Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuts.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuts!orb
From: orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Dangerous Military Myth:re to Dahlke
Message-ID: <572@whuts.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 10-Mar-86 09:35:45 EST
Article-I.D.: whuts.572
Posted: Mon Mar 10 09:35:45 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Mar-86 05:18:55 EST
References: <373@ihnet.UUCP> <711@mtuxn.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 57

Some informing facts for Karl Dahlke's consideration
(not that it will make any difference):
> 
> >What advantage?!?  Do you really believe it is better to have 50,000 missiles
> >than 500?  Especially since many reputable independent scientists have
> >recently estimated that ~200 nuclear explosions will
> >irreparably damage the *entire* ecology of our planet.
> 
> Great, as soon as the Russians do it, we'll THINK about it.  By the way
> who has 50,000 missles.  Isn't 50,000 ONE estimate of the total warheads
> on the planet?  As I recall, the US has about 1000 strategic missles (ground
> based) with a total of about 3000 strategic warheads.  Please let us all know
> about the secret 49,000 missles the US has.
> 
  
1)The US has approximately 25,000+ nuclear warheads including both
  strategic and tactical warheads.  We have approximately 7000 strategic warheads.
  If you want a complete catalog, I will be glad to supply one.
  (a good source, even if slightly out of date is the November, 1982
   issue of Scientific American which contains an exhaustive list
   of both sides nuclear weapons systems at that time)
 
2)The Soviets *have* unilaterally stopped all their nuclear testing.
  They have stopped such testing since last August.  Yet the US refuses
  to stop its testing (specifically Reagan refuses to stop and to this date
  Congress has not cutoff funds for nuclear testing) Indeed Reagan 
  ordered a nuclear test soon after the Geneva Summit in case there was
  any doubt of his determination to continue the nuclear arms race.
  The Soviets have offered to verify their testing moratorium with
  on-site inspections. To backup their sincerity in supporting on-site
  inspections last summer for the first time they allowed the International
  Atomic Energy Commission to inspect their civilian nuclear power plants.
  Moreover the leaders of Sweden, Greece, India and 2 other countries
  have offered to verify the Soviet testing moratorium.  These countries
  are *very* concerned about the nuclear arms race since they know
  they would be victims of a global holocaust as much as the US and USSR.
 
  A similar unilateral moratorium on atmospheric nuclear testing by
  John F. Kennedy led to the first major nuclear arms control treaty,
  the Limited Test Ban treaty, in 1963.  Since then neither the US nor
  the USSR has conducted a single above-ground nuclear test - thus sparin
  us all from continued doses of strontium-90 and other radioactive fallout.
  
  Given that Reagan refuses to even stop nuclear testing after a unilateral
  Soviet moratorium, how can they expect him to respond to a unilateral
  moratorium on weapons deployment?  Would he not label such a moratorium
  "propaganda" and find a myriad of excuses to continue the nuclear arms
  race?  
 
  This is not to justify continued Soviet deployments, it is simply to
  question whether we are doing enough ourselves to respond to their
  unilateral *action* to stop their own nuclear tests.
  If we cannot stop nuclear testing when the Soviets have totally stopped
  testing how can we expect ot make *any* progress in stopping the
  nuclear arms race?
 
   tim sevener  whuxn!orb