daemon@ucbvax.UUCP (08/28/84)
From FFM@MIT-MC Mon Aug 27 19:41:07 1984
Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 2 : Issue 56
Today's Topics:
Nuclear Winter & Crazy States (5 msgs), Nuclear Winter & Crazy States
-> domino effect to doomsday etc., Samsonizing the world by using
biological weapons..., British Nuclear Threat Against Argentina (2
msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 1984 15:39 EDT
Message-ID: <OAF.12042061451.BABYL@MIT-OZ>
From: OAF%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
To: Robert Elton Maas <REM@MIT-MC>
Cc: ARMS-D@MIT-MC
Subject: Nuclear Winter & Crazy States -> domino effect to doomsday etc.
In-reply-to: Msg of 24 Aug 1984 12:12-EDT from Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
This is in no sense a complete answer. I hope it's enough to be a
stopper:
Israel has no conceivable way of initiating nuclear winter by presently
accepted or suspected means. Arguments based on that assumption don't
impact reality.
On its own merits your chain is interesting, but I doubt its simple
domino effect. Argentina can't destroy Israel because it can't
deliver weapons there, so there's a distance damper. Also, Syria,
Iraq and Libya, even if equipped with nuclear weapons in sufficient
quantity, PROBABLY couldn't destroy Israel because the Israeli air
force is good at shooting things out of the sky, to some people's
everlasting regret.
Back to reality: There are only five countries (six if you count West
Germany by assuming they'd build a nuclear arsenal, and five again if
you assume that China either won't or can't do nasty things in the
Middle East) that could nuke Israel at present. Only one of these
might be tempted to try. If the Israelis create a nuclear deterrent,
all they'd have to do is present a credible threat making the cost of
smashing them high enough to keep the British in line. Why bother
announcing to the world and getting into more political trouble?
Rats, I aint rebutting, am I?
------------------------------
Received: from MIT-MC by MIT-OZ via Chaosnet; 25 Aug 84 00:22-EDT
Date: 25 August 1984 00:19-EDT
From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Nuclear Winter & Crazy States
To: MDC.WAYNE @ MIT-OZ
cc: Arms-d @ MIT-OZ, Lin @ MIT-OZ, Oaf @ MIT-OZ, Prog-d @ MIT-OZ
In-reply-to: Msg of 24 Aug 1984 02:25 EDT (Fri) from Wayne McGuire <MDC.WAYNE%MIT-OZ at MIT-MC.ARPA>
(From Wayne)
Wasn't, in fact, the U.S. put on a full nuclear alert during the
1973 Yom Kippur War?
(From Lin)
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.
(From Wayne)
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.... Cite me, if you will, an
authority for your assertion that U.S. forces were _not_ put on a
nuclear alert during the Yom Kippur War.)
It depends on what you mean by "nuclear alert". I readily acknowledge
that the readiness state of U.S. nuclear forces was indeed raised
during the Yom Kippur war. However, DEFCON 1 is what is normally
meant by "full nuclear alert", and we haven't done that.
Whose nuclear tipped missiles? The Israelis sure don't have them.
(From Chomsky)
They cite reports ... that Israel has about 200 'operational nuclear
warheads' (attributed to the CIA), including a tactical and strategic
arsenal, and is working on a netron bomb.
No. The number of 200 is the *maximum* capability that Israel might
possibly have given what sources of fissionable material it has
(including theft). Saying that Israel *has* 200 bombs because it
*could* have them is just the same thing as Pentagon analysts doing
worst case scenarios of the Soviets.
.... The September 1979 incident
in which American and Soviet spy satellites detected a suspected
nuclear explosion over the Indian Ocean was in actuality the explosion
of a nuclear shell launched from a cannon in a joint experiment of
South Africa and Israel that involved 'one of the most advanced
tactical nuclear systems to be used anywhere in the world.'
The case is not closed on the 9/79 incident, and is not know for sure
that it was in fact a nuclear explosion. There is no known and
reliable source that asserts that the Soviet nuclear detection
satellites saw anything; only a US satellite did. It saw the double
flash characteristic of a nuclear explosion, but it could have been
caused by other things (such as a meteor) -- so concluded a U.S.
review panel chaired by Jack Ruina at MIT. No other evidence was found.
Cruise
missiles are under development, jointly with South Africa and Taiwan,
with a 1500 mile range, sufficient to hit 'many targets in southern
USSR.' Israel has 'a variety of launching systems,' including American
and Israeli-made planes, surface-to-surface missiles, and soon to
come, a nuclear gun and cruise missiles."
True. But they don't have long range ballistic missiles. However,
from an ex-CIA analyst, I do know that the Israelis have long range
fighter bombers that the CIA believes are nuclear capable.
Besides, your claim that the US and USSR being fundamentally rational
enough to refrain from direct nuclear war directly contradicts this
statement above. Are Soviet interests in the Middle East worth a
global conflagration to the Soviets? I think not.
I can't think of a better way inadvertently to bring on a global
thermonuclear war than for either of the superpowers to underestimate
how important a particular strategic interest is to the other. One has
to factor in such irrational elements as ego and pride, as well as
practical interests, when deciding how far to push an opponent. If the
U.S. adopted your assumption that the Soviet Union was unwilling to
fight ferociously for its interests in the Middle East, then I think
we might well find ourselves in a situation ripe for the start of
World War III.
People become irrational when they feel seriously threatened. Vital
interests must be at stake before a serious threat exists.
As for WW III, my original point stands -- it is the US and the
Soviets that bear the primary responsibility for ending the
ever-increasing number and quality of nuclear weapons. Third-world
states don't mean a damn in this.
Can you present a more plausible scenario than Chomsky's for the
occasion of an outbreak of global nuclear war?
Yes. Unrest in Eastern Europe leading to Soviet invasion of East
Germany, leading to NATO mobilization, triggering Soviet pre-emption.
------------------------------
Date: 26 August 1984 18:04-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, Arms-d @ MIT-OZ
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):
Defense Condition 3 is a military readiness level that applies to BOTH
Conventional and Nuclear forces. By and large it consists of cancelling
leaves and having more crews standing ready by their equipment.
Your quoting of Chomsky's rampant speculations is getting rather tiresome:
They cite reports ... that Israel has about 200 'operational nuclear
warheads' (attributed to the CIA), including a tactical and strategic
arsenal, and is working on a netron bomb.
I was not aware that the CIA generally published such reports. Your
(Chomsky's) use of speculation piled upon ridiculous assumptions is bound
to lead to ridiculous conclusions.
Admittedly, most of the information one needs to have an informed
discussion in these areas is not public knowledge. However, there are
much more believable sources of speculation on what really happened
in October 1973. In particular there was at least one mildly believable
book put out by the staff of the London Times. I don't have the
exact reference handy anymore, since I picked it up in a public library.
However, I recommend reading that or some other mildly reputable and
less biased source before you believe Chomsky's balderdash. And it
doesn't impress me the least if Chomsky is just quoting Israeli sources.
They have a very imaginative press.
As for the brief flash seen by one of our satellites in the Indian Ocean
in September 1979. I have not heard of any publicly available
corraborating data as to the cause of the flash. I am deeply suspicious
(to the point of dismissing out of hand) of any source that claims to have
as detailed a description of the circumstances as you give.
other source of information
------------------------------
Received: from MIT-MC by MIT-OZ via Chaosnet; 26 Aug 84 18:04-EDT
Date: 26 August 1984 18:04-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, Arms-d @ MIT-OZ
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):
Defense Condition 3 is a military readiness level that applies to BOTH
Conventional and Nuclear forces. By and large it consists of cancelling
leaves and having more crews standing ready by their equipment.
Your quoting of Chomsky's rampant speculations is getting rather tiresome:
They cite reports ... that Israel has about 200 'operational nuclear
warheads' (attributed to the CIA), including a tactical and strategic
arsenal, and is working on a netron bomb.
I was not aware that the CIA generally published such reports. Your
(Chomsky's) use of speculation piled upon ridiculous assumptions is bound
to lead to ridiculous conclusions.
Admittedly, most of the information one needs to have an informed
discussion in these areas is not public knowledge. However, there are
much more believable sources of speculation on what really happened
in October 1973. In particular there was at least one mildly believable
book put out by the staff of the London Times. I don't have the
exact reference handy anymore, since I picked it up in a public library.
However, I recommend reading that or some other mildly reputable and
less biased source before you believe Chomsky's balderdash. And it
doesn't impress me the least if Chomsky is just quoting Israeli sources.
They have a very imaginative press.
As for the brief flash seen by one of our satellites in the Indian Ocean
in September 1979. I have not heard of any publicly available
corraborating data as to the cause of the flash. I am deeply suspicious
(to the point of dismissing out of hand) of any source that claims to have
as detailed a description of the circumstances as you give.
other source of information
------------------------------
Date: 26 August 1984 23:24-EDT
From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Samsonizing the world by using biological weapons...
To: sde @ MITRE-BEDFORD
cc: ARMS-D @ MIT-MC, ARMS-DISCUSSION @ MIT-MC
In-reply-to: Msg of 24 Aug 1984 09:13:46-EDT from sde at Mitre-Bedford
I agree with you. However, the defect in your otherwise convincing
case is that we haven't had the fear of biological warfare instilled
in us to the extent that it has been for nuclear warfare.
On the other hand, just wait a few years. We will.
------------------------------
Date: 26 August 1984 23:34-EDT
From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-MC>
Subject: British Nuclear Threat Against Argentina
To: CAULKINS @ USC-ECL
cc: LIN @ MIT-MC, ARMS-DISCUSSION @ MIT-MC, ARMSD @ MIT-MC
In-reply-to: Msg of 24 Aug 1984 1723-PDT from CAULKINS at USC-ECL
From: CAULKINS at USC-ECL
Several questions arise:
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'.
Why? Indeed, former Defense Minster Heseltine I believe has denied it.
3) If the US did know (which seems likely), did we encourage or
discourage the British plan ?
Why should the US know? How would they? If you try to tell me that
the submarine could not have gone all the way to the South Atlantic
w/o US knowledge, I would find that quite implausible.
On the other hand, nuclear depth charges are common and standard
equipment on some British ships, and I have heard (can't remember
where) that some of the British task force did not unload their
nuclear weapons before going south. I have also heard
(fourth hand from an ex-CIA connection) that the British were tempted
to use them to destroy Argentinian subs after British ASW proved
ineffective (indeed, reports are that some torpedoes hit a carrier,
but did not explode). The British question was whether the US or
anyone else could discover their use, and when they realized that it
would pop every SOSUS microphone in the Atlantic, they decided against
it.
I find the notion that the Brisith would actually USE a Polaris
missile against an Argentinian city absurd. They might threaten to
use it, but you don't need to send a sub to do that.
------------------------------
Date: 27 Aug 1984 1709-PDT
From: CAULKINS@USC-ECL
Subject: British Nuclear Threat Against Argentina
To: armsd at MIT-MC
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.
------------------------------
Date: 27 Aug 1984 00:45 EDT (Mon)
Message-ID: <MDC.WAYNE.12042685199.BABYL@MIT-OZ>
From: Wayne McGuire <MDC.WAYNE%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
To: Charles Frankston <CBF@MIT-MC>
Cc: Arms-d%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA, ARMS-DISCUSSION@MIT-MC, LIN@MIT-MC,
mdc.wayne%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Nuclear Winter & Crazy States
In-reply-to: Msg of 26 Aug 1984 18:04-EDT from Charles Frankston <CBF at MIT-MC>
Date: Sunday, 26 August 1984 18:04-EDT
From: Charles Frankston <CBF at MIT-MC>
To: MDC.WAYNE
cc: ARMS-DISCUSSION at MIT-MC, LIN at MIT-MC, Arms-d
Re: Nuclear Winter & Crazy States
.... Chomsky's rampant speculations .... (Chomsky's) use
of speculation piled upon ridiculous assumptions
is bound to lead to ridiculous conclusions ....
Chomsky's balderdash.
This isn't argument: this is name-calling. Check out the exchanges on
_The Fateful Triangle_ in _The New York Review of Books_ of August 16
for a more substantive approach to discussing Chomsky's book.
They cite reports ... that Israel has about 200
'operational nuclear warheads' (attributed to the CIA),
including a tactical and strategic arsenal, and
is working on a netron bomb.
I was not aware that the CIA generally published such reports.
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.
Admittedly, most of the information one needs to have an
informed discussion in these areas is not public knowledge.
However, there are much more believable sources of
speculation on what really happened in October 1973.
In particular there was at least one mildly believable book
put out by the staff of the London Times. I don't have the
exact reference handy anymore, since I picked it up in
a public library.
What are the specific and concrete facts and arguments in this book
you mention which contradict Chomsky's account?
The best public guides I am aware of, by the way, to information on
this topic and other arms related topics are:
1) ABC POL-SCI
2) Air University Library Index to Military Periodicals
3) International Political Science Abstracts
4) Quarterly Strategic Bibliography
5) Social Sciences Index
And it doesn't impress me the least if Chomsky is just
quoting Israeli sources. They have a very imaginative press.
Chomsky relies on Israeli, Arab, and European sources, and he is on
intimate terms with the mainstream American political science
literature on the subject. One of his key sources in analyzing the Yom
Kippur war, if you will recall, was a recent article in _International
Security_, one of the most respected forums in the U.S. for the
discussion of strategic issues.
I am not especially sympathetic to Chomsky's ideological stance
(whatever that is), but what impressed me about _The Fateful Triangle_
was how free, on the whole, it was of ideological ranting, and how
rich it was in the lucid exposition of thousands of facts which are
seldom reported in the American press.
------------------------------
[End of ARMS-D Digest]