Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site mtuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtuxn!gdf
From: gdf@mtuxn.UUCP (G.FERRAIOLO)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Dangerous Military Myth
Message-ID: <719@mtuxn.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 10-Mar-86 18:02:51 EST
Article-I.D.: mtuxn.719
Posted: Mon Mar 10 18:02:51 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 11-Mar-86 19:27:13 EST
References: <373@ihnet.UUCP> <711@mtuxn.UUCP>, <377@ihnet.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 162

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

Thanks for responding.  After all, if there aren't any responses, I've
done something wrong.

>> 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.

Nevertheless, I felt compelled to point out that in strategic weapons,
the US has many fewer missles than 50,000.  I did post an article
with (my opinion), reasonable estimates, which puts the US at about
10,000 strategic warheads and about 2000 missles and bombers.

>> 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).

OF course we also have to pay the bill for everything else the government
does (national debt). I am sorry to have incorrectly quoted your summarization.

>> >> 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 Are you aware that the USSR has withdrawn from the major international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.

Thanks for your response to this.  I often want to scream "you're nuts", but
refrain because the Soviets say it and _mean_ it in a medical sense.

>> >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.

True, 57 rifles per soldier is a point of diminishing returns.  However,
that is because a soldier can only use a few weapons at a time.  Thus
the other 56 rifles or so just aren't used.  That isn't the issue.
The USSR (or the US) _could_ use all the strategic nukes in their arsenal.
There is no mismatch between parts of the weapons systems.  In other
words, if you have 57 rifles for each soldier, you neede to balance your
allocation between rifles and soldiers.  The parallel _I_ draw is between
having 57 soldiers and 1 soldier.  Is there a point of diminishing returns
here?  Probably yes, after all 35 soldiers to 1 is most likely as effective
as 57 to 1.  That is how I see the question.  We aren' talking about 
imbalanced weapons systems (all nukes can fly to target if so ordered),
we're talking about relative force levels.  And those force levels 
don't favor the US.  You can claim that force levels don't matter,
or that a weaker force level is better, but both of those are
counter-intuitive.  That's why I say you bear the burden of proof.

By the way, even the 'balanced weapons system' concept has problems when
applied intuitively.  You might think that with modern weapons a soldier
should be able to kill an enemy by firing, what, maybe 100 to 200 rounds.
For comparision, that is about 2 to 4 M16-fulls of ammo.  So if each
soldier was allocated 1000 rounds, we should be ok right?  And _if_
this analysis were correct if would be "wasteful" to allocate 10,000 to
20,000 rounds of ammunition per soldier.  Too bad, but some studies 
(which I believe) indicate that you need about 10,000 rounds of small arms
ammo to kill an opposing soldier.  Highly unintuitive results!
Now in this case I'm not offering proof, I'm offering my recollection
of a 'proof' which I read once.  If really necessary I could find 
the actual reference.  I wouldn't expect anyone to believe this without
at least my (hopefully acceptable) claim that it is supported by studies of
combat situations. Perhaps this unusual information may inhibit overly 
casual analysis about what is wasteful or not in military affairs.

>Although we may disagree on the exact number, it is economic fallacy
>to assert that more nuclear weapons is *always* better.  Excess is possible.

I'm not asking for an indefinitely large nuclear force, just bigger than it
is now, and riding better delivery vehicles.

>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.

Hummm, I hadn't planned on writing a book on US nuclear strategy this year.
Or course, that is what is needed to "justify" the current nuclear arsenal.
My purpose in replying to your article was not to conclusively prove that
current US nuclear strategy is perfect.  I did want to show that it
was not obviously absurd, as your posting implied.  Yes, we can debate
for aeons just how many nukes the US should have and what kind of delivery
vehicles they should ride.  I haven't PROVED that current US strategy is
correct.  I think I have shown that your analysis (as posted) was not
sufficient to invalidate that strategy.

>Beyond a certain level, the optimal number of warheads is only
>weakly related to the size of the opposing arsenal.

This is your central claim.  Although you may believe it, I don't.
Also, the definition of optimal depends on who you talk to.
Rather than screaming in your ear, I'l just point out that to
analyze this one needs to explictly state many assumptions,
among which are: targeting patterns, readyness status (friendly
and enemy), reliability of weapons systems, domestic political
situation (friendly and enemy), etc.  Rather than try to go into these
issues, I'll say that I define the optimal number of strategic
nuclear weapons to be enough that:

	in the event of central nuclear war, Soviet decision makers know that
	they and their families will die

This statement may seem rather cold-blooded.  On the other hand we _are_
dealing with a government which has killed literally millions of people.

>The defense establishment tries to strengthen the correlation by claiming
>that parity is required to insure a second strike, which is required
>and it is much more expensive and destabilizing.

... fair number of lines deleted describing a small strategic
    force strategy


>Our current arsenal seems as silly as allocating 57 riffles per soldier,

>-- 
>			Karl Dahlke    ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad

Seems so to _you_.  Big difference from your position being obviously 
correct and the only disagreement coming from fools and knaves.

Thanks, Karl, for responding after I took you so heavily to task.
I did notice a somewhat greater attention to detail in this posting.
That was my (noble :-) ) purpose.

Guy