arms-d@ucbvax.ARPA (09/02/84)
From: Moderator <ARMS-D@MIT-MC> Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 2 : Issue 57 Today's Topics: Nuclear Winter & Crazy States (2 msgs); nuclear alerts, nuclear weapons in the South Atlantic; British Nuclear Threat Against Argentina; GB + Argentina ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 27 August 1984 23:37-EDT From: Charles Frankston <CBF @ MIT-MC> Subject: Nuclear Winter & Crazy States To: MDC.WAYNE @ MIT-OZ cc: ARMS-DISCUSSION @ MIT-MC, LIN @ MIT-MC Considering how the news first leaked out in _The New York Times_ about how Israel had come into possession of nuclear weapons (the pertinent CIA documents, as I recall, were "accidentally" inserted in some unrelated information obtained through the FOIA), one might wonder if the CIA, for reasons of its own, has sought to put this information in the public view through unconventional channels. I rather wonder how many levels of misinterpretation that "leaked" document has been subject to, if it was even genuine in the first place. As Herb Lin pointed out, there's a big difference between some analyst's estimate that Israel can manufacture 200 nuclear devices and a claim that Israel has 200 deliverable nuclear weapons. The latter I can only conclude is the result of piling rampant speculation on top of ridiculous assumption. From the excerpts of Chomsky's book that you have presented us with, I can only conclude that he engages in much of that. What are the specific and concrete facts and arguments in this book you mention which contradict Chomsky's account? I'd prefer not to, as it would add yet more scenarios to the pointless speculation that goes on here. I'll also refrain from responding anymore. ------------------------------ Received: by UCB-VAX.ARPA (4.24/4.33) id AA17619; Tue, 28 Aug 84 01:57:05 pdt From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@Berkeley Date: 28 Aug 84 01:42:16 CDT (Tue) Message-Id: <8408280642.AA00944@ihnp4.ATT.UUCP> Received: by ihnp4.ATT.UUCP; id AA00944; 28 Aug 84 01:42:16 CDT (Tue) To: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA Subject: nuclear alerts, nuclear weapons in the South Atlantic > Wasn't, in fact, the U.S. put on a full nuclear alert during the > 1973 Yom Kippur War? > > No. The US went to Defense Condition 3 -- more planes on alert, etc. > The US has been on "full nuclear alert" (DEFCON 1 (or maybe 2)) only > during the Cuban Missile Crisis. > > That's odd: I've read numerous times in the political science > literature that American forces were put on a nuclear alert during the > 1973 Yom Kippur War. That fact has even been asserted in network > television documentaries. Chomsky comments (p. 450): ... Do not confuse vagueness with information. Most people, including TV writers and many political scientists, have no idea that different levels of alert even *exist*, to say nothing of knowing what the levels mean. The words "nuclear alert", without further qualification, are a tipoff that the person speaking either doesn't know about the different levels or is deliberately oversimplifying. Don't take them too literally. ----- > "...the left-wing magazine The New Statesman published an article > suggesting that the [British] Government had contemplated a nuclear > threat or attack against Argentina... Left-wing sources are generally opposed to the British nuclear deterrent's very existence, and consequently have a vested interest in making such claims. This is not to say that the claims are necessarily false, just that the source is biased and the reports should be interpreted cautiously. On the surface, it seems most unlikely. Britain has very few Polaris subs, in fact too few -- maintaining one on patrol at all times is not easy with only four subs in total. (Remember that overhauls and transit time to/from patrol areas eat up a lot of time.) Detaching one to the South Atlantic is something that would not be done lightly. Note that people frequently confuse "nuclear submarine" with "submarine carrying nuclear missiles". > Spokesmen at the Ministry of Defense and the Foreign Office ... had > no comment ... > > 1) Are the allegations false ? If so, I would expect the Defense > Ministry and Foreign Office to respond with a vigorous denial, instead > of the equivocal 'no comment'. British policy is, and has been for a long time, that *all* questions on the whereabouts of nuclear weapons are answered with "no comment". Even when it hurts, e.g. the recent incident in which Invincible had to limp to Singapore for repairs, after Australia refused to perform them unless the British told whether she was carrying nuclear weapons. ------------------------------ Received: FROM HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA BY CISL-SERVICE-MULTICS.ARPA WITH dial; 28 AUG 1984 15:35:37 EDT Date: Tue, 28 Aug 84 12:12 MST From: Jong@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA Subject: Nuclear Winter & Crazy States To: arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA Message-ID: <840828191253.135960@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA> A nation (such as Israel) doesn't need more than one or two nuclear weapons to possess a credible deterrent. Would the Soviet Union nuke Israel if it knew (or feared) that the cost would be one of its southern cities? Would the U.S. invade Cuba if the cost were Miami? The domino effect, nuclear or otherwise, is real and serious. My limited historical reading tells me that except for the Germans, everyone was pulled screaming into the abyss of World War I. The major powers were aware of the consequences of their actions, but honored their treaty commitments nonetheless. If the Soviets invaded West Germany, many Europeans doubt we would defend them. Of course, we are compelled to insist that we would; and probably we would in fact, too. The concept of Sampsonizing the Middle East reminds me of the passage from "Dr. Strangelove" about the Soviet Doomsday device. If Israel (or any other nation) really intended to take out her enemies with her, it would be in her best interest to announce it publicly. Or did Mr. Begin love surprises? ------------------------------ Date: 28 August 1984 20:17-EDT From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-MC> Subject: British Nuclear Threat Against Argentina To: CAULKINS @ USC-ECL cc: ARMS-DISCUSSION @ MIT-MC, ARMSD @ MIT-MC In-reply-to: Msg of 27 Aug 1984 1709-PDT from CAULKINS at USC-ECL From: CAULKINS at USC-ECL A threat of use is very much closer to actual use than I at least care for. The NYT piece mentioned classified telegrams to the British embassy in Washington, suggesting that there may have been consultation with the US. How would it be in GB self-interest to consult with the US? ------------------------------ Date: 28 Aug 1984 1723-PDT From: CAULKINS@USC-ECL Subject: GB + Argentina To: armsd at MIT-MC This gets to be pretty thin speculation, BUT it would make some sense for a minor nuclear power like Britain to at least inform a major nuclear ally like the US that nuclear weapons were going to be used at a certain time and place. This would prevent the US from wrongly interpreting the source of the nuclear strike and taking some destabilizing counter action, and would have the secondary effect of preventing the US from getting really pissed off as happened when the British went off and did their own thing without consultation during the Suez crisis of 1956. ------------------------------ [End of ARMS-D Digest]