Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucbvax.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!medin From: medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: Re: Nuclear power "experts" are just trying to erase the Sputnik era Message-ID: <3600@ucbvax.ARPA> Date: Sat, 1-Dec-84 21:42:44 EST Article-I.D.: ucbvax.3600 Posted: Sat Dec 1 21:42:44 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 4-Dec-84 11:51:21 EST References: <1133@drusd.UUCP> <2082@randvax.UUCP> Organization: University of California at Berkeley Lines: 118 Well, there certainly has been a lot of activity since I last read this newsgroup, so here is a blanket reply to all the points I can remember. First off, I want to say that I heartily agree with Lauri's responses on the net. I think they are rational, factual, and to the point. Secondly, Sevener's comments about US capabilities with respect to verification are all wrong. You say a satellite can read a license plate. This is only true in certain very limited circumstances. That freighter you cited had apparently offloaded its MiG's during a stop under cloudcover. What do you want us to do, only verify treaties on clear days? Also, while you maybe able to see the license plate, you can't see what's in the trunk. Nor can you see what's in the ground, covered by concrete, nor what's under a nose cone on an ICBM. There are some other points, but I feel I really can't go into them in this forum. Thirdly, to the person who said that there are indeed people who don't think nuclear war is bad, and cited the example of the person on the net who verified that T.K. Jones comment on Civil Defense, I can only say you are way off base. Just because a person advocates Civil Defense doesn't mean he likes nuclear war. You have insurance of some type don't you? If you have life insurance, does that mean you don't mind death? Or if you have health insurance, does that mean you like to be ill? Of course not, and likewise Civil Defense doesn't mean you advocate nuclear war. Civil defense is a damage limitation mechanism, just as insurance is. We all want to prevent nuclear war, and few people look forward to it, certainly noone outside of a hospital somewhere. But if it comes, should we be telling people it's all over and they only option left is suicide? May I point out that the difference between 200 Million people and 100 Million people is 100 Million people. I for one am comfortable enough with the idea of death that I would rather die initially in the attack than live in a postattack world, but if I survived, I wouldn't kill myself either. And I'm sure most people if really put to the test would do the same thing. I too saw Testament. It's very depressing, I agree. But none of those people had to die in that situation if proper measures were taken. There was no Civil defense program in that city, had there been, there probably would have been many more survivors. Didn't see anyone digging any fallout shelters did you, not even a one staying in his basement. And not even one geiger counter. There are plenty of technical inaccuracies as well, but I made my point. Fourthly, the person who cited the statement about Paul Warnke saying nothing would happen to the US defense if we scrapped all our ICBM's is citing Warnke as an expert. He is an expert. I talked to him when he was here in Berkeley giving a seminar. He still is living in a countervalue world. But strategy has past him by. He is an old MAD'er from way back, along with other experts like 'One Bomb' Bundy. I don't buy MAD, and the administration doesn't, and neither do the Soviets, so why should anyone? Warnke believes all you need is the SLBM retaliatory force, and nothing else. And we have gone through the discussion about the effacy of low-yield inaccurate weapons before, and all the points apply. In short, I don't think much of Warnke's line of reasoning, and I don't think an objective observer would either. Statements like Warnke's show arrogance in the n'th degree. If you've heard him speak in person you know what I mean. Fifthly, to the person who cited Herbert Scoville's comments about a Nuclear Freeze being verifiable, I'd like you or anyone else to please give me his address so I could write him and ask him how you can verify that I don't have a cruise missile stashed in my basement. Noone has ever come up with a way other than going into that basement and taking a good look... This is one way that technology has again outstripped old strategies and ways of thinking about arms control. There is a big debate going on inside the administration about verification. Weinberger is making very strict guidelines about addressing the issue, and I hope they are considered. I personally believe that the age of verifiable treaties of any significance has past us by, and we are in a period where unilateral actions are the only way of effecting any real change. Sixthly, the people who claim the Soviets don't believe they can win a nuclear war haven't been reading what the Soviets have been saying in the military doctrine. The 'integrated' battlefield is a cornerstone of their military doctrine. If you look at even a sprinkling of what's trickled out, its fairly obvious. Seventhly, to the person who responded to my flame about the various Bozos in Congress who passed funding restrictions, I can only conclude 2 things: 1) The Congress didn't know what they were doing (not an out of the ordinary event). 2) or The Congress was trying to force the administration to get the Soviets back to the table at any price, even giving them a concession to come back to the table which THEY walked out on. If this keeps up, all they need to do is walk out a few more times and we'll be signing a nuclear freeze. Now, I think its a combonation of both reasons, both of which are BAD for the US. Lastly, Sevener's comments about the ABM treaty not stopping an ABM arms race (a one sided race I might add) are, for once, correct. This is typical of what we are in store for if more treaties like it are signed (read ASAT folks). Let's hope the administration holds the line firm on the future discussions with the Soviets about the agenda for the possible umbrella talks. Now, let me get back to work. I'll try and keep as current as I can... Milo