Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.17 $; site ea.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ea!kel
From: kel@ea.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: World War III. Part 1 (of how many p
Message-ID: <22400077@ea.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 16-Feb-85 21:38:00 EST
Article-I.D.: ea.22400077
Posted: Sat Feb 16 21:38:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 22-Feb-85 10:14:13 EST
References: <3364@alice.UUCP>
Lines: 45
Nf-ID: #R:alice:-336400:ea:22400077:000:1951
Nf-From: ea!kel    Feb 16 20:38:00 1985


[sacrificed to the line eater]

One assumption that has remained tacit in this discussion
is that all nuclear weapons remain in the control of the
government (or other owner) who manufactured them.  Some
interesting questions arise if this assumption is relaxed.

How secure are supplies of nuclear weapons, and can security
be maintained under circumstances of proliferation.  I suggest
that at some point it must become impossible to maintain total
security over ANYTHING.  If this suggestion reflects reality,
why isn't anybody asking about the security problem?

Almost identically, how secure are suppllies of fissionables?
Almost anybody with an engineering degree, and numerous others,
can build a crude atomic bomb.  If a 10-20 kiloton blast leveled
Manhattan Island, would the government perceive an isolated
incident, or a conspiracy that merited a retaliatory strike?

What are possible motives for stealing a nuclear device?  A
sufficiently compelling motive allows individuals to perform
amazing feats.  Are BOTH American and Russian nuclear bases
secure against ALL POSSIBLE attacks?  Remember that almost
all of the Russian arsenal is land based.  Submarines are
much easier to guard, of course(?)

If an outside party did acheive control of a nuclear base,
how would it be possible to cope with the immediate threat?
What would be the obstacles to regaining control of the base
and would any such move be practicable?

Assuming the possibility of nuclear terrorism, what next?
Obviously, we can't eradicate the knowledge of nuclear weapons.
Even if we destroyed all record of their existence, you can
bet some jerk is hedging his bets.  Even if we should disarm,
the threat of nuclear terrorism is only slightly diminished.
Enough fissionables are unaccounted for in American fuel plants
to level several (anybody have an educated guess how many?)
cities.

I have found the nuclear arms discussion most unimaginative
heretofore.

Ken