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: poll (nuclear disarmament verifiability) Message-ID: <526@whuxl.UUCP> Date: Wed, 20-Mar-85 11:42:54 EST Article-I.D.: whuxl.526 Posted: Wed Mar 20 11:42:54 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 21-Mar-85 03:26:55 EST References: <5202@ucbvax.ARPA> <386@abnji.UUCP> <5544@ucbvax.ARPA> Organization: /usr/exptools/lib/netnews/myorg Lines: 73 *** Welcome Back Milo!! Glad to see you are as misinformed as ever!! *** > Are From Milo ("Mad Bomber") Medin of course: Is it true that arms control treaties cannot be verified? Well, that depends on what you mean by "verified". Certainly it is impossible to track every possible minor infraction. But then, it is also impossible to track everyone violating speed limit controls on our highways. Does that mean speed limits should be abolished? I hardly think so. Even tho almost everyone consistently violates speed limits at the edges (i.e. going 5 to 10 miles over the posted speed limit) they still keep the vast majority of people from going 100 miles per hour. To this degree then speed limits accomplish their objective: they keep the average speed on the highways lower than it would be without speed limits and consequently increase the safety of the highways for everyone. I think this was seen in the reduction of fatalities after the 55 mile speed limit was imposed. Even tho almost everyone actually drives over 55 miles per hour the average speed was reduced from the previous state in which everyone actually drove over 65 or 70 miles per hour. Consequently we also saw a decrease in the number of fatalities. For this reason, even if speed limits cannot be totally verified and are consistently ignored at the margins, they *do* succeed in limiting people's speed on the highways. Arms control is no different than speed control. There is no doubt whatsoever that both sides will try (and *have* tried) to violate arms control agreements at the margins. Moreover it is also true that certain minor infractions cannot be verified. For example as the March, 85 Scientific American article on verification points out a total nuclear test ban could only be verified for tests over one kiloton. Perhaps both sides might actually be able to get away with tests of two kilotons and not be detected. But even if either side wanted to conduct such tests (rather doubtful when the smallest nuclear weapons either side has deployed is over 20 kilotons) isn't such a limit better than allowing totally unlimited testing? The same argument applies to ballistic missile tests. The Scientific American article points out that just one ballistic missile test could be detected with over 90% accuracy from all the various satellites, infrared detectors, radar facilities and so forth that both sides have. So perhaps one side or the other might get away with conducting one or even several ballistic missile tests and get away with it without being detected. But first off, would just one test be enough to tell them anything meaningful? And secondly is not some sort of limit that is over 90% verifiable better than no limit at all? Reason suggests that it obviously is preferable to limit Soviet arms development even if such limits are not 100% verifiable. > An even if we suspected them of it, what would we do, yell at them > at the SCC? Big deal. > Yes, the SCC *used* to be a big deal. It has been used by Presidents Nixon, Ford and Carter to stop activities that the US considered in possible violation of arms treaties. Unfortunately President Reagan has not used the SCC but instead has shouted his accusations to the world. In the 70's the Soviets were accused of using an SA-5 radar in a mode that violated the ABM treaty. Eventually after the matter was brought before the SCC and examined they stopped such use. If the Krasnoryk radar facility was brought before the SCC in a reaonable manner then ways in which it may violate the ABM treaty could probably be resolved. Once again, this is no different than controlling highway speeds: enforcement does not just involve telling somebody's neighbors that somebody is a speeder, and publishing such accusations in all the local newspapers. It involves legal recourse to courts in which the accused can defend her/himself and the evidence on both sides can be examined as dispassionately as possible. This is the function of the SCC in arms control: both sides can bring their grievances and negotiate over whether such grievances are justified. What is worse about Reagan's and militarists approach is that not only do they shout to the world that their neighbor is cheating on speed limits: they then go on to argue that therefore there should be no speed limits and they should be allowed to go as fast as they please irrespective of everybody else's safety and security. Is this the way we expect a civilized society to operate? I think not. tim sevener whuxl!orb p.s. rebuttals to other of Milo's misconceptions are forthcoming....