Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!duke!unc!bch
From: bch@unc.UUCP (Byron Howes )
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: anti-nuke questions
Message-ID: <6275@unc.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 19-Nov-83 01:13:50 EST
Article-I.D.: unc.6275
Posted: Sat Nov 19 01:13:50 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 22-Nov-83 00:58:33 EST
References: hou5a.437
Lines: 105

Tom Craver asks the following questions of those of us who are opposed
to the continuing buildup of nuclear weapons.  They are good questions
and I hope I can provide good answers.  Understand, I speak only for
myself and for no organized anti-nuclear group:

>>I would like to know why the possibility of nuclear war has suddenly
>>become such a "hot" issue.  After all, we've managed to avoid one for
>>about 40 years now.  The only recent change that I can see is that NATO
>>and the USSR are now about at parity in nuclear forces.  With this in
>>mind, I cannot understand the "freeze" point of view.  If achieving parity
>>is so scary, why attempt to freeze at that stage?  Is the ability to
>>destroy the world 1 more time over, much more scary?

The possibility of nuclear war is not suddenly a hot issue.  Some of us,
who are older, learned to "duck and cover" in the late '50s (boy, does
that seem dumb now!) were members of groups like the Student Peace Union
in the early and mid '60s (yes, we demonstrated back then, too) and find
ourselves back at the same stand in the '80s.  During the '70s we were
horrified by the insanity in Vietnam, but the issue was still with us
(or did you not see "The Twilight's Last Gleaming" with Burt Lancaster.)
The current anti-nuclear movement is focussed on the development of new
technology and the deployment of that technology as close to the Soviet
Union as Cuba is to us.  We have "avoided" nuclear war (in some cases
narrowly) for only 25 years now, not 40.  The first workable ICBM was
announced by the Soviets in 1958.

Parity in nuclear weaponry seems to be a matter of perspective.  According
to some, we are *not* at parity with the U.S.S.R. and in fact lag badly
behind.  According to others, myself included, we are at parity in that
both sides have sufficient weapons to obliterate the other no matter who
fires first.  Let's stop now.  When both sides realize that this is a
negative-sum game, then there is no deterrence no matter how many more
weapons we have than the Soviets or they than us.  Not only does the
continued development and deployment of nuclear weapons have fewer and
fewer returns as the sheer number grows larger, but it consumes resources
and energy better spent in more profitable pursuits like solving problems
in our own country or the exploration of space.  It does nothing at all
to deal positively with the critical problem of living together on this
planet.

>>If our superiority over Russia prevented a nuclear war all these years,
>>why should we think that parity or inferiority will work better?  If that
>>disparity is not what prevented the war, what was?  If it was simply that
>>neither side would *really* engage in a nuclear war, why do anti-nuke'rs
>>think they would they be more likely to do so now?

Again, not all people believe that we have, or have had, nuclear superiority
over the Russians.  Again, I think that superiority, parity, or inferiority
are not meaningful terms to use when considering the number of weapons
currently deployed and their destructive power.  The relative nuclear
strength of both sides *may* have been a factor in preventing war, but cer-
tainly was not the only one.  A great deal of diplomacy has been carried on
over the years, some of it very effective.  There is also the moral issue
of who is going to fire first -- which has deterred as as well as the Soviets.
(The Soviets have had ample opportunity to use tactical nuclear weapons in
Afghanistan, but have not.)

Our relations with the Soviets are now at an apparent all-time low.  There
are critical tensions between the powers in the Mid-East, in Central America,
and in the Far East.  A nuclear war isn't going to happen overnight.  If
any of these trouble spots begins to heat up beyond the point of proxy
fighters -- say, if the U.S. invades Nicaragua or if the Soviets invade
somewhere else -- we are in big trouble.  Given the deployment of high
tech missiles in Europe (anybody remember what happened when the Soviets
attempted to deploy missiles in Cuba in 1963?  We nearly bought the Big
One then!) things are very, very unstable.

>>It seems to me that it is the existance of nuclear arms that has prevented
>>another World War, between NATO and the USSR.  Suppose that we managed nuclear
>>disarmament - how would this war be prevented?  And once such a war got
>>started, what would prevent both sides from re-building nukes and throwing
>>them as fast as they built them?  (Note: this is not an endorsement of the
>>MAD philosophy.)

I thought you were asking questions, not making statements.  The existance
of nuclear weapons makes the nuclear strike a no-cost option -- it is
already bought and paid for.  All you have to do is push the funny little
red button...   A conventional war makes the costs of war somewhat more
apparent in the immediate sense.  You have to solve logistics problems,
deploy and feed troops, move resources, etc. etc.  All of this makes
generals think a little bit before they act.  Mobilization also takes time
before it results in conflict.  Hopefully diplomacy will have a little
more time to work before a conventional war takes place.  The same time
delays, I suspect, would apply in the case of attempting to re-build a
nuclear strike force.  One or two won't do it...you have to make a bunch
before you have a real threat.

>>It also seems to me that "building down" would leave us in a similar
>>condition to where we were 30 or so years ago, except that we'd be
>>at parity with the USSR.  If we no longer have enough bombs to drive
>>the human race to extinction, a nuclear war becomes an "acceptable risk".
>>Do you want Russia to have that perception?  Or even us?

At this point I don't think many people are talking about building down,
just stopping this insanity where it is.  The question you pose is a
difficult one, but not insoluable.  According to the TTAPS scenario, it
won't take a whole lot of bombs (about 1,000) to kill the human race.
Hopefully if we can build down to that point we will have learned something.
If not, we certainly won't have lost anything and we will have been able
to use the resources freed to solve some of our own problems.


					Byron Howes
					UNC - Chapel Hill
					decvax!duke!mcnc!unc!bch