Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 beta 3/9/83; site uccsrg.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ubc-visi!alberta!uccsrg!doug
From: doug@uccsrg
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: refuse the cruise - no thanks
Message-ID: <221@uccsrg.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 17-Oct-83 20:03:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: uccsrg.221
Posted: Mon Oct 17 20:03:15 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 19-Oct-83 21:53:49 EDT
Organization: U of Calgary CPSC, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Lines: 76

-nice and eleminating our (NATO) Atomic
forces unilateraly would be folly in view of the willingness of certain
non-westren european powers to use excessive force far more often than
seems reasonable.

	In the Canadian tradation I would like to purpose a compromise
which neither side will like at all. It could help to foster an atmosphere
of trust where none exsists at present.

	The US of A would destroy or not develop the following
systems:
		Trident II (missiles not subs)
		MX
		Purshing II
		all present land based ICBMs
		B1 bomber
		Tactical nukes in Europe

Please note that this will eleminate any chance of a first strike, by
the US of A on the USSR, being successfull. This would leave the USA
with only the B52s and the navies subs. Neither of which could reasonably
strike first.

	In order to 'deter' the Soviets a very large number of cruise
missiles, air/ground/sea launched, should be generated. Commercial jets
could/should replace the present B52 fleet for economic reasons (747?/767?).
Early missile subs converted to carry as many cruise missiles as possible.
Any form of ground launcher should be mobile. These cruise missiles should
have a longer range than the present version. So called stealth versions are
better. Warheads should be limited to 100kt. This should make it clear
that a first strike on the NATO group can bring flexible and deadly
response from the good guys.

	This leaves the good guys with a fair number of ICBM carrying
subs. These could be used to destroy surface miltary targets or selectively
respond to a nuclear threat. It is unlikely that if the number of ICBM
carrying subs were kept reasonable(???) these could be used to silence
the nuclear forces of the Soviet Union successfully! The good guys also
have a large number of quite slow air breathing robot planes which, even
if 80% of them were shot down (unlikely after the sub strikes) would
davistate eastren Europe (Soviet Asia to). Futher no well defended heavily
dug in bunker is really safe from these accurate little planes. Big civil
defence bunkers in downtown Moscow do not work either. These things hit back
real well.

	Of course this will require that NATO increase their conventional
forces and this is not inexpensive. However neither is the MX missile system
much less all the rest.

	What we would have then;
		We cannot reasonable strike first.
		They cannot strike first and survive.
		They *know* we cannot strike first.
		They *know* if they strike first - curtains for them.
		The Soviets need not fire on warning.
		The USA cannot fire on warning.
		All land based ground strike targets are gone fron USA.
		    (these cause lots of evil radiation)
		NO nukes in the hands of front line troops.
		Peace and harmony throughout the land (I hope)


OK FOLKS WOULD THIS WORK?? If not, why not?