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: "Disarmament" during the 70's: More warheads
Message-ID: <6552@ucbvax.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 27-Apr-85 19:11:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.6552
Posted: Sat Apr 27 19:11:36 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 28-Apr-85 08:17:24 EDT
References: <123@ttrdc.UUCP> <550@abnji.UUCP> <40@harvard.ARPA> <592@whuxl.UUCP> <56@harvard.ARPA> <596@whuxl.UUCP>
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 58

> We have also been told by Reagan and the Committee to create the Future Danger
> that spending by the War Dept. has declined. In fact, according to the 
> Controller of the War Dept. here are the figures in constant dollars 
> adjusted for inflation:
>  
>            1971:  $179.9 billion*
>            1981:  $193.9 billion
> 
> *note: the figure for 1971 includes billions for the Vietnam War, all our
>        current spending is going to prepare for the next (and probably last)
>        War

But is smaller in terms of GNP.  The GNP of the U.S. in 1981 was
much larger than in 1971.  Constant dollars do not reflect the
defense budget in the light of general gov't expansion due to
GNP increases.


>  
> Did this modernization reduce the stockpile of nuclear weapons?
> No, it did not.  Did it make us more secure by deploying missiles
> which were many times more accurate than their predecessors?
> No it did not.  Since the majority of Soviet forces are in ICBM's
> it moves us closer to a potential first-strike capability which is
> a very unstable and dangerous situation.
> Will the planned new nuclear arms reduce the level of nuclear weapons?
> No it will not.  According to "Arsenal of Democracy" by 1990 if 
> nuclear arms are increased by programs already in the works we will
> have 52,500 nuclear warheads instead of 35,766 nuclear warheads.
>  

It did not reduce the stockpile, but the higher accuracy of the
weapons allowed us to convert from a countervalue strategy to
one of counterforce.  And more warheads do not necessarily
mean more danger, just as fewer does not necessarily mean safer.
And the figure for warheads you site includes tactical and theater
forces, not just strategic.  The important thing is stability,
which arms control treaties have not only not encouraged, but
DISCOURAGED by encouraging MIRV'ing.  Its questionable whether
or not we are better off after the SALT process than before.


> The *only* positive feature of these new weapons have been decreases
> in total megatonnage.  There is a much better way to accomplish such
> decreases in megatonnage: reduce rather than increase the total number
> of nuclear warheads on both sides.
>     

That kind of staement ignores military objectives and requirements.
Decreasing the meagatonnage lowers the collateral damage, and 
increasing accuracy allows more capability.  Remember, we gave
up on MAD sometime ago.


					Milo
>           tim sevener        whuxl!orb

*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***