[fa.arms-d] Arms-Discussion Digest V0 #120

C70:arms-d (06/15/82)

>From HGA@MIT-MC Mon Jun 14 23:05:09 1982

Arms-Discussion Digest                            Volume 0 : Issue 120

Today's Topics:
                          Ships vs Aircraft
                                Fronts
                           Bilateral Freeze
                          Lebanon Operation
                             Sober Facts
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Jun 1982 2304-PDT
From: Jim McGrath <CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Ships vs Aircraft

A lot has been made recently in the popular press about the sinking of
hundred million dollar warships by million dollar missiles.  The
implication is that surface ships are not cost effective in a direct
battle (of course they are still needed for logistics).

However, I think this is misleading.  It appears that 15 or so planes
were lost for every British ship sunk.  Thus the true cost to
Argentinia is over $100 million a ship - not such a bargain after all.
And this is a case where the aircraft had decided air superiority, and
the ships had no land based defenses to support them.  More
importantly, the Argentine pilots are GOOD.  Given the strength of the
attacking planes and the badly equiped British fleet (badly equiped
for this type of warfare), the outcome of the Falklands conflict seems
to neither support nor condemn surface ships.

Jim

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

Date: 12 June 1982 10:33-EDT
From: Zigurd R. Mednieks <ZRM at MIT-MC>
Subject:  Arms-Discussion Digest V0 #119

Do any of the pacifists out there know what the World Peace Council
is?  The U.S. Peace Council? The American Friends Service Committee?
The Women's International League for Peace and Freedom? If, with names
like these you think they must be Soviet fronts, you are right. These
have been around for a while, and there are likeley new organisations
without such comically obvious names, but nevertheless, these outfits
will be in New York for the marches and ralleys.

While I am most certainly not a pacifist (and someday I'll explain
why) I respect differing opinions on how to maintain freedom in the
world. If you want to march, then march, but, be careful under which
banner you march.

Cheers,
Zig

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

Date: 12 Jun 1982 0622-PDT
From: Jim McGrath <CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Bilateral Freeze

Just heard a perfectly idiotic debate on this freeze.  The proponent
simply ignored the most powerful argument of the opponent, namely that
such a freeze would not freeze non-nuclear capability to attack subs
or bombers.  If you neutralize our subs and bombers, then the US is
quite INFERIOR to the Soviets, even if we made similar advances (since
they rely primarily on land based missiles).  Thus we could face a
situation where only land based systems would be reliable, tempting
people to adopt a launch on warning strategy or a simple first strike
strategy (afterall, we cannot freeze the minds of our planners).

Once again, I am really amazed with the capacity of some folks (most
notably the left) to adopt policies that so contradict one another.
In the long run a freeze is DESTABILIZING.  Thus if no additional
progress were made (which is likely, since actual reductions are very
difficult to negotiate without a lot of pressure), then we would
really be in the soup.

Jim

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

Date:     12 Jun 82 9:10:31-EDT (Sat)
From:     J C Pistritto <jcp@BRL>
Subject:  Lebanon Operation

	I think it is entirely possible for the Israelis to secure a
'sovereign national government', as they like to say, of the Lebanon
within a reasonable period.  The only thing that would make that
impossible is if they were to be forced to withdraw immediately.

	Lebanon was a relatively peaceful country until the
Palestinian terrorists showed up.  For years the PLO and associated
organizations based their operations in Jordan, which culminated in an
attempt to take over the Jordanian government from King Hussein.  The
attempt was fought off by units of the Jordanian Army, and the PLO
terrorists were expelled from Jordan, (many of them were killed
outright in the fighting).  The Syrians didn't want any part of them,
the Egyptians had enough trouble already, so they went to Lebanon.

	Although Lebanon had a very balanced government between the
Christians and Moslems, (who were approximately equal percentages of
the population at the time), the Palestinians started immediately to
usurp the power of the legal government.  As the fighting escalated,
groups on the Christian side formed their own militias and engaged the
Palestinians in open warfare.

	Eventually, to prevent a leftist state from being formed, the
Syrians invaded, stopped the war, and then started exterminating the
Christians gradually, (witness the destruction of Christian Beirut,
the city of Zakle (sp?), etc.)  Now, when the Israelis show up to
clean out the PLO, which operated its own government in Lebanon, the
Syrians are complaining about people violating the sovereignty of
Lebanon, (when they used to occupy 60% of it).

	With the removal of the PLO, and the Syrians, there is no
reason that the people of Lebanon could not reconstruct their
shattered nation.  If the Lebanese army was built up into a force
strong enough to enforce permanently a ban on 'private armies', and to
resist Syrian approaches, (possibly via a defense agreement with
Israel), then Lebanon would effectively be removed from the war
situation it is now involved in.  (I'm sure the Israelis would
withdraw if they knew they wouldn't have to be back within two years
anyway).

					-JCP-

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

Date: 12 Jun 1982 0205-PDT
From: Jim McGrath <CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Sober Facts

Thanks for the contribution.  The facts presented in Access to Energy
should be taken with a grain of salt - but then again, facts from
anyone on this subject have to be taken with at least a tablespoon of
salt.

Nuclear war, like war in general, is not something to take lightly -
which means that while one should not underestimate the dangers and
costs, one should not OVERESTIMATE them either.  The real problem I
have with the "peace movement" is that they do not take war SERIOUSLY.
That is, they do not bother to examine war in a clear headed and
rational way - they simply react in a knee jerk manner.  A lot of this
I think is due to a simple lack of knowledge - while many people get
an opportunity to study economics, or political science, very few (in
the academic community) have the opportunity to study military arts.
Thus people start to judge war on grounds that it CANNOT be judged
upon.  Afterall, you would not apply the rigor of the scientific
method to a non-scientific discipline, like math?  Or discuss what
SHOULD be the law of gravity?  Likewise, an abstract philosophical
approach to war is not correct since it ignores vital political,
economic, sociological, psychological, and technical components.

Part of the solution is to have good military education for the lay
citizenship, just as many people desire a sound scientific education
for the common folk.  If people are to be responsible citizens, then
they must have access to a broad base of knowledge and experience.
What ultimately urks (sp?) me is that the same people who decry war
WILL NOT support military education for the citizenship.  This "know
nothing" attitude is hardly new to the American scene and, like
before, it is destined to cause people a lot of trouble and harm our
society as a whole.

Jim

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

Date: 12 Jun 1982 0100-PDT
From: Herb Lin <LIN at WASHINGTON>
Subject: Commentary and minor flame on recent "Sober Facts about Nuclear War"

Commentary on the submission of Gene Salamin <ES at MIT-MC> on the
effects of nuclear war is necessary, but is too long to rebut in
detail.  However, a few claims cannot be ignored.

    (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 pulverising the rubble, or you
    would need more.

This is patently false for any reasonable definition of "wipe out".  I
assume the number of 438 one-megaton bombs comes is related to the
fact that the area of L.A. is about 463 square miles, or a "kill area"
of about one square mile for a 1 MT bomb.  This corresponds to a kill
radius of .56 miles.  The overpressure varies according to

        P = 3300 (W/r^3) + 192 (W/r^3)^.5

where W is the yield in MT and r the distance from ground zero in
kilofeet.  This expression corresponds to an overpressure of about 150
psi.  TEN psi is enough to collapse buildings not specially hardened.
150 psi in the range of the original hardening of **missile silos**
(originally about 300 psi).

Furthermore, there's not a mention of the subsequent firestorm.

I contend that for any reasonable definition of "wipe out", a very few
one megaton bombs would suffice.

    (2) Claim: An earth-covered shelter would be undamaged at 1000
    yards from ground zero, and a wooden house as above would be
    comparably damaged at a distance 0f 10 miles rather than 1 mile.

One thousand yards corresponds to the 2.97 kilofeet = .56 mile.  You
are doing very well indeed if you can build an earth covered shelter
which will stand 150 psi.  <EFM> Maybe we don't need to spend so much
money hardening silos; we can just use dirt. <LFM>

    (3) Claim: There is nothing balanced or mutual about MAD..... the US
    dismantled its anti-aircraft missile defense, canceled its
    anti-ballistic missile system, and deliberately let its civil
    defense die, all under the assumption that if the civilian
    populations were defenseless hostages to nuclear destruction, it
    would deter war.

False again.  The U.S. made a MILITARY decision to abandon AA
defenses, on the grounds that bombers are useless when missiles will
have hit everything worth hitting.  It abandonded ABM because there
was a fairly broad consensus (a few dissenters) that no proposed ABM
system (then, or in my opinion, now) would work.  It *never* had a
C.D. sysyem worth mentioning.  The U.S. **never** conducted evacuation
drills, or large scale sheltering drills.

    (4) Claim: The Soviets have not launched a first strike because
    their missiles have lacked the accuracy for pinpointing US missile
    silos (or oil refineries and power plants, or similar jugular
    points) and an unwillingness to gamble.  Once they have
    achieved the necessary accuracy, they will believe (with good
    reason?) that America will give in without resistance.

Again false.  An oil refinery is not much harder than a city, and the
Soviets have had for a long time (many years) the ability to kill
refineries and other economic targets.  In addition, a President is
NOT (and has NEVER) been limited to a strike on Soviet population.
Soft targets (both counter-value and counter-force) have always
accounted for the majority of the targets - Richard Garwin says the
fraction has been about 93% since the late 1960's.

    (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.

	In general, I do agree that nuclear war will not mean the end
of everything (well, I agree with a 90% confidence level, but that
margin of safety (factor of 10) is not very reassuring.  I do not want
to think that there will *probably* be a historian in Uganda or
Madagascar who will write about WWIII).

	Nevertheless, the submission from Access to Energy is one of
the most irresponsible I have seen in a LONG time.  It suffers from
most of the same flaws that the usual peacenik arguments suffer from -
it didn't do its homework, and it bases its appeal on emotionalism and
bull.

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

End of Arms-D Digest
********************