Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site whuxl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!orb
From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Expertise, Nuclear War, and Casualties
Message-ID: <355@whuxl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 20-Nov-84 08:38:13 EST
Article-I.D.: whuxl.355
Posted: Tue Nov 20 08:38:13 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 21-Nov-84 01:38:50 EST
References: <2092@randvax.UUCP> <randvax.2093> <1797@burdvax.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs
Lines: 46

> to be Soviets-29,000; US-21,000 with the Soviets adding to their number
> while our count has remainded more or less the same over the past four
> years.
> 
> 	Kopel: "Are we building or adding?"
> 
> 	Ferraro: "I say we're building."
> 
> 	The implication being that while we are replacing older weapons
> with new and maintaining our count at level the Soviets are adding new
> warheads and increasing their overall total.  So if you're playing the 
> numbers game the Soviets are ahead in the warhead count.
> 
> -- 
> Tom Albrecht 		Burroughs Corp.
> 			...{presby|psuvax|sdcrdcf}!burdvax!bnapl

It is no more true that we are reducing or stabilizing the number of our nuclear
warheads now, anymore than it was true that we "unilaterally disarmed"
during the 70's.  I have previously pointed out that despite Reagan's
repeated misstatements that the US "unilaterally disarmed" during the
70's in fact the US increased its strategic warheads from 4000 to 10000.
In fact the Reagan arms buildup IS leading to an increase in US nuclear
warheads.  The US is adding 2 new warheads every day.
Scientific American in Nov. 1982 had a very informative article examining
Reagan's START proposal--this article pointed out that even had Reagan's
START proposal been accepted that DESPITE reductions in certain weapon
systems it would lead to an overall increase of 1500 nuclear warheads.
I do not have the article available but I believe that it showed an
increase of 5000 warheads by the US without any arms control.
It is unfortunate that Ms. Ferraro is wrong on the overall level of
nuclear warheads held by both sides.  All official estimates I have ever seen
show the US ahead in overall nuclear warheads including the Scientific
American article in Nov. 1982.
 
This increase in our warheads is pivotal because next year the deployment of
an additional Trident submarine *without* a corresponding decrease in other
weapons systems will be a direct violation of SALT II. If this
deployment were not an increase over limits on certain categories of warhead
levels it would not be a violation of SALT II.  The Soviets have dismantled
old weapons systems when modernizing their forces in order to stay under
their 818 ICBM limit under SALT II.
 
the unfortunate fact is that both sides are engaged in an allout arms race
.................
tim sevener whuxl!orb