Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuxl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!orb
From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Star Wars -> Nuclear war
Message-ID: <523@whuxl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 18-Mar-85 17:59:37 EST
Article-I.D.: whuxl.523
Posted: Mon Mar 18 17:59:37 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 19-Mar-85 05:24:11 EST
References: <827@ames.UUCP> <5201@ucbvax.ARPA> <869@ames.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: /usr/exptools/lib/netnews/myorg
Lines: 82

> > You are not being fair.  Blainey's chief argument in 'cause of war'
> > is that war originates out of ambiguity in power distribution.
> > That is, if one side percieves itself to be clearly inferior
> > to another, they will not attack.  They may try and become
> > stronger, but as long as who's on top remains clear, peace will
> > continue, on the terms of the stronger.  
> > 
 
I don't know about Blainey's argument in 'cause of war' because I haven't
read it.  But I do know what happened in World War I.  Both sides were
relatively equal in terms of power.  The Germans were eager to join the
grab for colonies and were on the upswing in power, where Britain was
facing problems holding onto the colonies it already had.  But most
importantly, regardless of the shifts in relative power for one side or
the other, was that the military systems on both sides believed that
there would be an enormous strategic advantage to attacking first.
Both sides had very detailed and mechanized mobilization plans so that
they could be the first to strike in a war.  Because these mobilization
plans were designed to move as quickly as possible they were also
as automatic as possible.  Once the trains started moving to the front
then a whole sequence of train schedules and further mobilization
was started which involved no conscious decision by anybody.  For such
pauses would interrupt the train schedules and the ability to strike first.
 
Does all this sound remotely familiar?  Substitute launching schedules
for train schedules and you have our present system of "deterrence".

So what happened in World War I?
A relatively insignificant leader of a small country in Central Europe
being assassinated led to the whole mechanism being invoked before
anybody could even stop to think about it.  Of course with the benefit
of hindsight we now know that the idea that whoever struck first would
inevitably win the war quickly was false.  Both sides got locked into
a grueling stalemate which lasted for years rather than the months the
brilliant strategists had planned on.  But the important lesson is
that it is very dangerous to have a system which gives or *appears to
give* the advantage to the side which strikes first.  Unfortunately
the new generation of landbased missiles like the MX promotes or appears
to provide an advantage for the side which strikes first.

So what about this argument:
> > Let me say this, many of us who have worked on defensive systems
> > (as I have) don't believe that a global shield can be built
> > now, or in the near term.  What we do believe is that 
> > significant increases in deterrence are achieveable.
> 
Are significant increases in deterrence achievable with the simple
technological fix of a Start Wars Defense? No. Here's why:
  1)Start Wars can do nothing about the next major advance in
    offensive technology: namely the massive deployment of highly
    mobile, hard to detect cruise missiles.  Both sides are planning
    on deploying thousands of these noxious little weapons in the
    next decade.  Some proponents of Start Wars talk about stopping
    "potential terrorist attacks".  What could be more congenial to
    the potential terrorists than a weapon which can fit in your
    basement?  Nobody claims that Start Wars can stop cruise missiles.
    Is this not defending against the last generation of missiles
    rather than the future potential generation of missiles?
  
  2)Start Wars only stabilizes the position for the side which deploys
    it first.  If you have a reasonably successful Start Wars type
    system *allied* with a major deployment of incredibly destructive
    first strike weapons like the MX then you have totally destroyed
    the deterrence of the other side except for the potential nuclear
    winter effect.  You have very accurate and destructive offensive
    missiles like the MX which can strike first while the other side
    has little chance to retaliate *provided the other side does not
    greatly expand its own offensive forces*. What if the Soviets
    beat us to the finish line? Then what?
    The only way Start Wars could even conceivably actually benefit
    mutual deterrence is if it were coupled with a moratorium on
    the development or deployment of new offensive missiles.
    However is this what we see happening? Not at all, we see the
    Reagan administration not only pushing Start Wars to the hilt
    but also pressing as hard as possible for the MX missile whose
    only purpose is as a first-strike or earlystrike weapon. And
    they are also pushing every other offensive weapon the Pentagon
    can come up with.  Sounds like a prescription for *superiority*
    not balance.  Remember that the concept of *superiority* was
    endorsed in the Republican platform.
Further considerations will be given in another article
  tim sevener   whuxl!orb