Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site randvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!randvax!rohn From: rohn@randvax.UUCP (Laurinda Rohn) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Nuclear power "experts" are just trying to erase the Sputnik era Message-ID: <2136@randvax.UUCP> Date: Fri, 16-Nov-84 13:40:54 EST Article-I.D.: randvax.2136 Posted: Fri Nov 16 13:40:54 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 19-Nov-84 03:22:54 EST References: <1133@drusd.UUCP> <2082@randvax.UUCP>, <328@whuxl.UUCP> <2092@randvax.UUCP> <344@whuxl.UUCP> <270@mhuxm.UUCP> <345@whuxl.UUCP> Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica Lines: 87 *>From: donn@utah-gr.UUCP (Donn Seeley) *> ... In this sense strategic study is not a *>science; it must rely on incomplete information derived from case *>studies, and can only make very qualified predictions. It is perfectly *>possible for two individuals to take contrary positions based on their *>interpretation of evidence that can't be confirmed by experiment, and *>it is even possible for both individuals to be intellectually honest. Strategic study is also based on incomplete intelligence information. No one can know everything about what the "other side" has. What Mr. Seeley says is quite true. It is indeed possible for two (or even more!) strategists to come up with entirely or partially differing opinions. And both of them could in fact be both intellec- tually honest AND right! "What? You mean it's not black and white? There may be no right and wrong? Ack!!!" Life is tough! :-) *> ... To rectify this it would be *>interesting if the more informed readers (hello, Milo?) justified some *>of their reactions to the speculation here, instead of simply *>contradicting. For example, why is it that MAD cannot be guaranteed if *>the Soviets develop more land-based ICBMs without a similar increase on *>our part? Or, why is it more useful to spend money to keep parity in *>nuclear forces than to keep parity in conventional forces? Or, why do *>we want to continue develop chemical and biological deterrents when we *>have promised not to use them, when we could instead use the funds to *>to improve our preparedness for their use by the bad guys? All these *>questions perhaps sound naive, but they need to be answered if the *>public is to stay informed. Every little bit helps... Well, I'm not Milo, and this isn't net.nuc-issues, but I'll answer anyway. MAD may not be guaranteed in the above situation for the following reason. One typical MAD scenario says that if the Soviets strike first, we can assure them that we will have the capability to strike back and destroy them. But if they build lots more ICBMs and we don't, they may have the power to destroy so many of our ICBMs if they strike first that we would no longer have the ability to destroy them in a retaliatory strike. But this is not a certain problem. It depends on other things as well, like our bombers and subs. The second question is still uncertain. Both sides argue that their view is right. Who knows? I don't have much to say about chemical and biological weapons. Personally, I wish that the public could be more informed about the issues. Unfortunately, not everyone would understand the various arguments. I don't want to come off as an elitist, though. Not everyone understands linear algebra, either, but it doesn't mean that they aren't intelligent. It seems that the most prevalent form of information is "They have X warheads/launchers/bombs/planes/subs/etc. and we have Y." This, as I've said before, isn't a good measure of strength. > from tim sevener whuxl!orb > To think that it is *only* the Physicians for Social Responsibility ... > The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists represents many physicists and other > scientists who have been concerned about the arms race since it began... > Several weeks ago the Federation of American Scientists warned that... > Neils Bohr, one of the founders of Quantum Mechanics warned Truman ... > Albert Einstein warned that the atomic bomb had changed everything ... > Linus Pauling said "We have had only a few years to comtemplate ... My, my, my, this is an impressive list. However, I don't know *anyone* who isn't concerned about the effects of nuclear weapons. ****But that still doesn't qualify them to make nuclear policy or engage in arms control negotiations!**** > Bertrand Russell, with Whitehead, the author of "Principia Mathematica" > and joint developers of symbolic logic (hardly one who could be accused of > not understanding calculus!) campaigned for nuclear disarmament. > It does not take a keen understanding of mathematics to understand that > if one atomic bomb could devastate a city of several hundred thousand people > that one million six hundred thousand such destructive powere would > devastate the whole world. Again, just because one understands what nuclear weapons can do doesn't mean one understands nuclear strategy or how they should be controlled. Mr. Sevener continues to confuse this issue. And I hope he doesn't mean that just because one understands calculus, one automatically understands nuclear policy or strategy. That is definitely absurd. Lauri Rohn rohn@rand-unix.ARPA ...!decvax!randvax!rohn Note: The above views are simply mine and do not necessarily represent those of the Rand Corporation or any reasonable entity.