[fa.arms-d] Arms-Discussion Digest V3 #3

arms-d@ucbvax.ARPA (01/11/85)

From: Moderator <ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA>

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

		Eye problems
		ABC Coverage of Geneva Talks
		Star Wars or Arms Control
		Proliferation in Brazil

Date: 4 Jan 85 08:20:30 EST
Subject: Eye problems
To: kyle.wbst

What happens to someone looking up when the exoatmospheric bomb goes
off?  They get the top micron of the retina blown off, I assume.  Better
detonate those bombs over some uninhabited area, like the Pacific (or your
target area from the initial exchange...).

Edward Teller made a comment some time ago that a 100 megaton bomb detonated
at high altitude could start fires over an entire continent.  Does anyone
have a reference to his statement?  If by high altitude he meant
exoatmospheric I could imagine a 100 megaton bomb delivering a < 1 second
optical burst at perhaps 100 kilowatts per square meter over large areas
(higher powers for shorter bursts).  I wouldn't think such bombs would scale
down too well, since the height of the atmosphere is constant.  I wonder
if Titan warheads are big enough to get this effect?

Someone in CoEvolution Quarterly suggested wearing an eye patch as a protest
against the arms race.  Sounds like a good idea even without the protest.


Date: 6 Jan 85 14:05:57 EST
Subject: ABC Coverage of Geneva Talks
To: arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA

I've noticed the ABC evening news coverage of the upcoming Geneva talks
has started with a montage of stock footage showing various and sundry
missile launchings while the announcer intones that "the US and USSR have
enough nuclear weapons to kill everyone on this planet".  What rot.


Date: 7 Jan 85 16:58 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject:  Star Wars or Arms Control
To: ihnp4!islenet!scott@UCB-VAX.ARPA

    Ambassador (formerly General) Edward L. Rowney spoke in Hawaii Friday
    about "Star Wars" [and said] that it does not violate the May 26, 1972, 
    ABM Treaty.

If so, he is really not speaking for the Administration, in which even
Weinberger admits a deployment will mean abrogation or modification.

    As we know, the arguments against Star Wars center around the necessities
    of the MAD doctrine, and the Star Wars thesis requires abandonment of the
    MAD doctrine.

Wrong.  MAD is not a doctrine but a fact of life.  One may build
doctrines that respect this fact of life or not, but it remains a fact
of life.  For those of you who doubt this, recall that MAD refers to a
situation in which one side can inflict massive destruction on the
other, and vice versa.  I challenge anybody to describe a world in
which neither the US nor the Soviet Union cannot do this.

    But what if the parties decide NOT to oppose the defensive measures, but
    to take political and arms control measures to strengthen defenses?

I wouldn't enter into an agreement that would reduce my condifence
in my offensive weapons.  Would you?

    The MAD doctrine was born in the era of "two scorpions in a bottle" when
    the United States and the USSR shared a virtual monopoly of nuclear
    weapons. It is no longer true, and as more nations, some associated with 
    terroristic tendencies, obtain nuclear weapons, both nations need 
    something better than MAD.

Whom do you worry about?  The Libyans with nuclear weapons *and*
ICBM's?  Hardly.  An ulnerable shell over the US would be a good
idea.  A shell that is permeable to everything but missiles doesn't
buy much protection from countries that won't use missiles against us


Date: 10 Jan 85 08:31:24 EST
Subject: Proliferation in Brazil
To: arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA

Brazil just tested a homegrown suborbital solid fueled rocket.
The test rocket travelled 350 miles.  The brazilians say the rocket is for
civilian purposes.  It is expected Brazil will have uranium enrichment by

[End of ARMS-D Digest]