Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site randvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!randvax!rohn From: rohn@randvax.UUCP (Laurinda Rohn) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: Controlling Nuclear Weapons Message-ID: <2149@randvax.UUCP> Date: Tue, 27-Nov-84 16:46:42 EST Article-I.D.: randvax.2149 Posted: Tue Nov 27 16:46:42 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 30-Nov-84 11:50:34 EST References: <1133@drusd.UUCP> <2082@randvax.UUCP> Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica Lines: 114 > = Sevener's reply to David Shlapak (-das) > 1)I have never supported unilateral disarmament, nor does the Nuclear Freeze While this may be true of the nuclear freeze movement in general, there are some very vocal members of the movement who have made such proposals. The "logic" was that if we unilaterally froze or disarmed, that the Soviets would be nice guys and do the same. That is not the case. > As I pointed out in an earlier posting people like RayGuns have made > inaccurate arguments that the US "unilaterally disarmed" during the 70's. > This is NOT TRUE. We increased our strategic warheads 2 1/2 times. I don't think this is the case at all. I'd like to know where you come up with your facts. But I'll match your beancount with my own. The US has kept its ICBMs at a fairly constant number, between 1000 and 1100, since 1968. Soviet ICBMs rose from about 700 in 1968 to about 1400 in 1984. US re-entry vehicles (RVs) have risen from about 1000 in 1968 to about 2000 today. Soviet RVs have risen from about 700 in 1968 to about **6400** today. (The preceding numbers are according to Lt. Gen. Robert D. Russ, Deputy Chief of Staff for Research, Development and Acquisition, USAF. From the Nov. 1984 issue of Aerospace America.) > Do you have a better suggestion for stopping the arms race than stopping > the arms race? Unfortunately, simply "stopping the arms race" may *or may not* be the best way to avoid a nuclear war. Given a choice between the two, I think I would prefer stopping nuclear war. > 2)Milo IS arguing that nuclear war would NOT be an unimaginable and > unprecedented catastrophe for the Soviet Union. Somehow Milo thinks they > could *win* a nuclear war and would thus be undeterred from waging one. > I think that is a very dangerous and untenable position. It is also untrue. Well, as it turns out, the Soviets are doing their best to plan out a strategy to win a nuclear war. It isn't unthinkable to them that such a thing could occur. So far, they have been deterred from starting one. This is what deterrence is all about. Hopefully, it will continue to work. > That is why I have continued to point out the horrors of Nuclear War. You're still preaching to the choir. Do you seriously believe that there are people who think nuclear war would be a good thing? > I am NOT a wide-eyed idealist-- I realize that just because the Soviets say > they would accept a Freeze does not mean there would not be major problems in > deciding just what it should cover and how it should be verified. > But even Harold Brown (another "expert" for you expert lovers!) Carter's > Defense Secretary and hardly known as a "dove", wrote in a recent "Foreign > Affairs" that the Freeze *did* represent a viable approach to arms control > that offered roughly equivalent pluses and minuses to both sides. > The critical thing is trying to stop the new generation of missiles BEFORE > they are deployed and almost impossible to remove. The ABM treaty did > help prevent an ABM race. We should do the same thing now. > Is this "irrational"? Brown may be correct. But I would remind you that there is little that the US can do currently to stop the deployment of lots of missiles. Right now, it is the Soviets who are creating a dangerous situation with the continued deployment of the SS-20. And missiles are not impossible to remove once they are in. > 5)Who is being "irrational" and ranting? Lets not talk about > "unilateral disarmament", let's talk about "stopping the arms race". > Don't you think the world would be better off if both sides stopped > the arms race than continuing to pile up evermore weapons? > Is this an "unattainable ideal"? When Harold Brown suggests it is a > viable option in arms control I don't think so. Militarists said > Kennedy's attempt to stop atmospheric nuclear testing was an > "unattainable goal". Yet both sides agreed to it and the world's ecology > is far better off because of it. If arms control is an "unattainable > goal" then I would like to be off this planet when the bombs go off. The ban on atmospheric testing works because such testing is easily detected, primarily because of the fallout it creates. Verification of numbers and kinds of nuclear weapons is a much touchier issue. Milo has mentioned that one could conceivably hide a cruise missile in one's living room. They are not as easy to identify as are ICBMs. It is also frequently difficult to verify the number of warheads or range of a cruise missile. Verification of compliance is getting much harder. We may or may not have an "unattainable goal" on our hands. > What is wrong with a Nuclear Freeze by both sides David and Milo? > The Soviets have said numerous times they would accept one. Why don't we > put them to the test? Is it because some major military contractors (and > the Rand corporation) stand to lose 200 billion dollars in new nuclear > arms contracts? Ah, yes, the big bad military contractors are the root of all evil. Get serious! A nuclear freeze by both sides may in fact be a viable solution, **but it HAS to be VERIFIABLE!** And, for your information, the Rand Corporation does not produce nuclear arms. I would suggest that you get your facts straight before you go about merrily lambasting companies and people. Rabid, uninformed emotionalism will only hurt your cause. Lauri rohn@rand-unix.ARPA ..decvax!randvax!rohn NOTE: The views expressed above are solely mine and may or may not have anything to do with the positions of the Rand Corporation, or any other reasonably entity, for that matter.