Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihnet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad
From: eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Dangerous Military Myth
Message-ID: <377@ihnet.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 8-Mar-86 11:49:11 EST
Article-I.D.: ihnet.377
Posted: Sat Mar  8 11:49:11 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Mar-86 21:19:18 EST
References: <373@ihnet.UUCP> <711@mtuxn.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 87

In his response to my original article, Guy raises several good points.
I shall address only a couple here.

> By the way
> who has 50,000 missiles.  Isn't 50,000 ONE estimate of the total warheads
> on the planet?  

Quite.  The typing can slip as easily as the tongue.
I used the word "missile" instead of "warhead".
If you observe net.flame protocol, you will conclude from this that I don't
know the difference, and discard the entire article,
but you are more rational than that.  As for references,
check the back issues of Scientific American.  Several articles
quote 50,000 as the approximate number of U.S. nuclear warheads.
Many have batted this number around on this news group without question.
Of course this may be classified information, making it hard to "prove".

> Statement contrary to fact.  The cost of nuclear weaponry is not significant
> in 'driving our economy into the ground'.  

You have quoted a summarizing statement out of context.
If you reread the article carefully, you will note that
I blame wasteful defense programs, not just nuclear proliferation.
I realize that nuclear bombs are relatively cheap.
I also said it was a risk (has not distroyed the economy yet).
Of course, we have yet to pay the bill (national debt).

> >> We have to keep an eye on those sneaky Communists or they'll try 
> >> to get the best of us every time.
> >Can you say paranoid schizophrenic?  I knew you could.
> Are you aware that the USSR has withdrawn from the major international
> psychiatric association to avoid censure?  Why were they about to
> be censured?  They claim that people who oppose them are 'schizo'
> and imprison them in 'hospitals' where the victims are tortured with
> electroshock and drugs.  Real psychiatrists are revolted at this, like
> real people. 

I am aware.   I should not, even in jest, make statements that approximate
the Soviet "diagnosis" of its citizens.  My apologies.

> >How can we get this myth of "more is better" out of the
> >heads of our gullible citizenry.
> Gee, I don't know.  It is going to be a toughie, since in war, more is 
> usually better.  In fact, the burden is on you to prove the opposite.

Actually, I claim the burden of proof is on you!
More is never "better" forever.  The economic law of diminishing
returns applies to *everything* from riffles to nuclear weapons.
It does not do any good to give soldiers 57 riffles per person,
since each can only wield one (at most two).
Producing excess rifles has opportunity costs, preventing a country
from feeding its citizens, or developing a better rifle.
Note that the optimal number of riffles is *not* affected
by a postulated stockpile of excess riffles on the opposing side.
Parity is not *necessarily* required.

Although we may disagree on the exact number, it is economic fallacy
to assert that more nuclear weapons is *always* better.  Excess is possible.
Each substantial increase must be justified, if my tax dollars are buying the
weaponry.  Prove to me that we need 50,000 warheads.
Unsubstantiated claims of "more is better" or "parity is required
at every level" are woefully inadequate.

Beyond a certain level, the optimal number of warheads is only
weakly related to the size of the opposing arsenal.
The defense establishment tries to strengthen the correlation by claiming
that parity is required to insure a second strike, which is required
for deterence, which is required for peace.
The second link in this chain of reasoning is probably valid.
The third link is rather subjective, since it requires one to
predict Soviet actions.  This is easier than many claim, but
it cannot be done with complete certainty.
The first link is by far the weakest.  It doesn't take many warheads to
guarantee a second strike.  A few hundred, scattered throughout
the world (most on submarines) would be adequate.
Only a few missiles need survive an initial attack.
The Soviets could not possibly distroy *all* these warheads simultaneously.
Remember, information (light) travels faster than missiles.
With this in mind, *some* C3I programs are very important, guaranteeing
that this information is always available, but that is a separate issue.
If you support unbridled nuclear buildup, or at least nuclear parity,
please prove that all those weapons are necessary.
Our current arsenal seems as silly as allocating 57 riffles per soldier,
and it is much more expensive and destabilizing.

-- 
			Karl Dahlke    ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad