Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utcsri.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!hogg
From: hogg@utcsri.UUCP (John Hogg)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Canadian participation in Star Wars.
Message-ID: <1165@utcsri.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Jun-85 12:21:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: utcsri.1165
Posted: Wed Jun  5 12:21:45 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 5-Jun-85 12:42:19 EDT
References: <893@mnetor.UUCP> <5642@utzoo.UUCP> <896@mnetor.UUCP> <5645@utzoo.UUCP> <906@mnetor.UUCP> <5661@utzoo.UUCP> <935@mnetor.UUCP>
Reply-To: hogg@utcsri.UUCP (John hogg)
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Lines: 37
Summary: 

Henry Spencer has made statements about the nuclear philosophies of the two
superpowers.  While I respect him as the most informed contributor to this
newsgroup, I would like to dispute his claim that the US policy is MAD, and
only MAD.

While this may be the current party line, the military is moving away from
it, dragging the politicians as they go.  The new doctrine is one of
"flexible response": there is a continuous spectrum of options ranging from
conventional forces through tactical nukes on up to full-scale
shoot-the-works.  Nuclear wars are no longer expected to be over in an hour
and a half; each side can chuck a few warheads over, inspect the results,
and decide whether to hang in for another round.  Military planners are
seriously discussing exchanges of this nature that continue for *weeks* or
*months*.

The Soviets have claimed that their response will be one of massive
retaliation to any nuclear strike.  If this is true, then it makes the
flexible response strategy meaningless.  I believe the Soviets in this
particular case, as it fits in with my opinion of their way of
thinking.  Choose your own model of Russian behaviour; just keep it
consistent through all your arguments.

Generally, Henry is right about bombs-in-a-basement being farfetched.  The
inability of SDI to deal with this is not one of its numerous failings.  A
group here at CSRI has presented a brief to the Liberal Task Force on
Peace, Security and World Disarmament outlining the serious dangers of SDI
from a computer scientist's point of view.  I will try to get the authors'
permission to post it.  As time permits, I will also point out the major
flaws in the physics and strategy of the system.

I realize that (in typical Usenet style) I have provided no references for
my claims.  However, if anybody asks, I will hunt them down.
-- 

John Hogg
Computer Systems Research Institute, UofT
{allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsri!hogg