Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!husc6!panda!genrad!mit-eddie!mit-trillian!speter
From: speter@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Peter Osgood)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Nuclear Aftermath:killing or healing
Message-ID: <1167@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 18-Sep-86 09:26:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-tril.1167
Posted: Thu Sep 18 09:26:53 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 23-Sep-86 01:51:27 EDT
References: <1071@hoptoad.uucp> <776@mtung.UUCP> <977@whuts.UUCP> <20855@styx.UUCP> <1252@whuxl.UUCP> <20864@styx.UUCP>
Reply-To: speter@athena.mit.edu (Peter Osgood)
Organization: MIT Project Athena
Lines: 52

In article <20864@styx.UUCP> mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) writes:
>In article <1252@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes:
>> > [Michael C. Berch]
>
>Precisely my point. I do not personally expect to survive a full-scale
>nuclear war nor even a single-city attack if it is *my* city that gets
>attacked. Nevertheless, if I do survive, I am going to want to try to
>assure the safety of myself and family (or friends or co-workers) in
>order to help out and try to re-establish some kind of commonsense
>community -- medical care, shelter, food distribution, sanitation, heat 
>and light, etc. I also care about saving books, records, art objects,
>cultural artifacts, and the like, which would help in the rebuilding
>process that I would not be likely to live to see.
>

The survival of the human race after *all* the nukes that exist have
been launched is remote, at best.  So surviving is not a concern, join
the Ground Zero Club with the rest of us and go in the first wave.

>Much more to the point is what to do about situations less than
>full-scale nuclear war: terrorist nukes, one or two-city exchanges,
>attacks on remote military targets with significant radiation release,
>fallout from a nuclear war on another continent, use of tactical warheads 
>near civilian areas, or even non-nuclear mass disasters like a really
>big earthquake.

This scenario is played out almost daily by the military leaders and
many political scientists of the world.  What looms large is the chance
of escalation.  In other words, could there realisticly be an exchange
of 1 and 1 nuke or 2 and 2 nukes, etc.  Since one side is likely to want
to get the last say in, it would be very very difficult to rely on a
limited engagement.

I spent 14 years in the Army (3 1/2 as a reservist).  I have seen our
"military leaders" first hand, having been an officer, and frankly, I
am not convinced that the vast majority of those field officers and
general staff officers who are put in charge of tactical nukes are
competant enough to make the right decision.  What is even more scary
is the fact that Communist Bloc officers are not nearly as good as
their Western counterparts.  To wit: in the Western forces authority to
make decisions is relegated to the lowest possible level.  In the East
it is just the opposite.  The definition of "possible" being: that 
level at which faith in judgement exists.

Understand me clearly, I am very much in favor of a strong military
but the present level of nukes is entirely unacceptable.  Between
the two powers there are approximately 20,000 warheads.  It is estimated
that something less than 1,000 warheads being used in any exchange
will trigger a nuclear winter.  Further, those 1,000 warheads are 
more than enough to reduce the world powers to nothing.

				---peter osgood---