arms-d@ucbvax.ARPA (12/29/84)
From: Moderator <ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 2 : Issue 82
Today's Topics:
Cuba, references (3 msgs)
Article On Grenada
Space Weapons Question
Active countermeasures against nuclear winter?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 20 Dec 84 20:11 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Cuba
To: jlg@LANL.ARPA
From: jlg at LANL (Jim Giles)
> So what? You think the Cubans and Castro have the missiles there
> because the Soviets forced them to take them? If so, how would you
> prove it?
MODERN TIMES, by Paul Johnson [again]: "According to Castro's account,
given to two French journalists, the 'initial idea originated with the
Russians and with them alone.... It was not in order to ensure our own
defence but primarily to strengthen socialism on the international plane.'"
Johnson writes later: " ... Castro had no alternative bu to provide his
island as a missile base in return [for Russian economic assistance]."
With all due apologies, I have not been able to find Johnson's book.
Pls supply publisher and date of pub. When I can read the full
citation, I will comment further.
> Why? Were Soviet missiles aimed at Mexico? Panama? No. They were
> aimed at the U.S. So it wasn't a new theater threat, just a threat to
> the U.S.
A direct missile threat to the US WAS new.
I agree; it was new. So? (Please don't get me wrong - I don't *like*
the presence of missiles in Cuba; I merely point out that it placed
the US in a similar position to the one in which the Soviets have been
for a long time, at least w.r.t nuclear threats.
And how do you know that some
weren't aimed at other countries in the area. Their presence in Cuba
certainly caused some discomfort to these neighboring countries.
Why? The non-US threat seems quite far fetched, for the same reason
it doesn't make much sense for the US to use nukes to threaten to get
the Soviets out of Cuba or for the British to threaten the
Argentinians with nukes to get the Falklands back - it lacks
credibility.
As to discomfort, yes. But since the likelihood of use was so low, I
expect that these countries would be more upset about Cuban troops and
threatened intervention.
> I cannot reply until you tell me what you mean by retaliating for a
> French buildup.
If the French decide to beef-up their nuclear capability, would it be
appropriate for the Soviets to respond by building up anti-American
weapons? I think not. If the Germans decide to beef-up their nuclear
defences (since they are in NATO, these would be US weapons), is the
situation significantly different than in the case of the French? Tough
to say, but I still think not.
Your original use of "retaliate" was not clear; now I understand.
How can you tell if a Soviet missile is aimed at France except by
range? I would certainly build up my forces if I saw a French buildup
(if the buildup were sufficiently threatening). From a military
standpoint, if it happened that I might be able to use dual-purpose
weapons (e.e., long range missiles capable of hitting both French and
US), I would do that too.
Your connection of missiles in Cuba
with NATO forces still doesn't hold much validity.
But they weren't NATO missiles; they were under unilateral U.S.
control. Besides, why should this matter to the Soviets at all, who
are after all the ones being threatened?
I want to emphasize that I am not defending the presence of Soviet
missiles in Cuba; I am simply stating that a reasonable case can be
made for them given Soviet perspectives. That doesn't mean that we
should let them do anything they think is reasonable, and I think the
US did the right thing in forcing them out of Cuba.
------------------------------
Date: 20 Dec 84 20:15 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA>
To: digex@LLL-CRG.ARPA
I doubt if FOY would take well to having several documents of conflicting
view point (of only subjective value) declared as 'required reading'
before being allowed to participate in this forum.
Foy might not, but I would, at least in spirit. I think that the most
informed people are the people who read different viewpoints, even if
only of subjective value; at least, those are the folks I learn most
from.
------------------------------
Date: 20 Dec 84 20:16 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Article On Grenada
To: Michael_D'Alessandro%Wayne-MTS%UMich-MTS.Mailnet@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
for information about Grenada foulups, probably a good starting point
is William Lind, in Gary Hart's office.
------------------------------
Date: 20 Dec 84 20:23 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: references..
To: jlg@LANL.ARPA
Here is another case in recent memory where someone demands
references but supplies none to support his own claims. WHY AM I THE
ONLY ONE ON THIS DISCUSSION WHO GIVES REFERENCES?
You are *not* the only one who gives references to this list; you are
simply new to the list, or else you wouldn't make capitalize such an
outrageous claim.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 84 20:41:15 mst
From: jlg@LANL.ARPA (Jim Giles)
Subject: Cuba, references, biases, etc.
> As to discomfort, yes. But since the likelihood of use was so low, I
> expect that these countries would be more upset about Cuban troops and
> threatened intervention.
This was one of the things we should have insisted upon in the Cuban
missile crisis - an unarmed Cuba. Paul Johnson again: "Kennedy was thus
in a position to demand an absolute restoration of the status quo ante.
He could have gone further: he could have insisted on punishment - on
Soviet acceptance of a neutral, disarmed Cuba: the Finnish analogy. As
Dean Acheson rightly observed: 'So long as we had the thumbscrew on
Khrushchev, we should have given it another turn every day.'" (55)
And later: "On the practical issue of Cuba and Caribbean security,
Kennedy lost the missile crisis. It was an American defeat: the worst
it had so far suffered in the Cold War. This was an area which, by any
definition, was vital to America's interests, Castro survived to become,
for a quarter of a century, her most persistent and successful enemy;
to export revolution to South America in the 1960s and,far more successfully,
to Central America in the late 1970s and early 1980s; to vilify American
'imperialism' systematically at Third World gatherings, while posing as
a 'non-aligned' power; and, in the 1970s, to send no less than three
expeditionary forces to Africa as executants of Soviet policy. With
remarkable audacity, Castro posed as a defender of the oppressed in the
United States itself, and was rewarded by the adulation of a segment of
American progressive opinion. [...] Many of the Western liberal fantasies
once woven around Stalin were transferred to Castro. Mao's eventual fall
from grace left Castro the last charismatic of the totalitarian world."
(55) Quoted Schlesinger, by Robert Kennedy, p 530-1.
Modern Times: The World from the Twenties to the Eighties, Paul Johnson,
1983 Harper and Row, ISBN 0-06-015159-5, Library of Congress no. 82-48836
> Your connection of missiles in Cuba
> with NATO forces still doesn't hold much validity.
>
> But they weren't NATO missiles; they were under unilateral U.S.
> control.
The NATO treaties REQUIRE all nuclear forces in Europe to be under the
unilateral control of the US. The treaty was written that way because
European countries don't trust each-other much. Still, the missiles
were placed there to counter equivalent Soviet Missiles in that theatre.
I still think that the Cuban missiles were not justifiable on the basis
of NATO forces, no matter how large.
> Here is another case in recent memory where someone demands
> references but supplies none to support his own claims. WHY AM I THE
> ONLY ONE ON THIS DISCUSSION WHO GIVES REFERENCES?
>
> You are *not* the only one who gives references to this list; you are
> simply new to the list, or else you wouldn't make capitalize such an
> outrageous claim.
I'm not that new to the net, I read it for some weeks before contributing.
Except for various postings which dealt with new reports and materials,
no one gave any references during that interval. All the accusations
of my supposed lack of references and my supposed biases came AFTER I
submitted an article in which I gave 4 or 5 items in a short bibliography.
Even since I complained that no one else was providing citations, there
have been by my count three: two from Herb Lin and one dealing with issues
outside the bounds of this discussion. I don't think this is an outrageous
claim at all. I have since pointed another citation in the form of a
footnote to the 'Modern Times' quote.
As for my supposed biases, I'm biased toward the evidence. The evidence
points somewhat to the 'right' of the average contributor to this list.
I seems that THEIR biases have long since been passed over and ignored.
If you doubt that there is a liberal bias among the contributors, I can
think of several TRUE statements that would probably draw them out. (I
always wondered how an educated person could develope a liberal bias
in the first place. Personal and, especially, economic freedoms tend
to disappear in direct proportion to the degree to which a country
socializes. What is there about liberalism that people find attractive
enough to uncritically embrace it?)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something
because one wishes it to be so - Louis Pasteur
James Giles
------------------------------
From: pur-ee!malcolm@UCB-VAX.ARPA (Malcolm Slaney)
Date: 21 Dec 84 01:35 EST (Friday)
To: arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Space Weapons Question
I've heard a number of sources claim that the most likely cause of a nuclear
exchange is an accident by one of the two sides. It seems to me that this
first would involve only a few missiles. (Sounds an awful lot like the book
Failsafe.)
Wouldn't this scenario be a good reason to have a small number of space based
weapons? If an accident occured then both sides would be able to try to shoot
it down. As it is now we are sort of stuck.
Just Wondering...
Malcolm
malcolm@purdue
------------------------------
Date: 21 Dec 84 08:51:13 EST
From: DIETZ@RUTGERS.ARPA
Subject: Active countermeasures against nuclear winter?
To: arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA
I'm getting tired of the "this is how you should think about the USSR"
discussion, so I'm going to try to start something new.
My question: can there be active countermeasures against nuclear winter?
By this I mean is there some way to actively clean the atmosphere once
a nuclear war has occured?
The problem is to somehow remove from the upper atmosphere the small soot
particles injected from city fires. Injecting water into the upper
atmpshere to precipitate out the particles seems impractical, although
I suppose enough large H bombs detonated at sea could do it.
Destroying the particles in place mat be feasible. The soot particles are
primarily organic and, if heated, will oxidize to CO2 and other gases.
Ground based lasers could be used to heat the soot particles, at least until
the atmospheric opacity drops to the point where most of the laser energy
is not absorbed, but then there's no problem anyway. The soot is probably too
spread out for this to be feasible, though.
The best idea I could think of is electrostatic precipitation. The atmospheric
electric field is normally about 100 volts/meter, becoming more negative as
one goes up. The field becomes weaker at high altitudes, reaching a potential
of 400,000 volts in the startosphere where the atmosphere is sufficiently
conductive to short out any further increase. This potential is maintained
by thunderstorm activity and is continually being drained by 1800 ampere
current.
I propose increasing this field by artificially injecting negative charge into
the upper atmosphere. Assuming atmospheric conductance remains constant,
increasing the potnetial by a factor of k means increasing the injected
power by a factor of k**2, or about 70 gigawatts to increase the potential by
a factor of 10. Charge could be injected into the upper atmosphere from
thin cables suspended from hot air balloons; the discharge process would create
enough heat to suspend to balloons indefinitely, and the voltage would be so
high that negligible heat would be dissipated in the cables.
There are some problems with this proposal: (1) would increaing the earth's
atmospheric potnetial do any good? I suspect it would at least cause
particles near the injection points to clump together, perhaps allowing
one to cause radioactive particles to fall in unpopulated areas. (2) Wind
patterns might be radically changed after a major nuclear war, causing problems
with the balloons. (3) The worst problem would be an increase in conductivity
of the atmosphere caused by ionization from suspended fallout (an oxymoron if
ever there was one). This could short out the atmosphere. On the other hand,
if low altitude debris is swept out rapidly by natural processes, the high
atlitude stuff will cause the layer of high conductivity to descend to
where it is easily reached by balloon. The high conductivity layer could even
be reached by thunderstorms, perhaps increaing the efficiency with which they
charge up the atmosphere.
-------
------------------------------
[End of ARMS-D Digest]