Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ucbcad.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxl!houxm!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!ucbcad!notes
From: notes@ucbcad.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: A Missile Epistle - (nf)
Message-ID: <799@ucbcad.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 23-Nov-83 01:51:13 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbcad.799
Posted: Wed Nov 23 01:51:13 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 21-Nov-83 00:49:14 EST
Sender: notes@ucbcad.UUCP
Organization: UC Berkeley CAD Group
Lines: 80

#N:ucbesvax:7500053:000:3608
ucbesvax!turner    Nov 15 23:38:00 1983

Here is an odd thought about strategic missile basing that has been
kicking around in my head ever since the MX basing controversy heated up:

	Just base all strategic missiles in the most densely-
	populated regions of the country.

This is quite the opposite of most basing schemes--the "shuttle" plan
and "dense pack" were both "sponge" strategies.  The idea was to put
the missiles in the most sparsely populated regions, deployed in such
a way that Soviet first-strike missiles would have to be piled on at
ratios that were (supposedly) very disadvantageous to them.

Now, before the anti-nuclear people start lambasting me as Strangelovian,
consider the following:

	- What could be a less ambiguous message to the effect that
	  the U.S. does not intend to strike first?  If we *did*
	  attempt a first-strike, it could only be in the expectation
	  of retaliation against civilian populations--hence any
	  first strike of ours would as much as say, "goodbye world."
	  (True in any case, right?)
	
	- Since "goodbye world" is difficult to construe as a national
	  defense policy, the Soviets would have a reasonable basis
	  for believing in our good intentions.  (Personally, I don't
	  think they have one, at the moment.)
	
	- Since any first-strike from the Soviets would necessarily also
	  be a genocidal action against the U.S., they need not doubt that
	  the U.S. response would be massive--the doctrine of deterrence
	  would thus be re-established; more forcefully, in fact, than ever
	  before.
	
	- Domestically, basing missiles in the civilian population is
	  an overt statement on the part of the U.S. government of
	  the apparent need for such weapons.  An MX in the town
	  square is not (by this reasoning) any less needed than
	  out in the alkali flats of Nevada--in fact, it might be
	  more usefully deployed in the town square, if in doing so,
	  the U.S. is making an honest statement to its citizens and
	  its enemies.
	
	- Certainly, we are expecting no less from West Germany.
	  (Unattributed quote from some DoD analyst: "towns in Germany
	  are only a few kilotons apart.")  Why not demonstrate our good
	  faith, and deploy long-range missiles in a similar manner in
	  our own country?
	
	- The domestic political barriers seem significant--who would
	  really *want* a silo-system downtown, anyway?  However, the
	  question is really one that disarmament promoters could
	  capitalize on:  what is the *difference*, given that the
	  strategy is, or should be, deterrence?  If there is no
	  difference, then what is the objection?  (I, for one, would
	  prefer a silo to some of the office-building projects being
	  pushed around Berkeley--missiles do not create a "need" for
	  ugly parking structures, and are probably not a significant
	  source of carbon monoxide.)
	
	- There seems to be an obvious flaw: doesn't this scheme mean
	  that a U.S. launch-on-warning is much more likely?  Maybe so.
	  However, since this scheme *is* a statement of seriousness
	  and good faith, perhaps the result would be a better state
	  of cooperation among the superpowers in detecting and
	  correcting errors in our (currently, rather error-prone)
	  early warning systems.

So there it is: an MX in every backyard, two cruises in every garage.
A strategic policy for the 80's.  Perhaps we can rephrase it more
respectably in a constitutional amendment.

I hope this has been sufficiently heretical for everyone.  I certainly
wouldn't want to be accused of having tame opinions in one of netland's
biggest flame newsgroups.
---
Michael Turner (ucbvax!ucbvax.turner)