Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/7/84; site ucbvax.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!ucbvax!medin
From: medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Unilateral disarmament
Message-ID: <1823@ucbvax.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 8-Sep-84 20:25:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.1823
Posted: Sat Sep  8 20:25:00 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 13-Sep-84 19:05:34 EDT
References: <1671@pegasus.UUCP> <2680@ncsu.UUCP>
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 25


The only way to be sure of the Nuclear Winter scenario
is to test it out.  Thats something I'd rather not try.  Until
that happens I wouldnt count on people making policy
on pure simulation data.  I worked on a program awhile
back trying to simulate blast waves from nuclear detonations
at various altitudes, trying to figure out what altitude
was the best for detonating weapons for maximum blast over
the target area.  There were several groups meeting to discuss
their results with the DNA.  All groups had the same input data,
and the best group managed to get the least sensitive variable
(overpressure (one factor overshoots, the other undershoots))
right to 40% of experimental data.  That was the closest they
actually got.  When they first tested the X-ray laser, when the
set it off, it destroyed the test equipment designed.  Simulation
data was way off.  My point is that I am very wary of simulation.
I wouldnt expect any formal policy to be based solely on it.  There
needs to be more work.  If you want some real facts about nuclear
weapons, there is a book published by the DOE (then ERDA) in 1977
called 'The effects of nuclear weapons'.  Its very comprehensive.
I recommend it highly, and a lot of people in the trade have it.
It has a chapter on EMP.  Very enlightening.

					Milo Medin
					NASA Ames Research Center