Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxt.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!js2j
From: js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Dangerous Military Myth
Message-ID: <1477@mhuxt.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 24-Mar-86 09:50:09 EST
Article-I.D.: mhuxt.1477
Posted: Mon Mar 24 09:50:09 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 27-Mar-86 21:01:22 EST
References: <373@ihnet.UUCP> <2146@jhunix.UUCP> <1468@mhuxt.UUCP> <2257@jhunix.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 78

> >> >> And it gave the Soviets a decided
> >> >> advantage in this regard; 
> >> >Here we see the most dangerous myth in our society today.
> >> >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.
> >> 
> >> According to this reasoning, you should support SDI, since SDI would 
> >> cut down the Soviets' effective number of missiles--(say) 95% of their
> >> missiles won't get through, meaning they have, in effect, 95% fewer
> >> missiles.
> >
> >      Meaning they have, in effect, great incentive to produce 20 times as
> >many missiles.  Only a madman or someone who hasn't seriously considered
> >the likely effects of SDI would support it.
> 
>My point was not to support SDI, but to show why I don't believe your argument.
> If, as you state, 50,000 missiles are no better than 500, there is no
> reason why the USSR, reduced to an effective 5% (say) of their missiles,
> would build more, because having an effective several thousand missiles
> would be no better than several hundred.

     But what it there are some people in russia as hawkish and as unconcerned
about nuclear war as you seem to be?  Then they won't be happy with only 5%
of their missiles.  They won't be happy until they have absolute superiority
over us if they're at all like you, Ken.  Just because there would be no
reason to build more doesn't mean that they wouldn't.
    And one other thing, Ken - In your hurry to reduce your opponent's
and my arguments to one-liners, you've apparently lost sight of the fact
that you're responding to two entirely different people here.
> >...
> >      Since you apparently support SDI, would you mind explaining which of
> >these options you think the Soviets will take?
> 
> I am undecided on SDI (yes that's possible).  By mentioning it I was using
>the (apparently correct) assumption that you don't support it, and showing that
>your argument wasn't consistent with not supporting SDI.  I was agruing against
> your other argument, not for SDI.

     What, was the question too tough for you?  You had to trim all but the
last clause from it and then ignore it?  The question, Ken, was:  faced with
the options of 1.) Relative soviet nuclear ineffectiveness due to a
'successful' star wars, 2.) Massively increasing nuclear forces, in an attempt
to have 'effectively' as many warheads as they would have without star wars,
3.) Attacking now before their nuclear arsenal becomes ineffective, what
do *you* think the Soviets will do, Ken?  What would *you* advocate for the
US, were our positions reversed, and our high-tech was sufficiently far
behind the Soviets that attempting to emulate their star wars research was
not a promising option?
     And by the way, the position of my fellow arms-reductionist is *not*
inconsistant with lack of support for SDI.  Both positions are *for* a better
chance of there being a world left for our grandchildren.

> >     But if there are only hundreds to be used, the earth might still be
> >habitable afterward!  Having enough missiles to satisfy your need for revenge
> >guarantees our planet's inhabitability in the case of their use.
> 
> When you refer to a second strike as "revenge" you miss the point.  You
> had originally claimed that hundreds are enough for a second strike, and
> I pointed out that they are not.  You don't seem to have disputed this.
> Do you concede, then, that your statement is wrong, and hundreds are NOT
> enough to allow a second strike?  (Please note that this is irrelevant to the
> other issue you brought up, whether a second strike is DESIRABLE or just
> "revenge"; this is about whether one would be POSSIBLE.)

      I didn't dispute that since I wasn't particularly interested in that
part of the argument you were having with another fellow.  But since you 
seem to be so fixated on it, I feel compelled to mention that it has already
been pointed out that our nuclear forces on submarines are untrackable, and
essentially invulnerable to a first strike by anyone.  They contain
sufficient warheads to do all the second striking any non-psychotic would
want to do.  Satisfied?  In fact, I don't see any reason at all that the US
should have more than a few or possibly several hundred nuclear missiles
on submarines.  That alone would be a sufficient nuclear deterrant.
-- 
Jeff Sonntag
ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j