Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: net.followup,net.politics
Subject: Re: Star Wars Defense Plan
Message-ID: <4321@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 15-Sep-84 19:57:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: utzoo.4321
Posted: Sat Sep 15 19:57:59 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Sep-84 19:57:59 EDT
References: <557@ttds.UUCP>, <388@vu44.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 51

> ... Weapons like the neutron bomb, the SS-20 and the
> cruise missile are designed to be used. *That* is what makes
> them so dangerous...

Please explain to me how these weapons differ so fundamentally from
all previous weapons.  I'm afraid I see no such distinction.  All
weapons are designed to function if asked to, and to not function if
not asked to.  I see no evidence that, say, the SS-20 is "designed
to be used" to any greater or lesser extent than an SS-9 or a "Frog"
artillery missile.

>  Now, with the event of small nuclear arms ...

Are you really so naive as to believe that small nuclear arms are new?
They've been around for twenty years or more.  If you want an example
of a *really* dangerous nuclear weapon, consider the "Davy Crockett",
deployed in the early 60's and retired a few years later:  a nuclear
missile with a very small warhead and a range of only about 3 kilometers.
This was a truly gross case of a missile that an army commander would
be sorely tempted to use before the Soviets could overrun it; that was
part of the reason why it was retired quickly in favor of longer-range
weapons.

> If a general sees a tank division coming his way, he might be
> tempted very soon to use something like a neutron bomb.

Again, "tactical" nuclear weapons are nothing true; if you change the
word "neutron" to "tactical nuclear", removing the reference to a new
technology, this statement has been true for most of our lifetimes.

> The other side will probably see this as a nuclear aggression,
> and launch a couple of cruise missiles or SS-20's to take out
> a minor city as a warning.

Again, substitute "ICBMs" for cruise missiles, or "Pershing I" (not II)
for "SS-20's".  There is nothing new about this prospect, and the new
weaponry is not really changing anything fundamental.

>  I think that this is the real reason for the opposition against
> the new nuclear weapons. The are *NOT* meant to scare the other
> party, the are meant to be *USED*. MAD protected us against war
> for 40 years, but these new weapons make MAD obsolete.

Again, you haven't justified this statement in any way.  Please explain
why the new weapons are so fundamentally different from things that have
been in place for decades.  If you don't *know* what things have been
in place for decades, don't you think you should find out before sounding
off on the subject?
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry