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.