Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucbvax.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!medin From: medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Star Wars -> Nuclear war Message-ID: <6214@ucbvax.ARPA> Date: Sat, 13-Apr-85 19:23:27 EST Article-I.D.: ucbvax.6214 Posted: Sat Apr 13 19:23:27 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 15-Apr-85 00:36:20 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: University of California at Berkeley Lines: 107 > > 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. > I agree complaints would be useless, and few would be in the know. I wasn't attempting to extend my point to past the conventional arena. > > > > 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. > Ah but the weapons do exist. An operational system has been deployed by the Soviets, and we will match it with our own. > > 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... SLBM warheads are not counterforce because of accuracy. Very true, my point about yield was in the traditional sense of using SLBM for retaliatory countervalue strikes. GPS is a space based system and is vulnerable. I wouldn't count on it being around. And the Sub can't use GPS while submerged. There are many books out covering the yield of strategic weapons. The 40kt figure is correct. > > 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. > Not true. We do not have a 'few' thousand. And the linear increase in casulties is a bad assumption. Japan was (still is) one of the most densest population areas in the world. Not so with the USSR. After the 1st 100 cities, you start taking out villages with very low marginal casulty rates. You came up with 20%, you can see how it gets as low as I said it was... > > 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. > I hardly call 4-10% casulties 'incineration'. Especially if it comes at the price of 150 million American lives. > I believe that a portion of the bomber fleet is kept on airborn patrol. > The airborne alert force was phased out years ago. The B-52's have huge repair costs as it is, much more with continous flying going on, not to mention fuel costs. The cost of B-52 readiness and fuel costs would have paid for their replacement by the equivilant B-1 force years ago. > 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"). Considering the risk to U.S. population, it would hard to think of a rationale justifying the risk if the population were still intact. > Sources and logic please. I didn't think the Minuteman could take out > Soviet silo's reliably. > The Soviets didn't use to have many ICBM's at all, much less hardened ones. The fact that most of their alert force takes 45 minutes to ready for firing (liquid fueled) makes it a sitting duck for a coordinated strike. This is in contrast to our solid fueled force with a reaction time of 2 minutes. > > > > 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. > But its operational now. And many of our most sophisticated recon satellites are in low to medium orbits. Milo