From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!npois!ucbvax!C70:arms-d Newsgroups: fa.arms-d Title: Arms-Discussion Digest V0 #119 Article-I.D.: ucb.1332 Posted: Fri Jun 11 23:37:16 1982 Received: Sun Jun 13 02:20:05 1982 >From HGA@MIT-MC Fri Jun 11 23:31:23 1982 Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 0 : Issue 119 Today's Topics: Some sober facts about nuclear war Digest Readers Why the Hiroshima bomb? The middle east SSDII ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6 June 1982 00:06-EDT From: Gene SalaminSubject: Some sober facts about nuclear war SOME SOBER FACTS ABOUT NUCLEAR WAR Supplement to May 1982 issue of Access to Energy Copyright 1982 by Access to Energy Available for a stamped, self-addressed envelope from Access to Energy Box 2298 Boulder, CO 80306 Yes, nuclear war would be terrible, and the facts below are in no way intended to belittle its horror. They are, however, intended to refute the myth that nuclear war means the end of civilization, making defense of the Free World pointless. Is it not true that each superpower has enough nuclear weapons to kill all menbers of mankind several times over? Yes. And the same is true for kitchen knives. But a single nuclear bomb can wipe out a whole city. No, it can't. You would need 438 megaton bombs (the power of 22000 Hiroshima- sized bombs) to destroy Los Angeles [1], and none of them could be "wasted" on pulverising the rubble, or you would need more. Then how come Hiroshima and Nagasaki were each destroyed by a single bomb? They weren't. Earth-covered backyard shelters were undamaged at 100 yards from ground zero, and the photo shows a woodframe house at exactly 1 mile from ground zero at Hiroshima [2]. [The photo shows a 2 story frame with most of the walls gone, and the upper story partially toppled. - ES] The day after the blast the bridges were open to traffic, the second day trains were operating, and the third day some streetcars resumed service [3]. The people in the two cities had neither warning nor basements; yet in Dresden, where they had both, about as many were killed in the air raids of 13 February 1945 as in Nagasaki. But the Hiroshima bomb was 1000 times less powerful than the H-bombs used in today's warheads. The distance of equal destruction varies as the third root of the released energy; 1000 times more powerful means the same destruction at 10 times the distance. 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. Grim, but not the end of the world. But the radiation from nuclear bombs would leave the earth a radioactive inferno for decades, and the survivors would die of cancer, leaving genetically damaged offspring. This, paradoxically, is wishful thinking: if it were so, no one would contemplate nuclear war. In fact, only a few hundred of Hiroshima's 70,000 dead were victims of radioactivity, and no genetic damage could be detected against the normal background among the survivors, though they (and even their chromosomes) have been examined with extraordinary thoroughness for decades. This is not surprising, since ordinarily only those who suffer unprotected exposure to the initial radiation will receive a dose high enbough to be lethal (400 rems will kill half the exposed victims, 1000 rems virtually all of them). But the fallout will eventually kill eyerybody. No, it won't. In essence, the highly radioactive isotopes will soon spend themselves, while the long-lived isotopes do not radiate intensely (though some can be dangerous if they get into the body). Shelters can protect from early fallout and filtration can prevent ingestion of radionuclides such as strontium and iodine. Iodine is typical for scaremongering: the defeatists fan hysteria for levels one thousand times lower than those at which radioiodine is given to healthy patients for diagnostic purposes [4]. But that would mean spending years in shelters. No, it wouldn't. Use 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 49 hours, or about two days. The level measured 1 day after detonation will decline to 1/10 in a week, to 1/100 in 7 weeks, and to 1/1000 in less than a year (7^3 = 343 days). And how does one live without food or water for 343 days? One does not have to. Food and water are not contaminated by fallout radiation, only by the particles themselves. Dust-proof packed food remains uncontaminated, and radioactive particles can be filtered from contaminated water. For details, see Kearney's "Nuclear Survival Skills" [5]. But instead of all these gruesome details, is it not better to keep the peace by the "balance of terror" via "Mutually Assured Destruction"? There is nothing balanced or mutual about this doctrine; it is the root of America's present predicament. Under the MAD strategy of unilateral self- deterrence, 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. And it didn't? To the contrary, it brought war much closer. The Soviets were not so stupid as to accept the MAD strategy. While America disarmed, they feverishly built up their forces and turned civil defense into a weapon of war: their grandiose evacuation plans would allow them a first strike against US missile silos, risking the loss of only a few million people (peanuts to the fanatics in the Politbureau) in a retaliatory strike by the US; but such retaliation would not come, for no US president could agree to losing more than half of America's population if the Soviets threatened a second strike in return. What has prevented them doing that? Insufficient accuracy for pinpointing US missile silos (or oil refineries and power plants, or similar jugular points) [6] 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 under the Chamberlain- Carter-Kennedy mentality. What, then, WILL prevent war? What has unfailingly deterred war through the ages: the will to fight and the capacity to win. In time, America's technological superiority might let it regain the capacity to win; but it is the will to defend itself that is now being dangerously sapped by defeatists, demagogues and fear peddlers. But there has never been a war as terrible as nuclear war. There has never been a war as terrible as the next one. Yet there have always been men and women who stood up to evil and risked their lives for their liberty. But the losses in nuclear war would be so terrible that defense for whatever reason becomes immoral. The morality of war does not depend on the weapons with which it is fought. You have exactly one life to risk in the defense of everything that makes it worth living, and it matters little whether you lose it to a spear, a bullet, or nuclear radiation. Your forefathers risked, and often gave, that one life for your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. You have no right to squander their heritage, to invite war by weakness, and to leave your children to the demeaning cancer of serfdom. [1] Interview with Gen. J. K. Singlaub, "Survive", May/June 1982. [2] "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons", 3rd ed., US Dept. of Defense, 1977. [3] L. W. Beilenson, "Survival and Peace in the Nuclear Age", Regnery/Gateway, 1980. [4] "Doctors Against Health" and "The Radiation Bogey", Golem Press. [5] Caroline House Publishers, 920 W. Industrial Dr., Aurora, IL 60506. [6] "The Effects of Nuclear War", Office of Technology Assesment, May 1979. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jun 1982 1807-EDT From: WDOHERTY at BBNG Subject: DIGEST READERS If we're so worried about the Soviet readers of arms-d, why not worry about the Defense Department readers as well? At least the "pacifists" (I would dare call myself one) will not conduct covert investigations of those whose comments may prove unduly of interest. Will Doherty (WDOHERTY@BBNG) ------------------------------ Date: 7 June 1982 2115-EDT (Monday) From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30) Subject: Why the Hiroshima bomb? Here is an interesting piece out of a letter to the editor of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, by Charles Tichy, President of the Pennsylvania State Modern Language Association, printed June 7, 1982. (The letter is a response to the sports writers' condemnation of the University of Pittsburgh's intention to require foreign language study.) "It is even this attitude [refusing to learn other languages and cultures] which contributed to the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima. Specialists of Japanese have commented that that first nuclear weapon may never have been dropped had the word "mokusatsu" been correctly translated during the Potsdam surrender ultimatum. It was assumed incorrectly that the word meant "ignore," thereby forcing the United States to proceed with the nuclear bombardment. Correctly rendered the phrase means "withholding comment pending decision." ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jun 1982 0831-PDT From: Jim McGrath Subject: The middle east Do people think Israel can, through its recent military actions (which we all know will enable them to grab whatever territory and kill anyone they want) secure a lasting peace? Particularly, can they establish a secure and independent government up north, something that has not existed for at least 6 years? Jim ------------------------------ Date: 7 May 1982 1029-EDT From: WDOHERTY at BBNG Subject: SSDII The Japanese Peace Petition calling for "No More Hiroshimas" (which will be presented to the United Nations Second Special Session on Disarmament) contains 35 million signatures, weighs 20 tons, and must be transported by three jumbo jets. Warehouse space is now being sought in NYC to store it. People around the world have confirmed their plans to attend the June 12th (sorry, not the 14th as I said before). The numbers to date are overwhelming: Canada and Alaska 2000 Near East 100 Africa 100 British Islands and Ireland 500-1000 Central and South Europe 500 Central and S. America 250 East Europe 500 Scandinavia 500 Japan 1000 Pacific Rim (including Hawaii) 250 It will be interesting to see the reaction of the Reagan administration to the general uproar over present nuclear arms escalations. ------------------------------ End of Arms-D Digest ********************