[fa.arms-d] Arms-Discussion Digest V2 #75

arms-d@ucbvax.ARPA (12/05/84)

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

Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 2 : Issue 75
Today's Topics:

		Unilateral Disarmament
		Replies to Jim Giles (3 msgs)	

Date: 4-Dec-84 22:13:02-PST
From: JLarson.pa@Xerox
Subject: Arms-D Administrivia

1)  Sorry about the delay. MIT-MC was down for quite a while.

2)  We have a new Co-Moderator _Bob <Carter@RUTGERS>, who will be 
    providing welcome relief for the current overworked ones.
3)  We have modified our introduction message somewhat, so I have 
    included it below to let you know what we have in mind.
"The Arms-Discussion Digest (Arms-D@MIT-MC) is intended to be a forum 
for discussion of Defense, Arms Control, and Weapons Systems issues. 

The topics discussed on this list often inspire strong feeling.
the Moderator will give priority to short factual messages,
over long flames.

Readers of the digest often debate Arms-D issues with one another
in private messages.  The Moderator invites submission of completed
sets of private correspondence for editing and inclusion in the

Messages are collected, edited into digests and distributed as the volume 
of mail dictates (usually twice a week). Messages to the list should be 
addressed to Arms-D@MIT-MC. All requests  to be added to or deleted from 
the list, problems, etc. should be sent to ARMS-D-REQUEST@MIT-MC.

Old digests may be FTP'ed from MIT-MC (no login required).  
They are archived in: BALL; ARMSD ARCn (n>=0, n=8 for recent digests)

The current Co-Moderators are:

  John Larson <JLarson.pa@Xerox>  
  Dave Caulkins <Caulkins@USC-ECL>   
  _Bob <Carter@RUTGERS>"


Date: 26 Nov 1984 0708-PST
Subject: Unilateral Disarmament
To:   poli-sci@RUTGERS, arms-d@MIT-MC
cc:   mcgeer%ucbrob@UCB-VAX

In a recent POLI-SCI digest (V4 #105) Rick McGeer said:
"... we can never again unilaterally disarm, as we did in the
1970's. ..."

The idea that the US somehow disarmed in the 1970s is a myth which
seems to have been invented by the Reagan Administration.  The facts*
are as follows: During the period from 1970 to 1980 the US produced 6
new models of warheads:

----	----------	-----------	----------
W62	1967-1978	MMIII		 900
W68	1970-1979	Poseidon	3480
W69	1970-1976	SRAM (B-52)	1140
W70	1971-1977	Lance		 945
W76	1977-1983	Trident C4	2028
W78	1979-1983	MMIII		 900

During the same period the US replaced all Minuteman I missiles with
Minuteman IIs (1973); finished deployment of the Minuteman III (1975);
and proceeded with development of various flavors of cruise missiles;
SLCM (72-79), ALCM (76-79), and GLCM (77-80).  This is only a partial
list of US disarmament activity in the 70s.

* - Nuclear Weapons Databook, Vol 1, U.S. Nuclear Forces and Capabilities



Date: 26 November 1984 16:50-EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-MC>
To: jlg @ LANL

    From jlg:
    I can't pretend to have read 'all the available evidence' about Khrushchev
    (at least I can spell the name), but from what I have read, I can't 
    conclude that he was really a 'positive force for change'.
    A single example ought to clarify the issue.  To have become the Soviet
    leader in the mid-fifties, Khrushchev must have been a fairly high-level
    official even under the Stalin regime.  This means that he must have
    survived one or more of the purges that took place.  I wonder how 
    Khrushchev survived it? ...
    Well, that's how he survived - he was in charge!

What does this have to do with what he did as top honcho of the Soviet
Union?  As sec'y of the Communist party, he was responsible for
placing the military under a greater degree of civilian control; he
tried to push to SU towards a nuclear posture that resembled minimum
deterrence; he saw that nuclear weapons change the nature of war in an
establishment that strongly opposed that observation.  All of these
are examples of changes for the better, especially when you consider
the alternative


Date: 26 November 1984 17:06-EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-MC>
To: jlg @ LANL

    From: jlg at LANL (Jim Giles)
    I am willing to accept that the communist movement is now somewhat
    fragmented, perhaps more than you pointed out (remember Poland).  But
    you should not confuse lack of success with lack of intent.  If the
    only Soviet interest is its own social and economic survival then why
    does it spend over $12 million per DAY supporting Cuba ($4.5 billion
    per year divided by 365 days - 1976 figures).  And what POSSIBLE
    interests are the Soviets protecting in Nicaragua (don't tell me that
    they are protecting a formative socialist country, because without
    Soviet intervention the country would never have had a socialist

Rhetorical questions are great as a debating technique because you
don't really expect answers.  Let me retaliate.  What possible reason
could the US have for supporting South Korea?  Why do we have a
security interest in the Phillippines?  What possible reason does the
US have in providing tobacco supports while it also provides money to
publicize the dangers of smoking?

Answer: because the US has a number of conflicting goals, that it
cannot resolve.  Our security interest in Third World nations
overrides our support for human rights in those nations.  We have
Jesse Helms that must be appeased for tobacco interests, despite the
dangers of smoke.  Why do you assume that the Soviet Union has a
coherent policy when no other government in the world does?  Do you
think the Soviet Union would go to war if we were to invade Cuba?  I
think not.  How about Nicaragua?  I think not.  The Soviets intervene
when they see that an advantage is to be gained, whether political,
economic, or whatever.  So does the U.S.

    I think it's much more important to understand more about Russian politics
    and government.  Unlike the US, Soviet PEOPLE don't make policy.  

Nor do they in the U.S.  How many people believe in a no-first-use
policy?  about 70%, according to a recent poll done.  How many people
think we have such a policy?  about 85%.  Don't tell me that the
people here make policy.  (I am not arguing that they should; I think
the current system is better than the Russian alternative.)


Date: Fri, 30 Nov 84 10:33:19 pst
From: aurora!eugene@RIACS.ARPA (Eugene miya)
To: ames!riacs!arms-d@mit-mc.ARPA
Subject: A reply to Jim Giles

It is unfortunate that the network has difficulty conveying satire.  It is
a useful [e.g., Jonathan Swift's "Modest proposal"] in that it takes arguments
to an extreme to see whether they fall apart or not (one opinion).  To say
that we should only look at facts (cold hard) is only part of the picture
(as others have pointed out).  We show only those facts we want to show.
I know this because when I was in high school, I had a job designing
parts for the B-1 at Rockwell in LA.  My higher ups, when they went to WDC
only presented what appeared good.  It is not enough to say 'facts,'
they are only opinions (even 1+1=2 is an opinion).

Tell me (and the net), why we should not bomb the USSR like "we cut cancers
out the the body [pardon the Star Trek-like quality of this paraphrasing]"
here and now by your basis in logic?  Let's not dink around with them!
[This is not my personal opinion for those who didn't read my first note
on the net. I will not call it satire.]
Do you let 'problems' float free at your work place?

A comment on other comments about the American social system:  I generally
agree that the American social system is one of the best in the world.
This net discussion, the treads and strides in social reform are impressive.
I think in time we and the rest of the world will evolve with changes
in our various structures (note what the medical and legal fields are doing
with Baby Fae and artificial hearts).  What worries me are the increasing
numbers of people leaving the US and the comment made by several friends
that foreign colleagues find an increasingly hostile attitude in America
when they visit.  This is still a great country from what I see in the rest
of the world.  What makes us 'great" is our ability to self-correct our
course.  If we don't recognize what is wrong with the American system,
we can't self-correct.

On a personal note: If you (Jim Giles) have only arrived at lanl in the
last couple of years, and if you happened to formerly work in Pasadena, CA
prior to that, send me a note, we may have worked together.
No hard feelings intended in any of this.

--eugene miya

The above opinions are my own and are not intended to represent those
of my employers past or present.

[End of ARMS-D Digest]