Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site whuxl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!orb
From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Politics, morals and nukes
Message-ID: <284@whuxl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 10-Oct-84 15:40:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: whuxl.284
Posted: Wed Oct 10 15:40:54 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 11-Oct-84 07:49:52 EDT
References: <394@wucs.UUCP> <90@whuxk.UUCP> <2730@ucbcad.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs
Lines: 76

> 
> > I think on that basis I would consider the Reagan administrations plans
> > to fight a protracted nuclear war immoral. There is no justification that I
> > can see for implementing a system to allow nuclear war to be fought for
> > weeks, months or years after an initial allout nuclear exchange--
> > if there is ANY chance for human survival we should not jeopardize it
> > by continuing to lob nukes at the other side for sheer vengeance sake!
> > Tim Sevener
> 
> You don't think very clearly, do you?  Nuclear weapons aren't made so
> that we can USE them, they're made because we DON'T WANT to use them.
> (Now, think about that a bit...) If you believe that Reagan really
> wants to fight a nuclear war, you must not be making much of an effort
> to understand the factors really at work in international politics.
> 
> 	Wayne

I do not believe that Reagan WANTS to fight a nuclear war.  I do believe
that he supports the plans put out by the Defense Dept. in 1982--
that the US be prepared to fight and win both limited and protracted
nuclear war.  The quandary of nuclear weapons is well-spelled out by
Jonathan Schell in the Fate of the Earth.  Yes, nuclear weapons are
made NOT to be used under the doctrine of deterrence.  But at the same time
you must convince your opponent that they WILL be used.  This means
you must also be prepared to use them --which means that in fact they 
MAY be used in calling your opponent's bluff.
But this is under the doctrine of deterrence-that both sides have enough
nuclear weapons to totally wipe out the other side.  This assumes that
you accept the proposition that both sides would be totally wiped out
in a nuclear war. There are members of the Reagan administration, and
very probably Reagan himself who don't believe that proposition.
The Undersecretary of Defense, T.K. Jones told a Senate committee that
all that was necessary to survive a nuclear attack was to have a shovel
to dig a hole with.  Dig the hole, jump into it and one wouldhave
an excellent chance of survival.  Gen. Graham told a Senate committee
that standing behind lilac bushes was an effective talisman against
nuclear war.  
One would think such an outrageous statement would lead to resignation
as Watt's remarks finally led to his resignation.  But no, T.K. Jones
is still an Undersecretary of Defense helping to set policy on
nuclear arms in the Reagan administration.  Reagan himself told Robert
Scheer of the LA Times (his interview is in the book, "Reagan, Bush,
and Nuclear War") that he believed the Russians had an effective civil
defense program that would save half their population and even allow
their factories to keep working.  Yes, the Soviets have a civil defense
program still extant from many years ago. No, there is no evidence
that they have vast underground factories set up to keep industries
going. They have enough trouble keeping their industries going above ground!
The latest and scariest evidence that the Reagan administration 
is preparing for protracted nuclear war is the article last week in the
New York Times, noted elsewhere in this newsgroup.  This article details
the Pentagon's plans to dig caverns deep underground and keep a reserve of
nuclear weapons, in addition to the triad already in place.  These weapons
would be incapable of being fired in an immediate nuclear attack--they
would be buried and protected so deep underground that they could not be
fired in a nuclear attack--hence they are not a deterrent in the usual
sense.  Instead they would only be used many weeks AFTER a nuclear attack
had already taken place as tunnels were burrowed to the surface allowing
these weapons to be fired in vengeance after both sides have already
devastated each other.  The assumption of course is that there will
be something left to fire at, and that there is some point to such madness.
The assumption is that, not only could we have a nuclear war but we
could and should be prepared to continue fighting one for weeks and months.
If you believe that we can survive a nuclear war this makes sense--
it implies nuclear warfare is merely an extension of conventional warfare
and the more we can throw at them and the longer we can keep fighting
the better.  I don't think many reasonable people believe that.
Do you believe that we can survive nuclear war by digging holes and 
jumping into them? 
How many casualties do you think an allout nuclear exchange will cause?
Do you think we should prepare to fight a nuclear war as if it were
conventional warfare?
Apparently the Reagan administration believes nuclear warfare is only
slightly nastier than conventional warfare.
Tim Sevener
whuxl!orb