Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site randvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!randvax!rohn
From: rohn@randvax.UUCP (Laurinda Rohn)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Star Wars -> Nuclear war
Message-ID: <2399@randvax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 10-Apr-85 19:13:47 EST
Article-I.D.: randvax.2399
Posted: Wed Apr 10 19:13:47 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 14-Apr-85 02:31:15 EST
References: <827@ames.UUCP> <5201@ucbvax.ARPA> <869@ames.UUCP> <5549@ucbvax.ARPA> <897@ames.UUCP> <5765@ucbvax.ARPA> <908@ames.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica
Lines: 57

> from Al Globus (I think!)
> 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.

Actually, a first strike would take minutes (on the order of 30-40 minutes
for the ICBMs of either country to reach the other one.  Your point is
definitely well taken!

> >  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.

I have to agree with Al, although there might be some weapons which
exist now.  I've heard rumors of Soviet ASATs being tested already.
However, if nothing else comes out of Geneva, I would like to see a
treaty banning weapons in space.  Leave the satellites alone, but
no ASATs!


> > 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.

The Soviet population is less concentrated than ours, but they are still
grouped into cities.  I think the 4-10% estimates of population dead
might be assuming that the population has already been dispersed to
civil defense facilities.  20-30% is much more likely if they aren't
dispersed.


> > 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.

Part of the bomber fleet is in fact kept on airborne alert.  An
additional part of the fleet is kept on strip alert, which means they
are supposed to be able to get in the air within 5 minutes of being
ordered to do so.

				Lauri
				rohn@rand-unix
				..decvax!randvax!rohn

Opinions are my own and might not be the opinions of Rand Corp.