arms-d@ucbvax.ARPA (06/13/85)
From: The Arms-D Moderator (Harold Ancell) <ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 3 : Issue 44
Today's Topics:
Neutron weaponry
Speculation on Soviet Response to a Peace Offer
Proposal for the President to Visit Hiroshima
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 85 14:23:26 EDT
From: Jeff Miller AMSTE-TOI 4675 <jmiller@apg-1>
Subject: Neutron weaponry
To: rimey@BERKELEY (Ken Rimey)
I realize that your message in the last digest was specifically
directed at the question of the Enhanced Radiation Weapon ( ERW )
employed against built-up targets and population centers, but I am
concerned by your comment that the ERW is not relevant. Do you mean
you think it has no relevancy as a weapons system, period?
ERW was not intended to bomb cities. With the exception of some
non- military pro-ERW politicians who wanted it without even knowing
what it is, the weapon was intended for use on the battlefield as a
counter to Warsaw Pact (WP) numerical superiority in armor. Its value
lay in forcing the WP to abandon the very tactics of mass that they
rely upon to exploit their numerical edge. Enemy armor, forced to
disperse to avoid providing inviting ERW targets, would be far easier
prey for NATO's stretched-thin anti-tank defenses.
Moreover, the mere threat of the deployment of these systems
caused profound consternation among the Soviet army's leadership. Any
major changes in Soviet tactical doctrine tend to be excruciating and
normally consist of evolutionary carryover from principles rooted in
the Great Patriotic War. Had they been forced to go through with
major changes, the resultant discord and disorganization caused by
order of battle (OB) reconfiguration alone would have hampered their
combat effectiveness for years.
J.MILLER
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 85 12:00:28 PDT
From: Richard Foy <foy@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
Subject: Speculation on Soviet Response
Would anyone care to speculate how the Soviets would respond if
President Reagan gave a speech substantially as follows and then
proceeded to implement through executive order the actions discussed.
"I have had an independant panel of experts review our defense needs.
They have advised me that we have at least ten times the nuclear
capability which we need to deterr the Soviets. Evan if the Soviets
made a first strike we would still be able to destroy all of their
cities and kill almost all of their people. The defense departments
response to this study convinces me of its accuracy.
Therefor I am immediately stopping all production of nulear weapons.
During the remaining three years of my term in office I will have
fifty percent of our nuclear weapons destroyed. We will continue with
our research and intelligence efforts in to insure that the Soviets do
not surprise us with any new military capability.
I hope that the Soviets will respond with a reduction of their nuclear
arms. I will make this reduction wether they do or not, because we
have more important things to do than build nuclear weapons which
serve no military purpose."
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 85 11:26:36 PDT
From: Richard Foy <foy@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
Subject: Hiroshima
I heard on the news that a delegation of Japenese Americans have asked
President Reagan to visit Hiroshima on the 40th anniversary of the
first atomic bomb.
I see pluses in encourageing him to do so. Does anyone see any
arguments against it?
------------------------------
[End of ARMS-D Digest]