From: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!C70:arms-d Newsgroups: fa.arms-d Title: Arms-Discussion Digest V0 #153 Article-I.D.: ucb.1665 Posted: Sat Jul 31 23:52:40 1982 Received: Sun Aug 1 04:33:30 1982 >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 LinSubject: 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 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 ********************