Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2.fluke 9/24/84; site fluke.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!fluke!tonjon
From: tonjon@fluke.UUCP (Tony Johnson)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re : Re: Re: Harold Brown and the arms race
Message-ID: <194@vax2.fluke.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 3-Jan-85 15:33:17 EST
Article-I.D.: vax2.194
Posted: Thu Jan  3 15:33:17 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 8-Jan-85 13:09:46 EST
References: <1133@drusd.UUCP> <2082@randvax.UUCP>
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Lines: 83

> > > Assured destruction?  For the US maybe, but for the russians?  You call
> > > a loss of 10% of population assured destruction?  The number of
> > > missiles isn't the question here.  Its the accuracy and vulnerability
> > > that's the concern here.  I can have a million ICBM's but if
> > > they all get wiped out in a first strike they won't do me a bit
> > > of good...  The US has to worry about a first strike, the Russians do not,
> > > this means their forces can be tailored for very different scenarios
> > > than ours so.  I'm glad you said that Assured Destruction is mistakenly
> > > called MAD, because there is nothing mutual about the 2 countries'
> > > post attack status....
> > > 
> > > 					Milo
> > 
> > One, ONE of our submarines can wipe out at least the 16 largest Soviet
> > cities.  The Soviets have more to fear from a first strike than we.
> > Consider our significantly better figures for missle CEP's (accuracy).
> > Also consider the following figures from the Center for Defense Information,
> > Washington, DC.
> > 
> > Of 7226 strategic nuclear weapons held by the Soviets, 5238 are land
> > based ICBM's.  Of 9775 strategic weapons held by the US, 2147 are land
> > based ICBM's.
> > 
> > 4960 strategic weapons are on US submarines.  Nearly 3000 of these are
> > at sea at any one moment.  The Soviets have 1698 strategic weapons on subs,
> > about 300 of which are at sea at an average moment.
> > 
> > One Poseidon sub carries 16 missiles, each with 10 50KT warheads.
> > 
> > And we haven't even chatted about the pleasant weather during "nuclear
> > winter"!  What are you so scared of, Milo?  That the Russkies are so evil
> > that they revel in gore and death on both sides of the Pacific?
> > 
> > Because of the distribution of our nuclear forces and the unknown but
> > probably extremely severe environmental effects of a nuclear war, it seems
> > obvious that the Soviet first strike argument is wildly off base.
> 
> I don't see you making any statements about whether Milo is correct or
> not when he says that only 10% of the Soviet population will die in the
> most likely nuclear scenarios. Even if we could wipe out their 16 most
> populous cities, it might be that the structure of their population is
> such that this wouldn't bother them as much as it would us (which is a
> point Milo has made a few times). Remember, we are talking about a
> government that killed more dissenters during Stalin's rule than Hitler
> did during the 2nd World War. If the Soviet leaders could escape death,
> you shouldn't bet on them having a lot of compassion for the rest of
> their people.
> 
> And as for the nuclear winter problem, the fact that many people in the
> US defense community don't believe in it should suggest something about
> what sorts of things the Soviets are likely to believe...
> 
> 	Wayne


	Richard Pipes has suggested something that I think many people on the
	net fail to recognize:

		'A country that since 1914 has lost, as a result of two world
		wars, a civil war, famine, and various "purges", perhaps up to
		60 million citizens, must define "unacceptable damage" 
		differently from the United States which has known no famines
		or purges, and whose deaths from all the wars waged since 1775
		are estimated at 650,000- fewer casulties than Russia suffered
		in the 900-day siege of Leninigrad in World War II alone.'

	When folks talk about the Soviets having to follow our example because
	it's in their best interest, I have to ask, "how do the Soviets define
	what their best interests are?".  We all freely admit that the CCCP is
	guilty of human rights violations, that it is a police state, that the
	military is not even remotely subject to the Soviet public opinion; 
	yet, in postulating what is appropriate action for the US to take in the
	nuclear arms area, many seem to rely on their own intuition as to what
	the Soviets believe.  I think the idea of two different countries with
	having two different ideas about what is appropriate in regards to arms
	control should be entertained on this net.  How bout it?

	The above message expresses my own views and does not necessarily
	reflect those of my employer, John Fluke Mfg. Co. Inc.

					Tony Johnson,
					John Fluke Mfg. Co. Inc.,
					Everett, WA.