[fa.arms-d] Arms-Discussion Digest V2 #53

daemon@ucbvax.UUCP (08/23/84)

From FFM@MIT-MC  Wed Aug 22 20:27:50 1984
Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 2 : Issue 53

Today's Topics:

Nuclear Winter & Crazy States [7 msgs - I think we've got a hot topic
here, folks]; re: people, fear, ignorance

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat 18 Aug 84 05:27:30-EDT
From:  Wayne McGuire <MDC.WAYNE%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Nuclear Winter & Crazy States
To: SASW@MIT-MC
cc: Arms-d%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA, Prog-d%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA,
    MDC.WAYNE%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "Steven A. Swernofsky <SASW @ MIT-MC>" of Fri 17 Aug 84 22:56:00-EDT

     Um, -- I'm happy you enjoyed all the jokes in the Chomsky 
passage. I understand that Chomsky's been on a kind of Mark Twain trip
lately, which has lightened up his writing style wonderfully.

     Regarding the single point you specifically alluded to, Chomsky 
on pages 6 and 7 of _The Fateful Triangle_ comments in greater detail 
on Israel's relative military strength in the world:

     "[I]ts military power [is] ... now estimated to be surpassed only
by the U.S., the USSR and China...."

     "[This] estimate is that of the London-based International 
Institute of Strategic Studies; _Time_, Oct. 11, 1982. Israelis tend 
to rank their power one notch higher, describing themselves as the 
third most powerful military force in the world. See, for example, Dov
Yirmiah, _Yoman Hamilchama Sheli_ (_My War Diary_; privately printed, 
Tel Aviv, 1983, to be published in English translation by the South 
End Press), an important record of the Lebanon war...."

     Perhaps you have some concrete facts to contradict those of the 
International Institute of Strategic Studies? (Or did I misunderstand 
your point?)

------------------------------

Date: 18 August 1984 20:52-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Nuclear Winter & Crazy States
To: MDC.WAYNE @ MIT-OZ
cc: ARMS-DISCUSSION @ MIT-MC

Unfortunately we can't be sure of now many megatons it'll take to make
nuclear winter, so borderline attempts will be made by any nation
which underestimates the danger (overestimates the megaton threshold)
and is willing to be "crazy" and take a chance. Furthermore the
addition of local fallout to nuclear winter increases death, so
"doomsday on our own soil" is infeasible because in a borderline case
the nation with both fallout and nuclear almost-winter will be hurt
worse than other nations with only the nuclear winter. I agree
unilateral disarmament is becoming feasible now, like we disarm down
to the upper bound on nuclear-winter threshold (maybe 1000 megatons?
just a guess.), but we can't unilaterally disarm down to the
best-guess threshold because our best-guess threshold might be low and
thus our weaponry after disarming would be sub-nuclear-winter and thus
not an effective doomsday deterrent.

I like the idea of developing a stratosphereic sweeper. After
developing the technology, we could test it the next time a big
volcanic eruption occurs. Anybody have some practical ideas how to do
it in practice? (With massive development of space we could hang
millions of charged wires down from space into the stratosphere to
attract all colloidal material, the same idea as electrostatic
smoke-removers in chimneys. But we're at last 30 years away from such
massive technology in space and I don't think we have that long to
find a solution.)

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Aug 84 12:05:40 edt
From: utcsstat!ian (Ian F. Darwin)
Received: by uw-vlsi.arpa (3.346/1.8)
	id AA25586; 19 Aug 84 10:42:24 PDT (Sun)
Received: by uw-beaver.arpa (3.346/1.9)
	id AA13095; 19 Aug 84 10:35:39 PDT (Sun)
Return-Path: <utcsrgv!utcsstat!ian>
Message-Id: <8408191735.AA13095@uw-beaver.arpa>
To: utcsrgv!uw-beaver!ARMS-D@MIT-MC.arpa
Subject:  re: people, fear, ignorance

	The suggestion was made that people do not act on nuclear
	war because they get nightmares when they think about it.

My answer to this is that we most fear that which we least understand.
And the level of ignorance about nuclear war among the general public
is, to say the least, immense.

The best we can do in the short term is to educate people. There are
a number of books which propogate strange fallacies about the actual
nature of nuclear war. How about some discussion on the merits
of the popularising books on nukes?

------------------------------

Date: 19 August 1984 19:06-EDT
From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-MC>
Subject:  Nuclear Winter & Crazy States
To: MDC.WAYNE @ MIT-OZ
cc: ARMS-DISCUSSION @ MIT-MC, LIN @ MIT-MC, Arms-d @ MIT-OZ,
    Prog-d @ MIT-OZ
In-reply-to: Msg of Wed 15 Aug 84 18:54:10-EDT from Wayne McGuire <MDC.WAYNE%MIT-OZ at MIT-MC.ARPA>


    From: Wayne McGuire <MDC.WAYNE%MIT-OZ at MIT-MC.ARPA>

         I assume everyone on this list is well-acquainted with Sagan's
    nuclear winter thesis, and I will not bother to recount its central
    tenets. Most attention so far has focused on the horror of the nuclear
    winter itself. In the New York Times of August 12, David V. Forrest,
    in a letter to the editor, raises some very intriguing and creative
    questions about the _strategic implications_ of the nuclear winter
    scenario. 

         Forrest's most disturbing speculation is his remark that "All
    that is necessary for any nation to achieve nuclear deterrence (or
    nuclear blackmail) is the capacity to detonante 100 megatons of
    devices on its own soil."... This kind of "secret weapon" 
    is one to which a state that sees itself as
    threatened and dependent may resort, and it becomes an extraordinarily
    dangerous one in the hands of the world's fourth greatest military
    power [Israel], equipped with an extremely efficient and powerful air
    force capable of bombing the oil fields and nuclear weapons and
    missiles that can reach the USSR, and undergoing internal social and
    political developments of the kinds that have taken place in Israel
    since the 1967 conquest--thanks to U.S. "support."

What all the nuclear winter people seem to have forgotten when they
cite the "100 MT threshhold" is that the scenario refers to 1000
(repeat, one thousand) 100 KT weapons delivered on cities on which
there is much to burn.  One thousand nuclear weapons is quite a far
cry from 100 weapons, and therefore I don't worry about Israel or
Libya or anyone else but the U.S. or the Soviet Union having anything
to do with nuclear winter actually happening.  

The problem with discussing a "100 MT threshhold" is that people
immediately associate the number 100 with the number of bombs.  I
expect this of the general public, but not of Arms-D people.

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by MIT-OZ via Chaosnet; 19 Aug 84 19:14-EDT
Date: 19 August 1984 19:08-EDT
From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-MC>
Subject:  Nuclear Winter & Crazy States
To: SASW @ MIT-MC
cc: ARMS-DISCUSSION @ MIT-MC, Arms-d @ MIT-OZ, MDC.WAYNE @ MIT-OZ,
    Prog-d @ MIT-OZ
In-reply-to: Msg of 17 Aug 1984 22:56-EDT from Steven A. Swernofsky <SASW>

    Date: 17 August 1984 22:56-EDT
    From: Steven A. Swernofsky <SASW>
    To:   Arms-Discussion, MDC.WAYNE at MIT-OZ
    cc:   SASW, Arms-d at MIT-OZ, Prog-d at MIT-OZ
    Re:   Nuclear Winter & Crazy States

        Date: Wed 15 Aug 84 18:54:10-EDT
        From: Wayne McGuire <MDC.WAYNE%MIT-OZ at MIT-MC.ARPA>

        ... in the hands of the world's fourth greatest military power
        [Israel], ...

    Hey, this is pretty good!  I guess that if you don't pay attention, you
    miss all the good jokes!  Ha ha ha!

If this is sarcasm, I'm not sure it is well-placed.  Who else would
you put in 4th place when you place the US, USSR, and China in ahead?

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Aug 1984  20:16 EDT
Message-ID: <OAF.12040801137.BABYL@MIT-OZ>
From: OAF%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
To:   Wayne McGuire <MDC.WAYNE%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
CC:   prog-d%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA, arms-d%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Nuclear Winter & Crazy States

(Presumption:  You've all read Mr. McGuire's contribution of the
same title.)

Re the "Samson complex."  Aren't you in a feeding frenzy with regard	
to Israel?  Does it make sense that Israel is planning to manufacture
the provocation for destroying the world?  Not even the Protocols of
the Elders of Zion goes that far.

Is it fair to say that if your kludge of "The Fateful Triangle" and
nuclear winter is righteous, then the only way out is preventively
nuking Israel?  I've heard of people like that ... [There are physical
and political facts that stand in the way of your combination being
right, but what's real-world between friends?]

As goes "Fourth Greatest Military power," you should say that with
certain reservations.  Certainly from the viewpoint of delivering
	a short blow of maximum intensity 
	on concentrations of military forces
	of a geographically proximate enemy

the Israelis rate --- I could even believe they're number 3 instead of
4, which doesn't matter much unless the opponent is number 1 or 2.
Something wrong with that?  (If not, why was it mentioned?)  HOWEVER,
when it comes to projection of military power, staying ability in a
serious war of attrition, surviving a first strike or waging economic
warfare you can forget it --- they're big losers.  So let's try to be
specific, okay?  That includes how you use IISS data, or how blindly
you quote your heroes.

Thanks to Herb Lin for pointing out the necessary conditions for
nuclear winter, and why the Israelis don't have what it takes.  But
let's accept your thesis for a second, and assume they do:  Pray, what
makes it *extraordinarily* dangerous to threaten nuclear winter if
you're about to be wiped out (Israel)?  Isn't that a fair deterrent,
especially if your enemy has good reason to believe you?  Are the US,
USSR, China, perhaps others only "ordinarily" dangerous?  [In short, do
the Israelis owe you the courtesy of preserving your life as they roast?]

Something else --- I find it insinuative and weasel-faced to use the
term "1967 conquest" as Chomsky is apparently quoted --- unless of
course you think the Israelis provoked the 1967 war in order to grab
that land.  (Which of course is everyone's right, though perhaps not
in accordance with fax.)  If someone IS trying to make that assertion,
it should be done directly, so one can see whether one agrees.  If the
word is Chomsky's it's a moot point, since to my knowledge he doesn't
read netmail.  If the word is yours it is a distasteful slur, in my
estimation a deliberate untruth.

By the way (extending "extraordinarily dangerous"), Mr. Chomsky is
quoted as saying that Israel has nuclear weapons, and you in a
separate message that they have "a large nuclear arsenal."  How do you
know?  And missiles that can reach the USSR -- how do he know that?
(I'm not arguing, perish forbid.  I'd just like to see a source for
saying something like that.)  Given that the Israelis have these
weapons and these missiles, what can we assume?  That they're planning
to attack the USSR?  Should we take their toys away because they're
not responsible enough to use them right?  Should I ask the Israeli
consulate in Boston --- they could quote me chapter and verse
(intercepted radio communications, stolen documents, perhaps official
announcements) of the three times the Soviet Union threatened to use
nuclear weapons against Israel.  (Actually, I doubt they would quote
chapter and verse, but is isn't hard for the gentle reader to figure
out the three obvious dates, namely (early) 1957, 1967 and 1973.  In fact,
careful people could work their way down almost to the day, without
doing more than reading standard history books or the New York Times or
something, and I guarantee you those threats are not quoted there.)
Is it unfair for the ants to threaten the elephant in return?

Still extending "extraordinarily dangerous," may I inquire why US
"support" is in quotes?  Isn't it really support?  Is there a hidden
message I'm failing to detect?  In particular, is somebody implying that
the internal social and political developments that have taken place
in Israel have been intentionally sponsored by the US?  What would
they have turned out like without our wise guidance?

Oded 

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by MIT-OZ via Chaosnet; 20 Aug 84 01:06-EDT
Date: 20 August 1984 01:05-EDT
From: Steven A. Swernofsky <SASW @ MIT-MC>
Subject:  Nuclear Winter & Crazy States
To: MDC.WAYNE @ MIT-OZ
cc: SASW @ MIT-MC, Arms-d @ MIT-OZ, Prog-d @ MIT-OZ
In-reply-to: Msg of Sat 18 Aug 84 05:27:30-EDT from Wayne McGuire <MDC.WAYNE%MIT-OZ at MIT-MC.ARPA>

Really now.  I would have thought that even such third-rate powers as
the U.K., France, or West Germany would be more than a match for
Israel.  And Israel's performance in 1973 hardly befits ''the world's
fourth greatest military power,'' unless of course Egypt is the world's
5th-6th greatest.  (You never know.)

I suppose the Israeli Navy is the world's fourth greatest also?
-- Steve

------------------------------

Date: Mon 20 Aug 84 01:43:07-EDT
From:  Wayne McGuire <MDC.WAYNE%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Nuclear Winter & Crazy States
To: Lin%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA, Oaf%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Arms-d%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA, Prog-d%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA,
    mdc.wayne%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA

     I will combine my responses to Herb Lin and Oaf Feingold.

     I don't blindly subscribe to all the points and propositions in
David Forrest's New York Times letter or the passage from Noam
Chomsky's book, nor will I attempt to defend all their assumptions and
arguments. It does seem to me, however, that to juxtapose the nuclear
winter and crazy state scenarios is to open up a fertile field for
speculation.

     Herb Lin demolished the notion that exploding 100 megatons of
nuclear devices in one's backyard would trigger the nuclear winter. I
don't think that fact closes the case on the subject. Can we safely
assume that during the next decade that, other than the U.S. and USSR,
a number of the most powerful nations in the world that seem to
qualify for potential crazy statehood won't be able to find ways to
deliver 1000 100 KT weapons or more outside their borders? One hears
much these days, for instance, about briefcase nuclear devices which
could be planted with some ease in any major city in the world.
Perhaps the briefcase bomb is just the stuff of suspense fiction, but
I have seen a number of articles in the Times and elsewhere which
suggest it is a feasible technology. There may be a handful of nations
in the world that feel so threatened by their neighbors, and by the
world community at large, that they might take the trouble to
establish a last line of defense of this kind.

     Oded: you seem to me to be drawing inferences from Forrest and
Chomsky which go far beyond the texts. You remark: "Is it fair to say
that if your kludge of 'The Fateful Triangle' and nuclear winter is
righteous, then the only way out is preventively nuking Israel?" The
answer to that question is obviously no. The solution would be to help
foster an atmosphere in which Israel felt secure and unthreatened. But
then one could legitimately ask how that state of security can ever
come to pass if the ruling forces of Israel continue to pursue a
policy of messianic expansionism.

     Your point about Israel's lack of staying power in an extended
conflict, despite its status as, perhaps, the fourth most powerful
military force in the world, is well taken. In fact, during the Yom
Kippur War, while Nixon was too preoccupied with the collapse of his
administration to attend to the crisis in the Middle East, didn't
Israel come close to being overrun for want of supplies? But consider:
it is this very vulnerability in staying power which raises the
concern that Israel, if her back were against the wall, might be
driven precipitately to pull down, Samson-like, the temple of the
Middle East, and perhaps of even a larger region.

     Chomsky explores in depth the question of who provoked the 1967
war, but that discussion is largely tangential to the nuclear winter
and crazy state question.

     A small point: Chomsky I suppose I reverence in some sense as a
linguistic philosopher ("how blindly you quote your heroes"), but not
as a political scientist. _The Fateful Triangle_ is, however, a
provocative work of impressive scholarship and argumentative
coherence. It is also a courageous work when one considers how much
abuse he has had to endure for alienating mainstream Zionism.

     That is fairly astonishing news about the USSR having threatened
three times in the past to nuke Israel. Can you elaborate?

     Perhaps one reason why the world community is extra sensitive to
the possibility that Israel might be afflicted with a "Samson complex"
is that certain ominous mythic themes keep surfacing in Israeli
political discourse and general cultural semiology. What has been
called the "Masada complex," which is proudly flourished before
visiting dignitaries to Israel as a sign of some pregnant
significance, has appeared to some political analysts and diplomats as
a transparent threat to enact a Samson scenario if threatened beyond
some unspecified threshold.

------------------------------
[End of ARMS-D Digest]

daemon@ucbvax.UUCP (08/24/84)

From @MIT-MC:RICCHIO@MIT-XX.ARPA  Fri Aug 24 05:07:09 1984
q

-------