Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnews!military From: randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Cost Reduction and the Nuclear Deterence Message-ID: <13761@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 6 Feb 90 03:42:24 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: U of Kentucky, Mathematical Sciences Lines: 54 Approved: military@att.att.com From: Randy Appleton Well, here is the latest idea for efficient cost reduction for the U.S. military. I got this from a friendly soul by e-mail, but the argument is my own. Instead of having our 13,000+ stategic nuclear weapons, all of them waiting from various unlikely scenerios from some Nuclear Doom, lets have a smaller and more effective nuclear deterent force. First, some facts. In the 1960's, a DoD study showed that about 600 EMT (effective megatones) would destroy 1/3 of the Soviet population and 2/3 the Soviet industry, which they defined as "destroying" the Soviet Union. This did not include EMP, or Nuclear Winter (which they hadn't even thought of in the 1960's) or even *fallout*, 'cause you couldn't assume any perticular sort of wind patterns on D-day and probably because there methods of analysis (re:computing power) was to weak. I assume that the data, like urban/rural population ratios,hasn't changed much over the years. Well, anyhow, it would seem that to "destroy" the Soviet Union would take about 600 EMT delivered on target (give or take some reasonable amount). So why have such a large strategic force structure? 13,000 warheads at about .4 EMT each is too many! How about having say 4000 warheads: At .5 readyness 2000 warheads At .9 releyabilty 1800 warheads At .4 EMT each 900 EMT (50% more seemed like a good fudge factor) So where does the savings come in: in NOT buying more strategic nuclear weapons. In not buying the B-2, the mobile based MX, or the Migetman. All are still on the budget. Can anyone remember when SO MANY strategic nuclear weapons systems were all on the budget at once? Also, the savings come in in NOT having to pay for the upkeep, and manning of so many weapons systems. That is proably not inconsequential. (BTW an effective megaton is a normal megaton^.6666666 power. The idea is that an effective megaton, weather in one big bomb or many small ones, destroys the same land area. This means that a bomb SMALLER that 1MT counts as MORE than you would think, and visa versa) (BTW again: I know that I am going back to Mutually Assured Destruction, and leaving Warfighting. But do you think we ever really LEFT MAD?) Randy -- _______________________________________________________________________________ "Tiger gotta hunt, bird gotta fly, man gotta sit, sit and wonder why. Tiger gotta sleep, bird gotta land, man gotta tell himself that he understand" -Bokonon [Address:Randy@ms.uky.edu]