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: The real issue about nuclear weapons-Reply to Robin Roberts Message-ID: <2195@randvax.UUCP> Date: Fri, 14-Dec-84 14:55:16 EST Article-I.D.: randvax.2195 Posted: Fri Dec 14 14:55:16 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 19-Dec-84 00:14:17 EST References: <29200165@uiucdcs.UUCP> <333@ut-sally.UUCP><> <223@ttidcb.UUCP> <1617@drutx.UUCP> Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica Lines: 52 > from S. Freeman > ... > So you can see that nuclear war is a horror that only fools think > can be survived by alarge proportion of mankind. Many scientists > think that a such a srain on the environment would cause mankind to > cease to exist and become just a dim dim memory. One of the major problems is that there is so much we don't know about the non-biological effects of nuclear weapons. There has been a lot published on the biological effects of radiation from studies in Japan, Nevada/Utah, and the Pacific atolls. But to a large extent, scientists can only guess at many other things. Such studies as the TTAPS Nuclear Winter study are useful in that they point out things that scientists might not have thought of before. Without doing lots of testing, which is an attrocious idea, it is virtually impossible to know what kind of things will happen to the environment. I don't think that anyone would argue that things would get better. The effects would definitely be adverse. But how adverse? Would NW really occur? If so, would it be gradual, or is there a critical exploded megatonnage which, when passed, would plunge us into NW? No one really knows for sure. Hopefully, they never will. > Some people think that a nuclear war could be contained, but a > number of detailed war games run by the D.O.D and the Soviets > indicate that a containment is more than could be hoped for. There are problems with simulated war games. If joint war games were held with NATO playing the NATO side and the Warsaw Pact playing the Warsaw Pact side, the chances are that neither side would perform as they really would in a war because they wouldn't want to let the other side know their tactics, secrets, etc. Most war games here are played with the US playing both sides. These obviously may not mirror reality. The way the US plays the Soviets is based on its understanding of their tactics and on its estimation of what the USSR would do under certain cir- cumstances. These estimations may be totally wrong, partially wrong, or entirely correct. There's really no way to tell. The results might therefore be inaccurate. In most of the war games that I've heard about, both sides have been very, VERY reluctant to use nuclear weapons, and when they have used them, have done so at a minimum level and have stopped as soon as possible. I find this encouraging. Lauri rohn@rand-unix.ARPA ..decvax!randvax!rohn "You can't push on a rope." NOTE: The opinions expressed above are not necessarily those of the Rand Corporation or of the author, for that matter.