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