arms-d@ucbvax.ARPA (07/09/85)
From: The Arms-D Moderator (Harold Ancell) <ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 3 : Issue 57
Today's Topics:
Use of so-so BMD
Krytrons
One Apocalyptic Scenario: Yahweh vs. Allah
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 85 21:52:58 pdt
From: rimey%ucbdali@Berkeley (Ken Rimey)
Subject: Use of so-so BMD
Will Martin asks, concisely,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| If the SDI is hugely expensive and yet ineffectual and worthless, why |
| are the Soviets against our attempting to create and deploy it? |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's say that Reagan's statements to the public were white lies, and
we build a system that can stop only some fraction of an attack. (Note:
NOT a point-defense system)
The world will be impressed nevertheless. The Soviet Union will look inferior.
For some reason, the USSR feels it needs as many ICBMs as it has. If we can
shoot down some fraction, they will build more missiles so that in the worst
case as many get through as before. This will be expensive for them. Also,
it will prompt us to build more missiles ourselves; the usual pressures to
maintain parity in missile numbers, throw weight, and warheads will not
disappear with strategic defense.
These missile buildups will not be restricted by present treaties. The
ceilings in the SALT treaties were negotiated in the context of the ABM
treaty, and the ABM treaty will go long before actual deployment of a BMD
system begins. The USSR presumably does not want to see these treaties
abandoned.
Our war-fighting policy emphasizes reply in kind, rather than massive
retaliation. On the other hand, there is indication that in the USSR
less emphasis is placed on tit-for-tat in strategic nuclear exchanges.
But are they willing to lose the option? With a so-so BMD system in
place, a threat by us to lob a couple of warheads at military targets
in the USSR would leave them with a difficult choice: Strike massively
or swallow it. Reply in kind would be made impossible.
A moderately effective BMD system could allow military domination of
low orbit. I challenge readers to refute the following claims:
1. Any BMD system capable of shooting down half of a missile
attack could clear low orbit of all present Soviet satellites
within a few minutes.
2. Any such BMD system could render an opponent's BMD system
inoperative within a few minutes since any BMD system will
have critical components in low orbit.
[Note from the Moderator: not if they are protected by a meter or more
of moon rock.]
If we have such a system deployed, the deployment of a similar system
by the USSR would be a threat because it would render our system (totally)
useless for BMD. They could simply shoot it down while simultaneously
launching their missiles.
Consequently, we might feel the need to prevent the deployment of their
system. Though it sounds like science fiction, this might be
accomplished by a blockade of the planet. We simply shoot down (or
threaten to shoot down) all ascending enemy rockets (short of a
large-scale missile attack).
If the USSR believes any of the above, they might view this seizure of
the high ground as a very serious defeat. They could of course announce
right now that they will shoot down space weapons that we deploy. SDI
is being sold to a portion of the public as the road away from WWIII.
Many Americans would be shocked and confused by such an announcement
by the Soviets. SDI might die a political death.
If the USSR allowed us to deploy our system, and it developed into more
than they bargained for, there would be pressure for them to attack it
with antisatellite weapons. This would be an act of war.
Ken Rimey
rimey@ucbvax
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 85 9:07:23 CDT
From: William Martin <control@ALMSA-1>
Subject: [rimey%ucbdali: Re: krytrons]
Forwarding as requested:
----- Forwarded message # 1:
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 85 15:00:17 pdt
From: rimey%ucbdali@Berkeley (Ken Rimey)
Subject: Re: krytrons
Re krytron's radioactivity -- I thought I had read one
description of them that said they were tube-type switches
filled with some mildly radioactive gas to encourage rapid
ionization when they are triggered...
Will
This does indeed sound plausible. I stand corrected.
Ken
p.s. You might forward this to arms-d if your note wasn't sent there.
----- End of forwarded messages
------------------------------
Date: 3 Jul 1985 04:49 EDT (Wed)
From: Wayne McGuire <MDC.WAYNE%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: One Apocalyptic Scenario: Yahweh vs. Allah
Date: Tuesday, 25 June 1985 09:43-EDT
From: Herb Lin <LIN at MIT-MC.ARPA>
Even a "small" attack--with just a handful of devices, and
perhaps against a small neighbor--could set in motion a larger
conflagration.
I have asked proliferation experts about this question myself,
and I have never received a satisfactory answer. Just how
could this scenario unfold?
How about this six-stage scenario: It is 1990. The forces of
aggressive religious fundamentalism which dominated Israel under Begin
and Sharon have again thoroughly taken command of the Israeli
government, and are even more fanatical than before. The Labor Party
and other forces of moderation are essentially powerless on the
Israeli political scene. Due to increasing criticism from nations all
around the world, especially from its old friend the United States,
Israel is feeling extremely paranoid and defiant, and is convinced it
is trapped in a last-ditch battle for its survival against the entire
world. (Sounds vaguely like the Old Testament Armageddon, eh?
Nothing miraculous or prophetic in that: religious mythologies have a
natural tendency to fulfill themselves in gullible societies.)
In this volatile situation a Jewish terrorist group (very much like
ones that are already emerging on the Israeli scene) manages to blow
up the Dome of the Rock (stage 1). The Israeli government is not
entirely displeased, since the Jewish fundamentalists in charge of the
nation can now proceed with their longstanding plans to consolidate
control over Jerusalem, and to rebuild the Biblical Jewish Temple on
the conveniently cleared sacred site.
The Islamic nations are enraged. Iraq and Iran have settled their
past disputes, and are, with Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other
nations in the region, now joined in an intimate and mighty military
alliance governed by Islamic fundamentalism. The Islamic forces
attack Israel in retaliation for the injustice which has occurred in
the destruction of the Dome of the Rock, and to restore Jerusalem to
the control of Allah (stage 2). Yahweh and Allah are now locked in a
vicious Holy War, and one could not find on the earth more fierce and
fanatical combatants. The gods of capitalism and Marxism-Leninism are
mild-mannered accountants by comparison.
Let's say the legions of Allah begin to triumph with conventional
weaponry over the forces of Yahweh. Israel, in desperation and panic,
drops one or two "warning" nukes on Islamic capitals (stage 3). Let
us also assume that some of the members of the prominent network of
national security intellectuals whose personalities, worldviews, and
recommendations are strongly conditioned by an emotional
identification with militant Israeli nationalism (Edward Luttwak and
Richard Pipes come to mind), and who are agitating for the U.S to
adopt policies which would severely alienate the Islamic world, have
eventually gotten their way sometime in the late eighties. States
like Iran are now clients of the Soviet Union, not out of love or
ideological sympathy (Moslems are violently anti-Marxist), but from a
profound (and perhaps well-justified) hatred of the U.S.
In retaliation for Israel's nuclear attack on its clients, the Soviet
Union vows to bring Israel to its knees and remove its claws, and
launches a massive conventional attack on the Jewish state (stage 4).
It seems, however, that Israel has managed to place thirty or forty
briefcase bombs at strategic locations in the Soviet Union during the
preceding decade, and decides that now, as it faces certain defeat and
dismantlement by the Moslems and Soviets (and even possible
extermination), is the appropriate time to detonate them, in a final
act of defiance and revenge (stage 5).
A large part of the Soviet Union now lies in ruins. The surviving
Soviet leaders, understandably in a state of advanced rage and
irrationality, blame the United States for Israel's action (we are,
after all, her patron), and instantly respond with a nuclear strike
against Israel and major American cities and other strategic targets
(stage 6).
Notice that in this scheme, both the U.S. and USSR are annihilated
without the U.S. firing a single shot. Keep in mind, too, that the
six stages of this story could fully unfold in a few days, before
anyone could exchange calm diplomatic communications or apply rational
restraints.
One can easily think of dozens of variations on this theme, all of
which would climax in a global nuclear holocaust. Also, the
possibility cannot be discounted that at some point in the future the
national interests of the U.S. and Israel might begin to diverge so
drastically that America could find itself the direct target of
Israeli hostility. (A close reading of the Israeli press will turn up
ample signs of that hostility even today.) I've seen speculation that
Israel might be strongly motivated to take out an "insurance policy,"
to set in place now the apparatus with which to persuade (coerce)
American policy makers of the wisdom of certain actions in a future
situation where U.S.-Israeli relations might have significantly
deteriorated.
I can't think of any scripts for the triggering of WWIII with a
setting in Europe, Asia, or Latin America that are nearly as
convincing as the above sequence of events. In the Mideast we find
the appropriate mixture of superpower entanglements, rich strategic
prizes, raging hatreds, and limitless self-righteousness on the part
of all parties.
The above scenario may sound somewhat far-fetched to some people, but
not to anyone who has studied history and knows to what extreme and
even suicidal lengths religious obsessions are able to drive groups
and nations. Rationality in civilization is an exceedingly thin
veneer, one that at the moment is being deliberately and
systematically ripped apart by a number of governments and movements
in and around the Holy Land.
Wayne McGuire <mdc.wayne%mit-oz@mit-mc>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 85 17:41:24 EDT
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: One Apocalyptic Scenario: Yahweh vs. Allah
To: MDC.WAYNE@MIT-OZ
Date: Tuesday, 25 June 1985 09:43-EDT
From: Herb Lin <LIN at MIT-MC.ARPA>
Even a "small" attack--with just a handful of devices, and
perhaps against a small neighbor--could set in motion a larger
conflagration.
I have asked proliferation experts about this question myself,
and I have never received a satisfactory answer. Just how
could this scenario unfold?
How about this six-stage scenario: It is 1990. The forces of
aggressive religious fundamentalism which dominated Israel under Begin
and Sharon have again thoroughly taken command of the Israeli
government..
Let's say the legions of Allah begin to triumph with conventional
weaponry over the forces of Yahweh. Israel, in desperation and panic,
drops one or two "warning" nukes on Islamic capitals (stage 3).
I can believe the scenario up to this point. After this point, it
gets murkier.
In retaliation for Israel's nuclear attack on its clients, the Soviet
Union vows to bring Israel to its knees and remove its claws, and
launches a massive conventional attack on the Jewish state (stage 4).
Why would it do such a thing? Why is it in Soviet interests to
intervene directly?
It seems, however, that Israel has managed to place thirty or forty
briefcase bombs at strategic locations in the Soviet Union during the
preceding decade, and decides that now, as it faces certain defeat and
dismantlement by the Moslems and Soviets (and even possible
extermination), is the appropriate time to detonate them, in a final
act of defiance and revenge (stage 5).
Suitcase bombs are low yield, and will be surface burst. Therefore,
40 bombs, while awful, will NOT cause "A large part of the Soviet
Union [to lie] in ruins". Moreover, you assume that 40 bombs have
been inserted into the SU; that's a big part of the problem to assume
away. Given the right assumptions, I can make nearly anything happen.
The surviving
Soviet leaders, understandably in a state of advanced rage and
irrationality, blame the United States for Israel's action (we are,
after all, her patron), and instantly respond with a nuclear strike
against Israel and major American cities and other strategic targets
(stage 6).
Notice that in this scheme, both the U.S. and USSR are annihilated
without the U.S. firing a single shot.
If you believe that 40 suitcase bombs exploding in Soviet cities is
enough to prompt them to use their all-out deterrent forces,
then I guess I have to say I don't. If that were, why do we need so
many nuclear weapons NOW??
Also, the
possibility cannot be discounted that at some point in the future the
national interests of the U.S. and Israel might begin to diverge so
drastically that America could find itself the direct target of
Israeli hostility.
Agreed.
I've seen speculation that
Israel might be strongly motivated to take out an "insurance policy,"
to set in place now the apparatus with which to persuade (coerce)
American policy makers of the wisdom of certain actions in a future
situation where U.S.-Israeli relations might have significantly
deteriorated.
How? By threatening the US? I don't think that's what you mean. By
threatening to use them againt the Soviets so that the US will be
drawn in? That I believe. But then the US WILL be drawn in, and the
Israelis won't use their bomb against the SU.
The above scenario may sound somewhat far-fetched to some people, but
not to anyone who has studied history and knows to what extreme and
even suicidal lengths religious obsessions are able to drive groups
and nations.
True. But the Soviet Uniion is not governed by martyrdom-seeking
fanatics. If it is, we are in BIG trouble.
------------------------------
Date: 3 Jul 1985 19:16 EDT (Wed)
From: Wayne McGuire <MDC.WAYNE%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: One Apocalyptic Scenario: Yahweh vs. Allah
Date: Wednesday, 3 July 1985 17:41-EDT
From: Herb Lin <LIN at MIT-MC.ARPA>
If you believe that 40 suitcase bombs exploding in Soviet
cities is enough to prompt them to use their all-out deterrent
forces, then I guess I have to say I don't. If that were,
why do we need so many nuclear weapons NOW??
Perhaps you have the hard numbers on this, and could put this part of
the scenario into proper perspective: just what is the maximum nuclear
megatonnage that could currently be packed into, say, a Dodge minivan,
and how much damage would one or two of these packages produce if
detonated in the center of Moscow or Manhattan? How would one or two
of these blasts compare in destructive power with the devices we
dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Also, the SU might well not use their all-out deterrent force, but
"only" take an eye for an eye.
As to why we need so many nuclear weapons now: good question. Don't
the U.S. and USSR already possess more than enough nuclear devices to
vaporize each other many times over?
But the Soviet Uniion is not governed by martyrdom-seeking
fanatics. If it is, we are in BIG trouble.
This issue came up once before here. Are there any circumstances in
which the Soviet Union could be pushed by events to intervene
militarily in the Middle East?
In recent years the Soviet Union has been extremely cautious about
being drawn into conflict situations which could escalate into a
superpower confrontation. If the much more hardline faction in the
Soviet power elite, which has been restrained by the relatively
moderate present leadership, came to dominate the government, and if a
situation arose in which one or more key Soviet client states in the
Middle East came under Israeli attack, then I think anything could
happen. There is a limit to how much face the Soviet Union can afford
to lose in protecting its clients and interests around the world.
Under severe stress the Soviets might take risks and make
miscalculations that could contribute to the triggering of a global
holocaust.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 85 01:52:57 EDT
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: One Apocalyptic Scenario: Yahweh vs. Allah
To: MDC.WAYNE@MIT-OZ
Perhaps you have the hard numbers on this, and could put this part
of the scenario into proper perspective: just what is the maximum
nuclear megatonnage that could currently be packed into, say, a
Dodge minivan, and how much damage would one or two of these
packages produce if detonated in the center of Moscow or
Manhattan? How would one or two of these blasts compare in
destructive power with the devices we dropped on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki?
Remember that you are talking about fission, not fusion, bombs. Thus,
the largest plausible is probably several tens of KT. Hiroshima =
20KT. Hard to get more than one bomb to explode at the same time, so
packing more than one bomb into a minivan isn't easy. How will Israel
get bombs into the SU now?
Also, the SU might well not use their all-out deterrent force, but
"only" take an eye for an eye.
But this assumes rationality again. You can't play the game both
ways. They can't be so irrational that they invade Israel, and yet so
rational that they go tit-for-tat.
If the much more hardline faction in the Soviet power elite, which
has been restrained by the relatively moderate present leadership,
came to dominate the government, and if a situation arose in which
one or more key Soviet client states in the Middle East came under
Israeli attack, then I think anything could happen.
If Teddy Roosevelt became President today, he would make Reagan look
like a peacenik. Therefore, under those circumstances, anything could
happen. No law of physics prevents what you describe from happening;
true enough. But I find it highly implausible.
There is a limit to how much face the Soviet Union can afford to
lose in protecting its clients and interests around the world.
Under severe stress the Soviets might take risks and make
miscalculations that could contribute to the triggering of a
global holocaust.
Ultimately, the question to be asked is how the Soviets will respond
to any situation. Answer: in their own interests. Thus, the burden is
on you to demonstrate how a Soviet intervention in the M.E. against
Israel is in Soviet interests. Moreover, you have to demonstrate why
Israel would not *threaten* the SU with these hidden bombs (rather
than use them) *before* anything happened militarily.
------------------------------
[End of ARMS-D Digest]