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