Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 6/7/83; site hao.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!akgua!psuvax!burdvax!presby!seismo!hao!rew
From: rew@hao.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame,net.politics
Subject: Re: Replace MAD with MAF
Message-ID: <731@hao.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 23-Nov-83 20:14:56 EST
Article-I.D.: hao.731
Posted: Wed Nov 23 20:14:56 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 26-Nov-83 05:56:10 EST
References: <2221@rabbit.UUCP>, <6288@unc.UUCP>, <2225@rabbit.UUCP>
Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR, Boulder CO
Lines: 21

One rarely discussed property of nuclear weapons that may be useful in
negotiations aimed at getting rid of them safely is that, like
batteries, they have a finite "shelf-life".  Once warheads reach an age
of somewhere around 30 (?) years, they cannot be used reliably.  One
consequence of the decay of nuclear weapons is that the effective
enforcement of a complete freeze on the *production* of nuclear
warheads would eventually accomplish the same goal as total
disarmament.  Furthermore, a complete freeze on the production of
warheads would seem to be much easier to verify than traditional sorts
of agreements on numbers of weapons that allow for replacement or
modernization.  Thus it seems to me that a verifiable and multilateral
freeze on warhead production is not merely a first step to arms
control--it might suffice completely.  I'm sure there are complexities
in any such agreement that would have to be worked out, but it seems to
offer some hope of achieving a desirable goal with only a moderate
risk.  If anyone out there knows more about the factors that determine
the useful lifetime of nuclear warheads, I would be interested in
hearing about it.
-- 
Russ Rew
{ucbvax!hplabs,allegra!nbires,decvax!brl-bmd,harpo!seismo,menlo70}!hao!sb%russ