Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site harvard.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!matthews
From: matthews@harvard.ARPA (Jim Matthews)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: The arms race: Both sides are guilty: Reply to Matthews
Message-ID: <56@harvard.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 19-Apr-85 14:33:33 EST
Article-I.D.: harvard.56
Posted: Fri Apr 19 14:33:33 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 21-Apr-85 03:15:05 EST
References: <123@ttrdc.UUCP> <550@abnji.UUCP> <40@harvard.ARPA> <592@whuxl.UUCP>
Organization: Aiken Computation Laboratory, Harvard
Lines: 56

>>>> Tim Sevener says:
> It is sheer nonsense to talk of a "U.S. nuclear freeze" during the
> 70's. 

	If you mean that we didn't proclaim to the world our abandonment
of the arms race, then yes.  But in a practical sense we did have a freeze,
since we didn't deploy any strategic weapon systems between 1971 and 1979.
Here's the recent history of U.S. weapons deployment, from How to Make War
by James Dunnigan.

Weapon		# 	warheads	year
======		=	========	====
Titan II	36	36		1963
Polaris A3	80	80		1964
Minuteman II	450	450		1965
Minuteman III	550	1650		1970
Posidon C3	480	4800		1971
Trident C4 	16	160		1979

	This doesn't cover strategic bombers, but the situation there
is quite simple.  We built our last B-52 in 1962, and since then the
fleet has gradually dwindled in number.  It's replacement, the B1,
is not planned for completion for a couple years still.

>  Yes, the U.S. dismantled some
> major weapons systems during the 70's.  The reason: to replace those
> weapons with more up to date weapons systems with more accuracy.
> This is exactly the process now going on in Europe which Greg and Jim
> want to ignore. 

	I can't speak for Greg, but I am very interested in the way we
are replacing old weapons, because in most cases we are replacing many,
large-warhead weapons with fewer, smaller-warhead ones.  Consulting the
chart above, you see that it would take 30 Trident subs to equal the 
warhead total of our Posidons, but there are only plans to build 15.
We are replacing 300+ B-52s with 100 B1s, which carry less to start with.
The only area where we are substantially increasing our warhead stockpile
is ICBMs, with the MX.  But if Congress holds Reagan to 40 or so of them
(a good idea), the resulting 400 warheads will not replace the Minuteman IIs
that will soon be dismantled.  The "arms race" is not a head-long rush
to oblivion -- it's an on-going process of maintaining a nuclear force
by replacing old weapons with new.  In recent years this process has
tended toward fewer weapons with smaller warheads -- a very promising
development.

> It is well past time for *both* sides to take the fate of all humans on
> this planet seriously and STOP producing more nuclear weapons.
>  
>            tim sevener   whuxl!orb

	I think there can be a legitimate difference of opinion as to
how we should safeguard the fate of this planet, and I side with those
who believe in maintaining a large nuclear deterrent.

Jim Matthews
matthews@harvard