Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site watdcsu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watdcsu!dmcanzi
From: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi)
Newsgroups: net.followup,net.politics
Subject: Re: Star Wars Defense Plan
Message-ID: <361@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 19-Aug-84 22:55:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.361
Posted: Sun Aug 19 22:55:16 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 20-Aug-84 02:04:27 EDT
References: <966@ulysses.UUCP> <1255@vax2.fluke.UUCP>, <814@ihuxb.UUCP> <390@oddjob.UChicago.UUCP>, <816@ihuxb.URe: Star Wars Defense Plan
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 61

Dramatis Personae:
  KG Kurt Guntheroth
  AE Allen England
  MC Matt Crawford

Some of the following has been summarized to prevent this from getting
overly long.  Irrelevancies, such as comments on the other disputants
motives, intelligence, or ancestry, have been removed.



AE> ...(and one of the scenarios considered most likely by military planners)
AE> is that of the "Surgical First Strike" in which one country attempts
AE> to take out the offensive capability of the other country.  In other words,
AE> the most likely scenario is not all out nuclear war, but a smaller strategic
AE> strike.  My entire point in "playing the numbers game" was to show that a
AE> 95% effective defense removes the possibility of the strategic first strike
AE> as an effective strategy against the United States.  Therefore the Soviets
AE> couldn't even consider it.

You should have made you purpose clear in the first place.  We really thought
that you really thought that the Russians are idiots.  Of course, if it is
possible for the Russians to disarm the US in a first strike with only a 
fraction of their total nuclear force, it raises the question of why they
haven't done it.  I can think of a couple of possible reasons:
1) American radar can detect Russian missiles coming over the pole.  This give 
   the US time to launch some of their land-based missiles.  By the time 
   the Russian missile hits the American silo, the silo may be empty.
2) It is difficult, probably impossible, to launch a preemptive strike
   that will get all the American submarines without evaporating the oceans.

KG> According to the newest theories, 100 bombs is enouch to cause a
KG> global climatic catastrophe. ...
< AE has stated that the figure 100 should be 1000.  I have no way to
  check to see who is right at the moment.>

AE> First, these are only theories and no one knows if they are correct.

MC> How shall we test these "theories"?  Shall we just hope that they are
MC> false?  How shall we test the hypothetical defense?  Shall we just
MC> hope that the "theories" on which it is based are true?

AE> I propose that we research
AE> the theories to determine what basis they have in reality.  But WE SHOULD
AE> NOT ASSUME THAT THE NUCLEAR WINTER THEORY IS A FACT and base our military
AE> planning on that unproven assertion.

Okay with me, provided that, while the research is going on, the US doesn't 
base its military planning on the unproven assertion that the Nuclear Winter 
theory is false.  It would also be nice if, somehow, US leaders could be
forced to accept the results of research.  They have been known, sometimes,
to call for more research whenever they didn't like the results of the 
previous research.

	David Canzi, watmath!watdcsu!dmcanzi