Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ames.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!hao!ames!al
From: al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Star Wars -> Nuclear war
Message-ID: <908@ames.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 2-Apr-85 22:06:25 EST
Article-I.D.: ames.908
Posted: Tue Apr  2 22:06:25 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 5-Apr-85 04:15:11 EST
References: <827@ames.UUCP> <5201@ucbvax.ARPA> <869@ames.UUCP> <5549@ucbvax.ARPA> <897@ames.UUCP> <5765@ucbvax.ARPA>
Distribution: net
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA
Lines: 73

> > And if the US percieves itself as capable of attacking without unacceptable
> > damage WE may attack, e.g., Grenada, Vietnam.  Why not USSR?
> > 
> 
> Because the U.S. is responsible to its people, and if we did something
> WRONG, the people would complain.  

A nuclear first strike only takes a few hours.  Complaints would be useless.  As
Vietnam taught us, the US government (while much better than the USSR) is not
above lying to us.

> 
>  In reference to space weapons...
> Of course!  The country that has superiority in space will enjoy
> considerable advantage on the  earth.  Thats the whole idea, and both sides
> know it.  I'd rather we have it than the Soviets.

I'd rather no one had that capability.  The weapons don't exist now.  The
tests would be easy to monitor.  Let's avoid the whole issue and stop
space weapon develoment NOW.

> And most of those warheads are 40kt devices,
> you need a lot of them to make up for their low yield.  Besides,
> they're not counterforce capable.

Sources, please.  If my info is correct SLBM warheads are not counterforce
capable because of inaccuracies.  I suspect that the inaccuracies come from
uncertainty in the exact location of the submarine.  GPS will change this...

> And the Soviet population is so diverse
> that you will have little population damage inflicted by a 
> countervgalue strike by the SLBM force.  4-10% are typical estimates.

Hard to believe.  Check my figures, but I calculate a few thousand SLBM
warheads.  Russia's got lots of large cities, major industrial installations,
etc.  At 50,000 casualties a warhead (less than Hiroshima) I get 50 million
dead from only 1,000 warheads.  That's a fifth of the population.

> A first strike not credible?  Sure its credible, the SLBM force can't
> be used as long as our population is more or less intact.  

Why not?  Any President that fails to incinerate anyone who makes a nuclear
attack on our country is an idiot.

> The bombers take
> way too long to take off from their fields, they'll all be
> incinerated on the ground by Soviet SLBM fire anyways

I believe that a portion of the bomber fleet is kept on airborn patrol.

> The US will never perform
> a nuclear first strike barring some condition in Europe blowing
> up

This is the crux of the matter.  I believe the US will launch a first strike
if it is in our interest to do so.  In fact, the constitution requires it
("provide for the common defense").

> The Soviets have been
> vulnerable to a US first strike for a long time.

Sources and logic please.  I didn't think the Minuteman could take out
Soviet silo's reliably.

> 
> With reference to ASAT's....  A monopoly exists now, Soviet
> monopolies trouble me very much...
> 
Their ASAT force is EXTREMELY limited.  Not much use in a general war, although
they might take out a few low Earth orbit satellites.


P.S. I'm in the basement of 239 - B50.  Come by some time....