C70:arms-d (06/29/82)
>From HGA@MIT-MC Tue Jun 29 00:07:57 1982
Arms-Discussion Digest Extra Volume 0 : Issue 132
Today's Topics:
Economic Weapons
Watering the Tree of Liberty
Comments on Comments by Wdoherty
Risking death
Citizen's rights, no-first-use (rebuttal)
Comments on Access to Energy Piece
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 27 Jun 1982 2210-PDT
From: Jim McGrath <CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Economic Weapons
It is perfectly proper and moral to try and destroy the Soviet
economy. You can view it as simply a form of strategic warfare. Or
you can consider it a way of SAVING lives - ie if we can defeat the
Soviets economically, then we need never have a world war. Of course
you have to be careful not to provoke the USSR into a military
conflict while you are attacking them economically.
Actually, while I support using high-tech and food as weapons, I
really feel that our greatest weapon is information. The Soviet
people have all their information carefully managed by the government
- providing them with an independent source of information would
probably force the Soviet government to act more responsibly. Even
something as simple as broadcasting the network national news to the
Soviets would do wonders. The only things you have to worry about are
1) the news MUST be non-censored (which is why it should be produced
by the networks, not the government), 2) we have to be able to safely
send it (ie a communications station is space, well protected by our
government from attack by the Soviet government), and 3) the Soviet
citizens have to be able to receive the programs without difficulty
(ie we need a POWERFUL transmitter with small ground stations, for
which we supply plans (or even parts!)).
Jim
------------------------------
Date: 27 Jun 1982 2325-PDT
From: Jim McGrath <CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Watering the Tree of Liberty
From CSVAX.upstill@Berkeley
Excuse me if the accusation is misplaced, but it seems to me
that it is the Right which is always reminding us that those
who are not prepared to fight for liberty deserve to lose it.
Excused, although it is misinterpreted if not misplaced. Yes, people
must fight for their freedoms - but that is only because they WILL
lose them if they do not. I never met someone who claimed that
fighting IN AND OF ITSELF is a good thing. Thus if you can keep your
freedoms without inviting in an occupying power to shoot random
citizens every hour as long as you do not comply to their orders, then
you should.
I prefer a citizen army to a draft one. But I prefer a draft army to
a mercenary one. These preferences are based on their relative
threats to our freedoms.
Jim
------------------------------
Date: 28 Jun 1982 0142-PDT
From: Jim McGrath <CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Comments on Comments
Comments on the comments of Will Doherty's (WDOHERTY@BBNG) message of
June 20.
MILITARY EDUCATION from Jim McGrath--
Why don't we study disarmament instead of military arts?
You cannot study what does not exist (a flip, but concise, answer).
We have a lot of experience fighting wars, and little of peace. And
what we do know about peace seems to characterize that state more
accurately as the "absence of war." Thus we need to know about wars
and the military who fight them.
In any case, I'll promote any plan to spend a portion of the
present arms budget on education rather than further
destruction. Let's not take the funds from the social service
budget though, OK?
It would most logical to take them from the Department of Education.
US-USSR FUNDING from Cox--
It just does not make sense to wage war for peace (this in
reference especially to U.S. refusal to reject first
strike--at least Brezhnev had the sense to wield some
popularity by his propagandistic commitment to end Soviet
plans for first strike).
Right - the USSR was "smart" enough to use their pledge for a
propaganda ploy. That really inspires confidence in me as to their
commitment to their pledge.
More to the point, as has been repeatedly covered here, we CANNOT
honestly renounce first use of nukes without building up our
conventional strength - something "peace" advocates also oppose.
RISKING DEATH from Cox--
The centralized control of armed forces in both the United
States and the Soviet Union makes such democratic decisions
impossible.
What are you talking about? "Centralized control?" You MUST mean
CIVILIAN control, or somesuch, since CENTRALIZATION has no relation to
democracy per se. And the fact is that the US military is responsible
to a democratically elected government, while the military forces of
the USSR often DETERMINE their "civilian" government, which is in any
case an outright dictatorship.
At least until we are sure that our very survival depends on
the use of violence, I feel that we should not use violent
means.
If someone threatens to cut off your arm, would you disarm them?
Even if it involved striking them, and thus committing "violence?"
As stated, your position is the ultimate in pacifism - and thus very
counter survival in this rough world of ours.
We can start by recognizing that almost all of the conflicts
we have are solved peacefully, that violence is the exception
not the rule.
Most decisions in this world are made peacefully. Most decisions are
also trivial. Important decisions are often decided violently.
Jim
------------------------------
Date: 28 Jun 1982 0152-PDT
From: Jim McGrath <CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Re: risking death
From: CAULKINS at USC-ECL
I agree only on my personal right to risk my life for my
beliefs. I most emphatically disagree with anyone else's
right to make that decision for me, or for anyone else.
You are perfectly entitled to your beliefs. But, quite frankly, that
is NOT how the world is run, or has ever run. And no state of any
consequence CAN be run in that manner.
The solution is simple - renounce your citizenship. That is the only
way you will ever be true to your beliefs.
One of my major concerns right now is the bellicose stance of
the US; we are the ones who insist on the right to use nuclear
weapons first and/or in response to a conventional attack.
For good reason - the "peace" advocates have steadily depleted our
conventional military forces so that we would have no alternative.
I'll advocate renouncing the first use of nukes when we can handle any
conventional Soviet attack - to do so beforehand would be stupid
and/or dishonest.
Jim
------------------------------
Date: 28 Jun 1982 0815-PDT
From: CAULKINS at USC-ECL
Subject: citizen's rights, no-first-use (rebuttal)
Like most simple solutions, this one [renouncing citizenship] is
wrong. Far better to retain citizenship and try to change the state.
Sakahrov is more effective (and braver) than Solzhenitsyn.
Talk about stupid ! Even the US military admits that even limited
tactical use of nukes is quite likely to escalate to The Full Nuclear
Exchange; to risk destruction of the ozone layer, complete destruction
of our society (and that of the Soviets plus lots of innocent
bystanders), etc., etc. for some supposed 5 or 10 year time scale
political/military advantage has got to be the height of folly. The
more so since precision guided munitions make it possible to redress
any supposed conventional imbalance.
What are your references for "peace" advocate depletion of
conventional forces ?
------------------------------
Date: 28 Jun 1982 1021-PDT
From: Jim McGrath <CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Re: citizen's rights, no-first-use (rebuttal)
CAULKINS@USC-ECL
Like most simple solutions, this one is wrong. Far better to
retain citizenship and try to change the state.
That is my whole point - if you believe (as you stated) that the
majority of people should not have the power to make decisions binding
on you that might entail your death, then you have NO recourse but
renouncing citizenship. For to continue to be a citizen entails your
commitment to abide by the rule of the majority (minus our minority
rights safeguards) - a position you oppose on principle. I cannot see
how you can reconcile the two differing stances.
Note that this problem is not new one - see in particular CRITO.
CAULKINS@USC-ECL
Sakahrov is more effective (and braver) than Solzhenitsyn.
Your belief does not correspond to that of either gentlemen. Either
would gladly give their lives for a cause decided to be just by a
state they considered to be justly constituted. Unlike you and I,
they will never have such a chance in their homeland.
CAULKINS@USC-ECL
Talk about stupid ! Even the US military admits that even
limited tactical use of nukes is quite likely to escalate to
The Full Nuclear Exchange; to risk destruction of the ozone
layer, complete destruction of our society (and that of the
Soviets plus lots of innocent bystanders), etc., etc. for some
supposed 5 or 10 year time scale political/military advantage
has got to be the height of folly.
Ever hear of a strategy called DETERRENCE? I NEVER advocated a first
strike itself - so please direct your comments to what I SAID, NOT
what you consider *stupid* (the implication being that anyone who
would dare to disagree with you would HAVE to be stupid).
Setup Strawmen on you own time and WITHOUT use of my words. Your
kneejerk reaction is quite insulting and throughly discredits any
valid arguments you may assemble.
CAULKINS@USC-ECL
The more so since precision guided munitions make it possible
to redress any supposed conventional imbalance.
Once again, keep your rebuttal to what I SAY - if you do then you will
find no difference between your "rebuttal" and my statement above.
Otherwise don't bother to comment on my messages - you apparently have
not read them anyway.
CAULKINS@USC-ECL
What are your references for "peace" advocate depletion of
conventional forces ?
Come on now - do I have to cite 35 years of effort on the part of
liberals in Congress to cut the defense budget? Cuts which were
made, at best, across the board, and, at worse, in the "low priority"
areas - manpower levels, weapon readiness, spare parts, and, in
general, anything and everything needed for a conventional war? The
only time the liberals ever let up was during the Vietnam War -
which, ironically, was THEIR war.
And all this time they painted themselves (and were accepted) as
advocates of peace (as opposed to those bad old conservatives - once
again with Vietnam from 62 to 68 as an exception). And everyone else
who are public advocates of "peace" have always supported these
efforts to cut the budget of the wicked and wasteful DoD, so that more
tax money could be spent on welfare, food stamps, and medicare (and
recently social security).
You may say these people, by ignoring the realities of this world, and
thereby probably INCREASING the chances of war, are not true advocates
of peace. And I agree (as you can tell, once again, by a simple and
straightforward reading of my message).
Jim
------------------------------
Date: 28 Jun 1982 0857-PDT
From: Jim McGrath <CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE>
Subject: WWI : WWII :: WWII : WWIII
From: Herb Lin <LIN at WASHINGTON>
(5) Claim: There has never been a war as terrible as
the next one.
So nuclear war isn't much different than previous wars? It is
worse in the same way that WWII was worse than WWI? If this
really the claim being made, then someone doesn't understand
the orders of magnitude involved. The kill rate in a nuclear
war would increase by a factor of a hundred or a thousand.
That kind of increase is utterly unprecedented; previous wars
involved kill rate changes of at most 10.
Alas, while I agreed with many of your comments on "Sober Facts," here
the numbers simply do not fit. To pick round numbers, in WWI we had a
total of 10 million killed; in WWII 50 million. Thus a rough increase
of fivefold. WWIII could involve 250 million deaths (ie strikes by
both major powers which are not absolutely effective). Actually, we
should allow for 500 million deaths (that factor of ten you spoke of
for PAST wars).
A factor of a hundred is a wipeout of humanity - one of a thousand is
simply impossible (we do NOT have 50 billion people!). Indeed, from
the numbers it looks like WWIII will involve an increase in the
butcher's bill of about an order of magnitude - the same rate of
growth as for all past wars. And if we postpone WWIII to 2020 or so,
the percentage of the world's population killed should be the same as
in WWII - a sharp contrast with the increase in that percentage
between WWI and WWII.
Jim
------------------------------
Date: 28 Jun 1982 1121-PDT
From: Jim McGrath <CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Nuking LA
From: Herb Lin <LIN at WASHINGTON>
(1) Claim: a single nuclear bomb cannot wipe out a whole city: You
would need 438 one-megaton bombs to destroy Los Angeles [1], and
none of them could be "wasted" on pulverizing the rubble, or you
would need more.
Being an avid "fan" of the desert down south, lets look at the numbers
using an area of 3000 square miles for LA (as noted in the
clarification in the July 82 ACCESS TO ENERGY), the formula for
overpressure Herb Lin gave, and two "targets" - 5 PSI and 10 PSI - as
the effective radius of destruction.
For 10 PSI we have an effective radius of slightly under 10 kilofeet,
which gives about 10 square miles per one megaton bomb max. That is a
min of 300 bombs before circle fitting, and thus I can see the number
going up to the 438 ACCESS TO ENERGY mentioned. This is far from the
"very few one megaton bombs" you mentioned Herb!
For 5 PSI we have an effective radius of slightly over 13 kilofeet,
which gives about 20 square miles per one megaton bomb max. That is a
min of 150 bombs before circle fitting - still a substantial number.
I suspect that varying altitudes of the bursts will change these
figures, and firestorm damage, although highly dependent on the
particular target, should be taken into account. Thus the "grain of
salt" that the "sober facts" must be taken with. But they are not out
and out lies.
Jim
------------------------------
Date: 28 Jun 1982 1137-PDT
From: Jim McGrath <CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Nuking America
Of course, even taking a couple of hundred 1 MEG warheads to destroy
LA implies that the Soviets could kill 120 or so million Americans a
couple of times over (after 120 million the population density drops
too much). Thus their threat is certainly nothing to be ignored.
However, it does make clear that an "effective" first strike, killing
90% of their warheads, would significantly decrease US injuries. Thus
there appears room to play with these numbers.
Does anyone know of a detailed analysis of a possible Soviet strike on
US cities? And how the outcome would be altered by knocking out some
of the Soviet birds before they got here? For if we could "get by"
with, say, 40 million dead, then the same could be said for the
Soviets - and thus perhaps either side COULD get a real "winning"
advantage in a first strike.
Alas, I bet the information really needed to get this sort of estimate
is classified (by either the governments involved or God).
Jim
------------------------------
Date: 28 Jun 1982 1144-PDT
From: Jim McGrath <CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Nuking LA: assumptions
From: CAULKINS at USC-ECL
The "Access to Energy" clarification of "SOBER FACTS ..."
doesn't help much; according to the 1977 edition of "The
Effects of Nuclear Weapons" the 5 PSI radius for a 1 megaton
bomb is 4.3 Mi.; the area of such a circle is 58 square miles.
The 3000 Mi**2 for greater L.A. divided by 58 is 52 bombs,
order-of-magnitude smaller than the 438 claimed by Access to
Energy. Even with a generous allowance for circle packing,
they're way off.
Why the difference between this figure (52 bombs) and the ones I just
derrived using Herb Lin's formula? Are different assumptions
involved? If so, they should be stated if people have them handy.
Jim
------------------------------
End of Arms-D Digest
********************