C70:arms-d (06/24/82)
>From HGA@MIT-MC Thu Jun 24 02:43:53 1982
Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 0 : Issue 128
Today's Topics:
More comments on SOBER FACTS
Israeli-Lebanese war
Conventional Warfare Comments
Pacifism and a non-military military
The Passive Populace
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 23 Jun 1982 05:00:05-PDT
From: rabbit!wolit at Berkeley
Subject: More comments on SOBER FACTS
While McGrath, Lin, and Caulkins have done a good job of
debunking most of the exaggerations and lies in "Some Sober Facts
About Nuclear War," I'm surprised that no one has taken on the "rule
of seven":
"For every sevenfold increase in time, the radioactive level
due to fallout decreases by an order of 10. If the level 1
hour after detonation was 1000 units/hour, it will decline to
100 units/hr in 7 hours, and to 10 in ... 2 days. The level
measured 1 day after detonation will decline to ... 1/1000 in
less than a year..."
This is not how I understand atomic half-lives at all. Half of any
radioactive substance (and half of the radioactivity associated with
it) decays after a period of one half-life. The half-life depends on
the kind of material we're talking about: some fallout products have
short half-lives (measured in days); many have half-lives measured in
the hundreds or thousands of years. These will not decay appreciably
at all (forget about decay to a level of 1/1000) in a year.
Any physicists out there care to clear this up?
------------------------------
Date: 23 Jun 1982 0802-PDT
From: CAULKINS at USC-ECL
Subject: "SOBER FACTS...", still wrong
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.
------------------------------
Date: 23 Jun 1982 16:09:56-PDT
From: rabbit!wolit at Berkeley
Subject: Israeli-Lebanese war
[This is in response to Robert Carter's (CARTER at RUTGERS) queries in
issue #127.]
With regard to the Israel Air Force's suppression of Syrian and PLO
air defenses, the Israelis used (at least) two different tactics
depending on the system they faced. To throw off infrared-guided
missiles, the planes dispensed flares more or less continuously while
over defended areas. This could be seem in film clips of the fighting
shown on television news here. Radar-guided SAMs were neutralized by
attacking their radar antennae using anti-radiation missiles (such as
Shrike). I believe the IAF also has a number of F-4E Wild Weasel
aircraft specifically designed for this mission (these are
McDonnell-Douglas F-4s modified for ECM and anti-anti-aircraft roles).
The Israeli's success in air combat was partially due to their use of
Grumman E-2C Hawkeye early-warning aircraft, which allowed them to
track Syrian planes pretty much from the moment they left their
runways. However, much of the imbalance in the dogfight results stems
from the fact that the IAF was using latest generation planes -- F-15s
and F-16s -- while the Syrians used somewhat older MiG-21s and -23s.
Newer Soviet aircraft are much more a match for the Israeli (and U.S.)
planes.
Regarding the tanks used by Israel, they are NOT the M-1 Abrams tanks
with the awful gas turbine engines. The Israelis are using
(predominantly) the M-60, which is powered by a more reliable (though
slower) diesel engine. They are also avoiding direct contact with
Syrian forces equipped with anti-tank missiles, after their disastrous
experience in the 1973 war.
------------------------------
Date: 24 Jun 82 0:13:02-EDT (Thu)
From: J C Pistritto <jcp@BRL>
Subject: Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V0 #127
Conventional Warfare Comments:
Israel in Lebanon: - The Israelis seem to have been EXTREMELY
effective against the Soviet SAM-6 batteries in the Bekaa Valley.
They used the American F-15 Eagle fighters they have against them,
using laser guided munitions for most of the work, (I believe, the
Israelis are very secretive about this kind of thing). Since the
planes approached low over the mountains, the SAMs couldn't see them
until they were within 4 miles or so of the targets. Anti- radiation
missiles of the same ilk as SHRIKE, but newer, were also used against
surface radars, (the SAM-6 and its radars are carried on seperate
vehicles often). The F-16s seem to have been used in the air-to-air
role, along with Israeli Daggers and Kfir C-3s, which are said to have
performed admirably. (These aircraft are manufactured in Isreal, but
use Pratt & Whitney engines). An interesting deployment actually, the
US air force considers the F-15 its best bet in air-to-air, but the
Israelis had the option of either and went with F-16, probably for
manueverability.
Falklands: - England has apparently decided to base F-4
Phantom aircraft at the Port Stanley airfield, after the runway has
been lengthened to 6000 feet to allow them to operate. Long field
aircraft are believed necessary to take on the Argentine Daggers and
Mirages on a long-term basis. Really, the Sea Harriers did a
remarkable job against the Argie aircraft, accounting for 2/3 of the
aircraft kills. Most of the kills were by Sidewinder AIM-9L missiles
launched from Harriers. This is a new version of Sidewinder, and has
not seen widespread service elsewhere. Its seems devestatingly
effective. Also high in the cost-effectiveness catagory is the Short
Brothers Blowpipe AA missile, shoulder launched by troops. It
accounted for several kills in close-in attacks, and is clearly
superior to SAM-7 in this role, (which has a tough time bringin down
heavy aircraft).
-JCP-
ps:
Its a possiblity that we might want to divide ARMS-D into two
lists, one primarily oriented to tactical/strategic weapons related
discussions, and one related to disarmament/arms-control. I myself
would probably contribute to both, but the tactical one more often.
By the way, now that I have some more time available, I am willing to
resume doing either weekly or bi-weekly summaries of Aviation Week if
anyone's interested.
------------------------------
Date: 23 Jun 1982 23:55:06-PDT
From: CSVAX.upstill at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Pacifism and a non-military military
Those whose interest has been piqued by the recent discussion might
like to check out the Summer '82 CoEvolution Quarterly, whose theme is
just that (it may be not be on the newstand yet; I just got my copy
today). Included are reviews/samples of several books on non-violent
strategies and philosophy, and a piece entitled "Force Without
Firepower", speculating on the uses a militia could be put to besides
killing. To those who are familiar with the magazine, I would say
this is the most stimulating issue in a long time.
Steve
------------------------------
Date: 24 Jun 1982 00:11:18-PDT
From: CSVAX.upstill at Berkeley
Subject: The Passive Populace
From: James A. Cox <APPLE at MIT-MC>
Sure, the Soviets would have trouble if everyone rendered
passive resistance regardless of the repressive measures the
Soviets tried. But unfortunately, the U.S. is inhabited by
human beings, not saints, and humans generally get scared and
do what they're told when threatened with torture or death.
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. Suppose the defense
of the country depended not on threats of imprisonment for objectors,
but on the moral commitment felt by the people who would be putting up
a non-violent resistance? I am assuming here that battles can be won
on a moral front, and that is of course open to debate (which I would
like to see more of). But if that is the case, then is a nation which
cannot rouse its people to its defense even worth defending?
Are Americans that much different from Germans, who \under
orders/ exterminated thousands of their own countrymen,
millions of foreigners, and who fought a war virtually to the
death?
If you really believe that it was some threat enforcing obedience
which led Germany onto the battlefield, then your grasp of history and
your conception of the psychology of power is even more pathetic than
mine. You don't really believe this, do you?
Steve
------------------------------
End of Arms-D Digest
********************