[fa.arms-d] Arms-Discussion Digest V3 #36

arms-d@ucbvax.ARPA (05/21/85)

From: The Arms-D Moderator (Harold Ancell) <ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA>

Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 3 : Issue 36
Today's Topics:

                Neutron weapons, Soviet armor tactics
           Danger from South Africa (response to J. Miller)
                  What is the Definition of DEFCON?
                         Evacuation response
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 May 85 01:43:02 cdt
From: Scott Renner <renner@UIUC.ARPA>
Subject: Neutron weapons, Soviet armor tactics

>  Gee, I always thought that the ``neutron bomb'' was canned because it was
>  expensive and ineffectual as an anti-tank weapon.

Nope.  The neutron bomb was cancelled for political, not military reasons.
Some folks will tell you that it was canned as the result of an intensive,
well-orchestrated Soviet propaganda effort.
   
>  Ineffectual: As a Russian tank commander faced with an opponent armed with
>  enhanced radiation artillery shells, you can just change tactics slightly to
>  render the ERWs pretty ineffective: space your tanks farther apart (I think
>  about a half-mile apart is enough)...
>  					-- (dm@bbn-vax)

The U.S. Army could hardly ask for anything else.  Tanks spaced that far
apart will never achieve the local superiority needed for a successful
attack on the modern battlefield.  From what I've read about modern armor
tactics, the attacker needs anywhere from 3:1 to 10:1 odds in the vicinity
of the attack.  This can't be achieved without creating an enticing target
for an ERW.

------------------------------

Date: 20 May 85 12:24:09 CDT (Mon)
From: ihnp4!mgnetp!ltuxa!ttrdc!mjk@Berkeley
Subject: Danger from South Africa (response to J. Miller)

 >      please share with us 
 >whatever information you have pertaining to threats against black US citizens, 
 >here in the US, originating from South Africa.

Although it doesn't *precisely* meet your criteria, a student at Columbia
University and a participant in the divestment protest there is now
threatened with immediate imprisonment should he return to South Africa
because of his activities here in the U.S.  At least one family member
was picked up by the South African police and interrogated -- because of
his actions here in the U.S.  There is, of course, first the question
of *how* the South African police knew about his participation in a 
large demonstration at an American university; I'm sure an "intelligence
professional" such as yourself can tell us all about that.

But more importantly, here is an example of intimidation of the free
speech rights of a person living here in the U.S.  Is it too far of an
extrapolation to imagine a time when the South Africans, facing a much
more serious situation than they do now, start employing squads to operate
in the U.S. to "stiffle" the outspokenness of people here which 
threaten their government?

But the real point of my admittedly snide remark is that it is very
easy for you to "objectively" evaluate the geopolitical pros and cons 
of U.S. support for the apartheid government.  I'm trying to remind you
that real people, not "players", suffer under that government.  In the
same way that Jews feel a special revulsion towards the holocaust, blacks
feel a special pain at apartheid.  I wonder if a black person in your
position could be quite so smug.

Mike Kelly

------------------------------

Date: Mon 20 May 85 17:07:15-EDT
From: Bard Bloom <BARD@MIT-XX.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V3 #35

What does DEFCON mean?

------------------------------

Date: 1985 May 20 01:08:10 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@IMSSS.SU.EDU>
Subject: Evacuation response

>  Date:     Thu, 16 May 85 14:36 CDT
>  From:     Patrick_Duff <pduff%ti-eg.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
>  Subject:  What-if USSR evacuates all cities
>  
>  ...  Suppose you are the
>  President of the US and one of your advisors comes rushing in with the
>  following report:  At 12pm Moscow time, 
First, I'd fire my advisor. There's no such thing as 12pm. 12 is the
boundary between AM and PM, and midnight is 12n (nuit; not AM nor PM)
wile noon is 12m (meridian; again neither AM nor PM).
>  					the USSR posted notices in all
>  major population centers giving instructions to the inhabitants to begin
>  immediate preparations to leave the city and disperse.  The notices call
>  this activity a "training exercise" or a "drill". ... What action
>  should you, as President and Commander in Chief of the US, take, and 
>  why?

   (5) Start evacuating US cities (1 vote--last I heard, the U.S.'s
       evacuation plans are too incomplete and too far out-of-date to make 
       this response practical);  

That's my major choice. First check for confirmation, then announce to
networks that in 5 minutes you'll have a major announcement to make,
then get on the hotline and explain to the Soviets that you don't know
whether they are really doing a training exercise or not but in either
case we want to respond in kind: If it's a good training exercise, we
ought to train too, and ours will be more realistic since we had no
advance warning; If it's a cover for an attack, we want to minimize
civilian casualities. Now (that took 5 minutes on Model 33 TTY) go on
the air to the public announcing the Soviet evacuation. Explain what
we said on the hotline, that we don't want to get caught with our
pants down. The Soviets are probably not planning an attack, but just
in case we want to evacuate too. Even if they're just training, we
might as well take this opportunity to run a surprise evacuation
training of our own. In the event of a nuclear war, we probably have
supplies for only about a third of the populace, so it would be
counterproductive to evacuate more than a third of our population. I
(President REM) therefore reccommend that anyone preferring to die
instantly rather than slowly should stay where they arenow, while
anyone preferring a chance at survival no matter how unlikely or
painful should collect any personal valuables that can't be replaced
and snatch a week's supply of water and food, then join a carpool and
head out of the cities and away from military installations as soon as
possible. Persons staying behind can guard property against vandals in
the event this turns out to be just a training exercise and not a real
attack. Persons trying to leave but getting stuck in traffic jams
should return home or scrounge around for an alternate route.

Just because our evacuation plans aren't decent doesn't mean that in
the event of this scenerio we ought not to at least put up a show.
With our citizens scrambling from the cities, any real attack won't
totally wipe us out (except by nuclear winter). After a couple days
when the Soviets end their exercise we end ours. If they continue
longer, trying to outlast us on food and other supplies, we start
shipping supplies from the cities out to where people are hanging out.
In the absense of a real attack, we can probably wing it as long as
the Soviets can. Our imperfect evacuation may just deter an attack if
that's what they were planning all along.

(Point of debate. I think maybe our present lack of preparation
combined with the above contingency plan may be optimal for avoiding
nuclear war. Don't provoke increased hostility by running evacuation
exercises now, but prevent a Soviet first-strike from being effective
if they evacuate first. Anyone have a different opinion?)

------------------------------
[End of ARMS-D Digest]