From: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!C70:arms-d Newsgroups: fa.arms-d Title: Arms-Discussion Digest V0 #128 Article-I.D.: ucb.1415 Posted: Thu Jun 24 02:52:11 1982 Received: Sun Jun 27 23:02:12 1982 >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 PistrittoSubject: 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 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 ********************