Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.17 $; site uokvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uokvax!emks
From: emks@uokvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: The real issue about nuclear weapons
Message-ID: <5000118@uokvax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 30-Nov-84 23:36:00 EST
Article-I.D.: uokvax.5000118
Posted: Fri Nov 30 23:36:00 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 4-Dec-84 04:56:10 EST
References: <29200165@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Lines: 104
Nf-ID: #R:uiucdcs:29200165:uokvax:5000118:000:5104
Nf-From: uokvax!emks    Nov 30 22:36:00 1984

>> Scott Renner writes: 
>> Tim's argument is as follows:
>>     1.  Doctors and biologists are the best judge of the health effects 
>> 	of nuclear war.
>>     2.  Doctors and biologists agree that a nuclear war would have
>> 	disasterous effects on health care.
>> Therefore:
>>     3.  A nuclear war should be avoided.
>> 
>>     4.  Stopping the arms race NOW (ie., the nuclear "Freeze") is the 
>> 	best way to avoid a nuclear war.
>> Therefore:
>>     5.  Let's stop the arms race NOW!
>> 
>> This is sloppy thinking at best, deliberate propagandizing at worst.  All
>> of us agree on point #3.  Many of us disagree with Tim on point #4.  The
>> real issue is not, "should we have a nuclear war," but rather, "what is the
>> best way to avoid nuclear war?"
>> 
   ...
>> 
>> Scott Renner
>> {pur-ee,ihnp4}!uiucdcs!renner
>
>I think this is an apt summary of my argument. I also think it is a good
>statement of the true question: how do we prevent nuclear war?
>Does continuing the nuclear arms race make nuclear war more or less likely?
>If continuing the nuclear arms race is ,at best , neutral and at worst,
>detrimental with respect to preventing nuclear war, then what is the point
>for both sides to waste hundreds of billions of dollars on the arms race?

Even your question is begging!  First of all, you haven't convinced me in
your myriad of postings that the "arms race," "government contractors,"
or anyone in the defense establishment is to blame for some possible nuclear
war.  When weapons sit, they age.  Once they age, there's a tendency to
at least consider their use before their effectiveness is lost to better
construction technology or sheer age of equipment.  [I'm not TRYING to paint
a concrete argument against the freeze.]

>I happen to agree that it is ultimately irrelevant exactly how many warheads
>either side has when either side has enough to thoroughly devastate the other.
>Unfortunately some people on the net do not accede to that point.

I don't accede either.  You've been spouting your "expertise" just as much
as Milo has.  So, you "know" that we can thoroughly devastate the other?
The n x Hiroshima argument is thoroughly flawed--even if you won't admit it.
There are many problems which are unknown, not the least is PTP and WSR which
are truely unknowns [i.e. probably (hopefully) will never be known].  Others
are less difficult, but still "tough," like the fratricide-at-hard-targets
problem.

>SO: Scott, do you really think that building more nuclear arms makes nuclear
>war any less likely?
>IF both sides would agree to stop building or developing new nuclear weapons
>wouldn't the whole world be better off?
>We can consider this problem historically: imagine that both sides had
>stopped the nuclear arms race at bombers equipped with nuclear weapons.
>Wouldn't we all be safer? We would have far less chance of an accidental
>nuclear war--there would be a longer lag time before bombers could reach
>their targets--and they *could* be recalled.

Yes, that would be "nice," but there are bad side effects to be considered,
too.  Imagine that Kremlin leaders sit down one morning, under the conditions
you just laid out, and said "Ve haf decided to bomb poopski out of U.S.A.
and extend our control to include Western Europe."  Well, NATO changed their
strategy many moons ago to call for nuclear [weap] power to substitute for
a large standing army which the NATO-member countries could not afford.
This means that the S.U. could send some divisions across the borders and
be countered by a NATO force which is certainly inferior in numbers.

The U.S. threatens and eventually launches its B-52s or whatever and strikes
in appropriate measure.

The Kremlin leaders would be sitting around discussing what would be "accept-
able losses" from the strike, and would probably decline to negotiate.  The
intelligence lead time of bombers is tremendous, and C-C functions can be
transferred to sites deemed not at risk.  In addition, by using bombers
without an initial nuclear strike (much as the "softening of the beaches"
during the invasion of Gold beach), the PTP and related factors decrease
tremendously.

>Or imagine that Nixon and Kissinger had been more farsighted and agreed to
>stop MIRVed weapons before they were deployed by both sides.  We
>would not find either sides ICBM forces threatened by a potential 
>first-strike capability.

Wrong, flame-bait-breath.  MIRVed weapons are more "attractive" targets
than, say, a Titan II, since one hit kills (for example) three warheads.
But eliminating MIRVed weapons doesn't eliminate the potential first strike.
Large weapons systems, special SIGINT, C-C centers, or other sites would
become more attractive.  Some of them are probably located near your home town,
Tim.

>Do you have some better answer to preventing nuclear war than stopping
>the arms race?

Yes.  Rational thinking, negotiations, and perhaps build-down.  (I haven't had
time to give that last one a lot of thought, yet.  I intend to devote some
vacation time to it soon...)

>tim sevener whuxl!orb

		kurt