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!cbosgd!ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad
From: eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Dangerous Military Myth
Message-ID: <399@ihnet.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 24-Mar-86 12:39:15 EST
Article-I.D.: ihnet.399
Posted: Mon Mar 24 12:39:15 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 29-Mar-86 09:12:39 EST
References: <373@ihnet.UUCP> <2146@jhunix.UUCP> <1468@mhuxt.UUCP> <2257@jhunix.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 47

For the past month, I (and many many others) have submitted
postings refuting the tired old "nuclear parity is required
to guarantee a second strike" argument.  Although many important facts are
classified, considerable evidence remains.
Sevener (if I remember correctly) referenced several reputable studies.
Even more salient, the *defense* *department* doesn't
even believe nuclear parity is *required* for a second strike.
As Milo Medin pointed out:
> PD 59 and many other policy
> statements from the executive branch, and the whole strategic force
> structure is designed around a counterforce strategy.  If we were
> under a countervalue doctrine, all we would need would be a few
> Trident submarines...  No ICBM's (with low CEP), little C^3I,
> and a few bombers just in case...  

Despite these articles, some still cling to their beliefs.
Ken Arrombee provides an illustrative example:
>	[ long discussion on the importance of maintaining a second    ]
>	[ strike capability for deterrence;  which few would deny      ]
> 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.

We have done more than dispute it, we have (in my opinion)
thoroughly refuted it!
You either have evidence nobody knows about (not even the defense department),
or you simply haven't been reading these articles.
How much deprogramming is required to undo the brainwashing
of the media and the political institutions of our country?!?
Once engrained, people seem to cling to *any* "national security" argument
with the same religious furver that surrounds creationism, conspiracy
theories, etc.  Unfortunately, politicians prey upon this phenomenon
to sell nuclear buildup (an otherwise unpopular policy).
You would think a common sense understanding of the destructive power
of nuclear weaponry would be an adequate refutation.
When combined with the many studies and statements referenced in past articles,
how can people still believe the "second strike" reasoning?

Disclaimer:  Dismantling the nuclear parity == second strike myth
does not, in and of itself, justify unilateral disarmament.
The defense agencies have *other* reasons for maintaining nuclear parity
at any cost.  *These* reasons must be understood and refuted.
I shall address these later.  For now, can we please dispense with the
"second strike" support for nuclear excess?
-- 
	The moon is more important than the sun, because
	the moon gives us light at night; when we really need it!
			Karl Dahlke    ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad