cbscc.UUCP (Keith Brummett) (08/22/84)
(I can remain silent no longer!) Hi folks, Just dropped in to give my two cents worth on Garey Fouts' article. Actually, this is the first time I've submitted to the net even though I read it regularly, so this submittion is as much a test as it is a dissemination of profound thought. But anyway, here goes ... First, let's attack the "facts": > "A (Boeing) 727 has a lifetime of 20-40 million hours of service. A > (cruise) missile has only a few minutes of life. Well, whipping out the ol' TI-55-II, here's what I get: 40,000,000 hrs / (24 hrs/day) / (365 days/yr) = 4566.21 years !?! Son, that plane sounds rather old to me. Now about those missles. I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that our european cruise missles are still in service five years from now. With proper maintenance rotations, those same missles will probably last 15 to 20 years. Garey, you can't measure a missle's useful life by the length of its flight to destruction. A missle's purpose is not to destroy cities per se, but to say to potential antagonists: "If you try to molest us, we're going to kick your ass.". It can sit quietly doing nothing for years and still get the job done. Next, we trash the reasoning: > I would like to know the economic differences to PEOPLE between a > cruise missile and, say a Boeing 727. Somehow I think the airplane > has a greater return on investment. > The 727 employs a crew of at least three, and offers the service > of transportation to passengers/cargo. What benefit does a missile > give PEOPLE. Sure, a comercial airliner generates a better cash flow than a military missile, but return on investment is not the sole method of determining value. Insurance is one of the worst "investments" a person can make. You're practically throwing money down the drain for something you hope you'll never have to use, but I'll bet that you have at least life, home, and auto insurance, right? The benefit of military missles is that (when used properly) they allow us to have a society in which people are able to offer services such as air travel on a 727, and even better, people are free to take advantage of those offers with very few restrictions. Those missiles are our insurance. Finally (just to adhere to proper netiquette), we slime the person: And just what the hell kind of place is Beaverton, Oregon anyway? Sounds like some kind of haven for commie-pinko liberals and Jane Fonda lovers to me. :-) Keith Brummett cbosgd!cbscc!wkb <SCCS> AT&T-NS / Bell Labs "Oh well, you'll get over it." Columbus, Ohio
res@ihuxn.UUCP (Rich Strebendt) (08/23/84)
| ... for saying | that a far cheaper (and the only practical) solution, namely arms | control agreements, isn't feasable? Unfortunately, it is not clear that arms control agreements are really practical. Certainly, with the Soviet opposition to on-site inspections, such agreements are not practicable today. | Reagan wants to build Star Wars because he's been an utter failure at | arms control. No other reason. I will not presume to KNOW what Reagan WANTS ... the previous poster's psi abilities are far greater than mine :-). It is interesting to me, however, that as soon as we demonstrated an ability to destroy orbital warheads, then the Soviets were anxious to discuss banning the kinds of weapons which we now had but that they lacked. Reagan agreed to discuss this, but wanted to include in the arms limitation discussion the topic of other nuclear weapons. Since the Soviets have an edge on us in that kind of weaponry, they have refused to discuss it. As I said, I will not presume to guess the President's desires, but I surmise from his statements that he is willing to discuss any arms limitation agreements that hold promise of being both practical and practicable. Rich Strebendt ...!ihnp4!ihuxn!res Phil
cem@intelca.UUCP (Chuck McManis) (08/23/84)
[This message is a knee jerk response to weapons discussions :-) ]
So how about this, when we see the missiles coming over the horizon
on radar we suddeny shove power into all those windmachines that people
in califorinia are buying as tax shelters. It causes a total black out but
momentarily speeds up the rotation of the earth, just enough so that all of
those missles land in the Pacific Ocean. Now everybody face west an blow ...
--
-- Chuck - - - D I S C L A I M E R - - -
{ihnp4,fortune}!Dual\ All opinions expressed herein are my
{proper,idi}-> !intelca!cem own and not those of my employer, my
{ucbvax,hao}!hplabs/ friends, or my avocado plant. :-}
ARPAnet : "hplabs!intelca!cem"@Berkeleycem@intelca.UUCP (Chuck McManis) (08/23/84)
[ Sorry to bother you again. ]
Dave brings up an interesting point. How does the MAD defense protect us
against, say Iran, who lobs an old surplus ICBM at us? They could
only afford to buy one but we are sorta stuck trying to stop it from
blowing up LA or NY or even Smallville. I don't think anyone debates
the ability of a 10 Billion dollar systems ability to intercept 1
missle. Course we could retaliate but what good does it do us? There
is nothing we want in Iran except oil.
--
-- Chuck - - - D I S C L A I M E R - - -
{ihnp4,fortune}!Dual\ All opinions expressed herein are my
{proper,idi}-> !intelca!cem own and not those of my employer, my
{ucbvax,hao}!hplabs/ friends, or my avocado plant. :-}
ARPAnet : "hplabs!intelca!cem"@Berkeleymwm@ea.UUCP (08/23/84)
#R:ihuxl:-129200:ea:3400026:000:631 ea!mwm Aug 23 14:48:00 1984 /***** ea:net.followup / ut-sally!riddle / 12:54 am Aug 22, 1984 */ >> Throwing reality to the winds, wouldn't it be nice if BOTH super-powers >> got together and developed a star wars defense together, with no secrets!!! Yes, but if we could achieve that level of cooperation, wouldn't simple step-by-step arms reduction be a much cheaper solution? --- Prentiss Riddle ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.") --- {ihnp4,harvard,seismo,gatech,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddle /* ---------- */ Cheaper, yes. However, it wouldn't stop crazed dictators from the third world from throwing nukes around (via ICBM), whereas this would. <mike
asente@CSL-Vax.ARPA (Paul Asente) (08/23/84)
Problem is, even 5% of the missiles getting through is probably enough to set off the "Nuclear Winter" effect, quite irrespective of where they actually land. (If anyone is unfamiliar with this effect I'd be glad to expound upon it in another message. Just ask.) -paul asente
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (08/24/84)
> .................................. SLBM's or Cruise missiles which > were relatively immune to a Star Wars defense. As I pointed out in an > earlier article, even an effective Star Wars is effective only against > land-based ICBM's. Either I didn't see that article, or it didn't seem plausible. I agree that a Star Wars defence is of little use against cruise missiles, but intercepting SLBMs is not much harder than intercepting ICBMs. It means the detection network has to be better, and the reaction time has to be faster, but these are problems of degree, not fundamental obstacles. The same comments apply to long-range "tactical" ballistic missiles, although the detection and speed problems are still worse. Cruise-missile defence is essentially an air-defence problem, worse in degree but not different in kind from intercepting bombers. Technology for high-percentage air defences has existed for a long time, although a leakproof air defence is very difficult. The less said about the current state of our air defences, the better, but there is no serious technological barrier to major improvements. It's mostly a question of will: our air defences have reached their current sad state through two decades of neglect and low priority. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
steven@qubix.UUCP (Steven Maurer) (08/24/84)
[+]
ELIMINATE NEUCLEAR WEAPONS
MAKE THE WORLD SAFE FOR CONVENTIONAL WARFARE
Steven Maurermjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (08/24/84)
From: res@ihuxn.UUCP (Rich Strebendt) (he was responding to this statement by an unidentified poster: "Reagan wants to build Star Wars because he's been an utter failure at arms control. No other reason.") >I will not presume to guess the President's desires, but I >surmise from his statements that he is willing to discuss any arms >limitation agreements that hold promise of being both practical and >practicable. Then you must believe that every arms control agreement negotiated in the past twenty-five years is impractical and inpracticable, since Reagan has opposed every one of them. Never mind that most of them have worked quite well, and that even an indisuputable hawk like Jeanne Kirkpatrick has said that the so-called "violations" of arms control agreements by the Soviets are really differences in interpretation. I'd like an example of an arms control agreement Reagan would support. So far there are none; he's never met an arms control agreement he liked. Mike Kelly
gda@unc.UUCP (Greg Abram) (08/24/84)
>>Dave brings up an interesting point. How does the MAD defense protect us >>against, say Iran, who lobs an old surplus ICBM at us? They could >>only afford to buy one but we are sorta stuck trying to stop it from >>blowing up LA or NY or even Smallville. I don't think anyone debates >>the ability of a 10 Billion dollar systems ability to intercept 1 >>missle. Course we could retaliate but what good does it do us? There >>is nothing we want in Iran except oil. If its nations you are worried about, MAD holds: whether we want anything out of Iran or not, they most likely aren't eager to get blasted. Terrorist groups, on the other hand, are not tied to a geographic area, and MAD fails. However, they are not really likely to get a hold of a decent ICBM; rather, they would instead assemble the bomb in the target area. In which case the 10 billion dollars is wasted.
jack@vu44.UUCP (Jack Jansen) (08/25/84)
(The original article was in net.general, but I added net.politics,
since I think that is more appropriate).
Among the objections Gary has against the Star Wars program are
two things that are valid for almost all of the recent weapon
systems, namely that they probably won't work, and that they
are only kept alive by people who have a *personal* interest
in it.
If you look at the Cruise missiles (especially interesting to
us in Europe), even people who are *not* against nuclear arms
think they're a bad thing. We had an American documentary program
on TV here a couple of months ago in which some people who
had been deep into the cruise project said that the thing was
virtually worthless, because of some serious design flaws.
The program also showed that the only reason the cruise project
wasn't abandoned was the fact that the people who were in the
places to make decisions were so involved with it that the end of
the Cruise missile would probably also be the end of their career.
That's really a great joke, isn't it? You have to pay through the
nose for weapons we don't want, and after you get them you find out
that they don't even work.........
Jack Jansen, {philabs|decvax}!mcvax!vu44!jack
PS: Don't misunderstand me, I'm against *all* weapons, wether they
work or not. The arguments here are only meant to get some of you
over to our side :-). (Well, make that a :-( ).mikevp@proper.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) (08/25/84)
<< this line is a figment of a deranged imagination >>
One thing that gets lost in the shouting on the subject of "Star Wars"
defense is that the "Star Wars" stuff is only one of several proposals.
The "Star Wars" tag was stuck onto the subject of a ICBM defense by those
who desire to ridicule the whole concept of defending this country from
ICBMs. Those people (Kosta Tsipis and others) then analyze lasers, particle
beams, etc., as if these, not defense, were the subject under consideration.
Then they solemly pronounce that such things are forever impossible.
Leaving out the possibility of directed-energy weapons, there are other
technologies for ICBM defense. SWARMJET and GAU-8 guns as point defense
around ground targets, the "High Frontier" orbiting box-cars full of
Sidewinder missiles, ABMs like the one tested recently, and other near-term
technology certainly can't be ruled out if you're really interested in
discussing the merits of an ICBM defense. To dismiss the whole subject
as "Star Wars" is not very honest.
It seems pretty obvious to me that an anti-defense argument based solely
on attacks on directed energy feasablity shows that the person making the
argument either doesn't know what he's talking about or is intentionally
trying to deceive.
Mike Van Pelt.
<<<Any typos are entirely the fault of this %@#^!%
Televideo terminal, which is sending intermittant
garbage.>>>david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (08/27/84)
>> .................................. SLBM's or Cruise missiles which >> were relatively immune to a Star Wars defense. As I pointed out in an >> earlier article, even an effective Star Wars is effective only against >> land-based ICBM's. >Either I didn't see that article, or it didn't seem plausible. I agree >that a Star Wars defence is of little use against cruise missiles, but >intercepting SLBMs is not much harder than intercepting ICBMs. It means >the detection network has to be better, and the reaction time has to be >faster, but these are problems of degree, not fundamental obstacles. >The same comments apply to long-range "tactical" ballistic missiles, >although the detection and speed problems are still worse. Yes, dealing with SLBM's rather than ICBM's is a matter of degree, but all the estimates of Star Wars' effectiveness assume the target is a land-based ICBM. Effectiveness against SLBM's would be much lower, and SLBM's launched at coastal (or near coastal) targets would be nearly impossible to stop. And, if for some reason, SLBM's COULD be intercepted with some high level of effectiveness, the USSR would only emphasize Cruise missile construction or blast the Star Wars satellites out of space. >Cruise-missile defence is essentially an air-defence problem, worse in >degree but not different in kind from intercepting bombers. Technology >for high-percentage air defences has existed for a long time, although >a leakproof air defence is very difficult. The less said about the >current state of our air defences, the better, but there is no serious >technological barrier to major improvements. It's mostly a question of >will: our air defences have reached their current sad state through two >decades of neglect and low priority. A high state of readiness for air-defense may be able to stop a few hundred bombers, but no conceivable air-defense system can cope with a few thousand cruise-missiles (note also that cruise missiles, when compared to other strategic nuclear weapons, are extremely economical. Buying a few thousand of them would only cost a few billion dollars.). How will you stop an SLCM launched from a fishing trawler 12 miles off shore from hitting a coastal city? My point is that Star Wars', as a counter-measure against ICBM attack, is open to a VARIETY of counter-counter-measures, including Cruise missiles, SLBM's, anti-satellite weapons, dummy warheads, expansion of warhead inventory, etc. Even if some of these counter-counter- measures could be thwarted, not all of them can, and so Star Wars will be thwarted fairly quickly. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) (08/27/84)
<...> >It's one thing to say ``1 megaton''; it's quite another to actually >*see* the effects of one of these ``tiny'' bombs. ...and it's quite another thing to have an ex-movie-star grasp the full meaning of just threatening with them, even if he'd visited Hiroshima.... -- Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam ...{decvax,philabs}!mcvax!piet
elt@astrovax.UUCP (Ed Turner) (08/27/84)
I would strongly second Chuck Mosher's recommendation of Freeman Dyson's new book "Weapons and Hope". It is a really unique contribution to the nuclear weapons debate. No matter what your views are on this subject, I strongly suspect that you will find parts of this book with which you agree and other parts which intelligently challenge your views. Very provocative! Ed Turner astrovax!elt
gmv@petfe.UUCP (George Verbosh) (08/28/84)
I don't care how you put it, this whole discussion s depressing.
jhs@druxy.UUCP (08/29/84)
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site houxe.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site druxy.UUCP Message-ID: <1230@druxy.UUCP> Date: Wed, 29-Aug-84 16:25:56 EDT efense Plan Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver Lines: 25 A comment that "this whole discussion is depressing" was published on this net: true enough. So are discussions about famine, rape, child abuse, ...., and all the other terrible things in this world. And being turned into a crispy critter or a puddle of ooze with a 23,000-year half life is not an uplifting prospect either. However, constructive (social) change sometimes is started or aided by the sort of exchanges we've been following or participating in. An informed and aware public does make a difference, and these discussions contribute in whatever small way to that end. While governments--and not the people they represent--wage war, this is a country where the people can determine governmental policy and actions through the ballot box and lobbying. Neither unilateral disarmament nor continuing proliferation of ANY weapons systems is viable (literally)--both are naive and potentially suicidal. But getting our government to move one step in the direction of compromise might get *them* to do the same. With enough steps by both sides, a start on defusing the potential for holocaust could be made. As it is, the Soviets and the Reagan administration both have a "get in your face" attitude that only enhances the mutual paranoia. So, let's get on with the "depressing discussions" and see what evolves. --Jeff Shore, ..!druxy!jhs
mike@erix.UUCP (09/05/84)
Some thought on Jeff Shore's comments > A comment that "this whole discussion is depressing" was published on > this net: true enough. So are discussions about famine, rape, child > abuse, ...., and all the other terrible things in this world. Yes indeed, but the nuclear threat is by far the most urgent. Famine etc are problems which must be solved, but won't kill off most of mankind if some senile President/Chairman of the party/General makes a mistake. > An informed and aware public does make a difference, and these > discussions contribute in whatever small way to that end. How informed are we? The people in the eastern block are informed, but certainly not objectively. What does the average man in the street in the West know about overhanging nuclear holocaust? In Europe people seem more concerned with taxes, unemployment etc etc to even bother to think about it. > But getting our government to move one step in the direction > of compromise might get *them* to do the same. Nothing will happen until we can make the nuclear threat a political issue. I think this is begining to happen in (Western) Europe. I don't know about the USA. They don't have political issues in the Soviet dictatorship! However they do have severe problems - like feeding their people. I'm sure that they would welcome being able to divert some of their nuclear expenditure into other more important issues. Nuclear weapons do not constitute a defence. Remember that even full scale conventional war (WW1 and WW2) killed and maimed far fewer people than would be killed in a nuclear conflict between east and west. And both sides had the bomb when the USSR walked into Afganistan and when the USA was in Vietnam and it didn't seem to influence the situation. I hope this discussion on the net will continue, but let's concentrate on the vital central issue of how to defuse the present situation and not on issues such as the efectiveness of the proposed Star War defence system. --Mike Williams (mike@erix.UUCP or ..mcvax!enea!erix!vax
alf@ttds.UUCP (Thomas Sj|land) (09/08/84)
A few important things are missing in the discussion on nuclear arms and their possible effect on detente. Several debators talk about the indeed terrible effects that a nuclear war would have on our environment and culture, both in east and west. Nobody emphasizes the basic idea behind the buildup of a nuclear force (at least in the west): -- The nuclear force is built up, not to be used aggresively, but to show the Soviets that any aggresive military action on their part directed against the western world, be it nuclear or non-nuclear, might lead to a mutually disastrous nuclear war. The major "use" of a nuclear force is not to actually blow the world to pieces, but to have the force as a support in diplomatic discussions with representatives from the other side. So, a nuclear force is used by not being used. This view, however paranoid or hysterical it may seem, has kept us outside a World War III for almost 40 years now. The newspapers stated a few weeks ago that the Red Army would take over ALL of Western Europe (including Holland) in TWO WEEKS, if they wanted to and the west had only conventional forces to defend itself with. The whole strategy upon which the defense of free Europe is based assumes that USA would use their nuclear force, if necessary, to prevent a Russian attack on Western Europe. If we do not like this doctrine (we might think that it is too risky) but still care about the freedom of the people in Western Europe we have to answer a few questions: -- How should the free world be defended WITHOUT the use of a nuclear force ? How much extra money are we ready to spend on conventional forces to balance the Red Army forces ? -- Is it at all possible to have a defense of the free world without nuclear arms as long as the Soviets have a nuclear threat directed against us ? And if some of us think that the US has too much influence in European matters they must answer to where we should take the money to replace the American forces that are now defending our freedom (yes, even for us who live in countries that are not members of NATO). We, who live neigbors to the Soviets certainly have enough experience in the behaviour of their aggresive military forces: -- in 1952 a Swedish plane was shot down by the Russians over international waters on a mission in the baltic sea. The crew disappeared. A few days later another Swedish plane looking for their colleagues was shot down, also over international water. This crew was picked up and could tell the story of how their were attacked by Soviet planes. -- Even though some information in the matter of submarines in the Swedish archipelago have been exxagerated (Jane's article on Spetznaz-marines 150 boardings of the Swedish coast were not officially approved by the Swedish DOD) there has undoubtedly been several cases of obvious Soviet military activity on Swedish territory. -- The last week's political issue here is that a Soviet Suchoi fighter aircraft taking part in russian attack excercises near the baltic coast was tracked and unambiguosly identified by the swedish defense while it was following a civil aircraft full of tourists with its radar locked for attack on the civil aircraft for several minutes. This went on until the two arcrafts were 30 km over Swedish territory (!) over the island Gotland. When the Swedish fighters sent up to take care of the matter arrived the Russian had gone back to its base in Estonia. The whole matter was to begin with made top secret by the foreign affairs department but a leak to the media made it public. The Soviet answer to the government's demand for an explanation was simply to deny any knowledge of the incident and to counter-attack on the Swedish media which in the view of the Soviets are responsible for an "anti-soviet campaign". Just now the "board of foreign affairs" is discussing what consequences the incident shall have on future Swedish-Soviet relations. Does anyone have any GOOD ideas about how these matters should be handled ? To me it is clear that any talk about disarmament is simply utopian as long as the elderly boys brought up during WW2 are in control in the kremlin.
piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) (09/10/84)
<...> >The nuclear force is built up, not to be used aggresively... Nuclear weapons ranging in the megatons simply aren't defensive. >The newspapers stated a few weeks ago that the Red Army would take >over ALL of Western Europe (including Holland)... Oh come on, as long as they don't have VAXen, Holland is just too small for their crude missile guidance systems to give them any chance to hit us... >The whole strategy upon which the defense of free Europe is based >assumes that USA would use their nuclear force, if necessary, to >prevent a Russian attack on Western Europe. Of course the US would, blowing only Europe to pieces without risking too much for themselves. >How much extra money are we ready to spend on conventional forces to >balance the Red Army forces ? Balance? Outweigh you mean. >Is it at all possible to have a defense of the free world without >nuclear arms as long as the Soviets have a nuclear threat directed >against us ? A nuclear threat directed by the SU against Europe is a threat against themselves. >...following a civil aircraft full of tourists with its radar >locked for attack on the civil aircraft..... How do you determine if a plane's radar is locked for *attack*??? >When the Swedish fighters sent up to take care of the matter arrived >the Russian had gone back to its base in Estonia. What would they have done if it had been a Russian civil aircraft "apparently on spying mission" a la KAL007? >To me it is clear that any talk about disarmament is simply utopian >as long as the elderly boys brought up during WW2 are in control in >the kremlin.... ...and even more: as long as elderly boys brought up in the movie scene are in control of the white house, not only building up a huge nuclear arsenal, but every now and then even thinking about and threatening to use it. -- Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam ...{decvax,philabs}!mcvax!piet
faustus@ucbvax.ARPA (Wayne Christopher) (09/11/84)
> Does anyone have any GOOD ideas about how these matters should be handled ? > To me it is clear that any talk about disarmament is simply utopian as long > as the elderly boys brought up during WW2 are in control in the kremlin. This brings up an interesting point -- how, if at all, will Soviet policies change when the younger generation (the ones that didn't experience WW2) comes into power? Will they be more pacifistic and non-expansionist, because they don't have the memory of Russia being invaded and many Russians being killed by Westerners, or will they be more agressive because they don't have the memory of the horrors of war restraining them? Wayne
brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (09/12/84)
> Nuclear weapons ranging in the megatons simply aren't defensive. According to the MAD doctrine they are. > Oh come on, as long as they don't have VAXen, Holland is just too small > for their crude missile guidance systems to give them any chance to hit us... I'm glad it your life and/or freedom you want to bet on that. > Of course the US would, blowing only Europe to pieces without risking too > much for themselves. Under currently believed scenerios, once the ball game starts, we're all going to play. The nuclear winter doesn't play favorites. > Balance? Outweigh you mean. Obviously, you believe that Holland's forces will beat back the Russian Army, it is, however, much larger than Germany's forces were in WWII... and you didn't do so well then. > A nuclear threat directed by the SU against Europe is a threat against > themselves. No answer needed. > What would they have done if it had been a Russian civil aircraft "apparently > on spying mission" a la KAL007? Swede's haven't shot down many planes recently, do you think they are going to start now? You really are paranoid. Richard Brower Fortune Systems {ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (09/12/84)
From: alf@ttds.UUCP (Thomas Sj|land)
"The nuclear force is built up, not to be used aggresively, but to show the
Soviets that any aggresive military action on their part directed against
the western world, be it nuclear or non-nuclear, might lead to a mutually
disastrous nuclear war ... This view, however paranoid or hysterical it
may seem, has kept us outside a World War III for almost 40 years now."
Yes, we all understand MAD and flexible response. The point is that forty
years is hardly a long time. If you want to talk about four decades of relative
peace (in which use of nuclear weapons was threatened several times, by the way),
let's also talk about four millenia of history in which every weapon developed
has eventually been used. I find little reassurance in such a brief span of
history.
"The newspapers stated a few weeks ago that the Red Army would take over
ALL of Western Europe (including Holland) in TWO WEEKS, if they wanted to ..."
I don't know what newspaper you speak of, but two responses: (1) why would they
WANT to? (2) it's far from clear that the East Bloc military is as over-
whelmingly superior as this would have us believe.
Your note also seems to assume that the only disarmament is unilateral Western
disarmament. This is a straw man. In the U.S., there is a broadly supported
proposal called the Nuclear Weapons Freeze (it routinely gets about 70% support
in public opinion polls). The Freeze is quite simple: a verifiable
negotiated halt to further production, testing and deployment of nuclear weapons
by the U.S. and the Soviet Union. This puts us enormously ahead by stopping the
arms race in its tracks. Then we can begin to tackle the immensely difficult
question of bilateral disarmament without the playing field shifting every few
years.
I think that unilateralism is unnecessary. There is every indication that the
Soviets are willing to make concessions if they believe the NATO powers are
doing the same.
The problem, of course, is that the U.S. President, Ronald Reagan, refuses to
look at nuclear weapons talks as anything other than a public relations ploy to
garner support for the largest military build-up in history. Because the Soviets
are so inept at press relations, he is even able to make it look like it is
their fault that no negotiations are ongoing. I personally believe that the
removal of Ronald Reagan from the Presidency is a necessary step towards any
significant reduction in the nuclear threat.
Mike Kellyhenry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (09/16/84)
> ... Weapons like the neutron bomb, the SS-20 and the > cruise missile are designed to be used. *That* is what makes > them so dangerous... Please explain to me how these weapons differ so fundamentally from all previous weapons. I'm afraid I see no such distinction. All weapons are designed to function if asked to, and to not function if not asked to. I see no evidence that, say, the SS-20 is "designed to be used" to any greater or lesser extent than an SS-9 or a "Frog" artillery missile. > Now, with the event of small nuclear arms ... Are you really so naive as to believe that small nuclear arms are new? They've been around for twenty years or more. If you want an example of a *really* dangerous nuclear weapon, consider the "Davy Crockett", deployed in the early 60's and retired a few years later: a nuclear missile with a very small warhead and a range of only about 3 kilometers. This was a truly gross case of a missile that an army commander would be sorely tempted to use before the Soviets could overrun it; that was part of the reason why it was retired quickly in favor of longer-range weapons. > If a general sees a tank division coming his way, he might be > tempted very soon to use something like a neutron bomb. Again, "tactical" nuclear weapons are nothing true; if you change the word "neutron" to "tactical nuclear", removing the reference to a new technology, this statement has been true for most of our lifetimes. > The other side will probably see this as a nuclear aggression, > and launch a couple of cruise missiles or SS-20's to take out > a minor city as a warning. Again, substitute "ICBMs" for cruise missiles, or "Pershing I" (not II) for "SS-20's". There is nothing new about this prospect, and the new weaponry is not really changing anything fundamental. > I think that this is the real reason for the opposition against > the new nuclear weapons. The are *NOT* meant to scare the other > party, the are meant to be *USED*. MAD protected us against war > for 40 years, but these new weapons make MAD obsolete. Again, you haven't justified this statement in any way. Please explain why the new weapons are so fundamentally different from things that have been in place for decades. If you don't *know* what things have been in place for decades, don't you think you should find out before sounding off on the subject? -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
jack@vu44.UUCP (Jack Jansen) (09/17/84)
Thomas Sj|land (alf@ttds.UUCP) states that nuclear arms
have protected us for 40 years, by insuring that a war
would end in total destruction of the earth, and that they
are used by *not* being used.
I fully agree with him, only this theory does not extend to
the new nuclear arms. Weapons like the neutron bomb, the SS-20 and the
cruise missile are designed to be used. *That* is what makes
them so dangerous. Formerly, if there was a conflict, there was
a big jump needed to go from a minor conflict with conventional
arms to a big, probably fatal, nuclear attack.
Now, with the event of small nuclear arms, the distinction is
fading. If a general sees a tank division coming his way, he might be
tempted very soon to use something like a neutron bomb.
The other side will probably see this as a nuclear aggression,
and launch a couple of cruise missiles or SS-20's to take out
a minor city as a warning.
The other side will probably see this as a nuclear .... etc etc etc.
I think that this is the real reason for the opposition against
the new nuclear weapons. The are *NOT* meant to scare the other
party, the are meant to be *USED*. MAD protected us against war
for 40 years, but these new weapons make MAD obsolete.
Jack Jansen, {philabs|decvax}!mcvax!vu44!jack