C70:arms-d (08/01/82)
>From HGA@MIT-MC Sat Jul 31 23:47:51 1982
Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 0 : Issue 153
Today's Topics:
More on Caldicott vs Clayton
Mutant germs & Sci-Fi
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 31 Jul 1982 0929-PDT
From: Herb Lin <LIN at WASHINGTON>
Subject: More on Caldicott vs Clayton
On the contention that a 1000 MT bomb detonated in outer space could
devastate an area the size of six western states, it really does
depend on what you mean by "devastate", doesn't it? Through EMP,
sure, but it wouldn't take 1000 MT. By blast? Forget it - no air in
space, remember?
[From: G.asa at Berkeley on Clayton vs Calldicott]
I'm curious as to the source for the information given on
the targeting of Russian missiles. The implication is that the
Russians haven't targeted civilian centers at all, which I don't
find credible.
For what it's worth, US targeting policy has about 93% of its weapons
aimed at military and economic targets, rather than people centers.
In other words, only 7% are targeted towards people centers with no
significant military or economic value. This was the case in the late
1960's, and there is no reason why it should be different now.
Source: Richard Garwin, Defense Science Board. Still, 7% of 20,000 is
1400 warheads, which is hardly zero.
------------------------------
Date: 31 July 1982 14:52-EDT
From: Zigurd R. Mednieks <ZRM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Mutant germs & Sci-Fi
It's quite true that advances in civil engineering have allowed us to
hyperextend the amount of developement a given region could otherwise
support, but L.A. ain't Everytown USA and extrapolating the
difficulties cities will face to the whole country is very misleading.
Further, bleating about mutant germs is bad science, bad form, and an
open invitation to cast Mr. Hevelin in with the yahoos. He chooses to
brand the only hard data we have on the effects of nuclear weapons as
lacking in meaning.
What the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki should teach us is that
deterrent cannot be allowed to fail. Going with the historically
unpromising option of unilateral disarmament seems to be a needlessly
dangerous course, opening ourselves to destruction without any
recourse, even response in kind. Could France have stopped Hitler by
dismantling their own army? Will Cambodia be freed without armed
struggle? Could England face down some nuclear armed second rate power
(lets say Argentina had the bomb) without their own independent
nuclear force?
Disarmament advocates invoke apocalyptic scenarios without considering
the hard problems that real world negotiators face. This to their
detriment and everyone elses. If there were a way to put the genie
back in the bottle, I'd like to hear about it.
My own prediction is that the only way that the current nuclear threat
will be diminished will be through the developement of effective
defense against ICBMs. This will relegate ICBMs to being terror
weapons and therefore largely useless to the superpowers.
Cheers,
Zig
------------------------------
End of Arms-D Digest
********************