Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxb.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!ihuxb!alle From: alle@ihuxb.UUCP (Allen England) Newsgroups: net.followup,net.politics Subject: Re: Star Wars Defense Plan Message-ID: <816@ihuxb.UUCP> Date: Sun, 19-Aug-84 12:08:39 EDT Article-I.D.: ihuxb.816 Posted: Sun Aug 19 12:08:39 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 20-Aug-84 01:48:27 EDT References: <966@ulysses.UUCP> <1255@vax2.fluke.UUCP>, <814@ihuxb.UUCP> <390@oddjob.UChicago.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL Lines: 84 % = Matt Crawford >> = Kurt Guntheroth> = my comments quoted earlier % I always had hoped that I would never post an article that had quotes- % within-quotes, but here I go. ">>" denotes Kurt Guntheroth % and ">" denotes Allen England . >> Lets say the Star Wars defense plan is 95% effective ... >> Now lets say the Russians have 10,000 nuclear warheads, >> a relatively good estimate for their strength by the time >> we could implement Star Wars). 0.05 * 10,000 = 500. >Suppose the Soviets go for a pre-emptive strike against military targets and >only launch 1000 bombs. 50 get through which is not enough to cripple our >retaliatory capability. % Allen England would have us believe that our % hypothetical defense is 95% effective and at the same time have the % Soviets disbelieve it so strongly that they would attempt a first % strike with only one-tenth of their weapons. Funny you should mention the lack of rational debate in my arguments as you are emotionally reacting to my article. One of the significant military strategies (and one of the scenarios considered most likely by military planners) is that of the "Surgical First Strike" in which one country attempts to take out the offensive capability of the other country. In other words, the most likely scenario is not all out nuclear war, but a smaller strategic strike. My entire point in "playing the numbers game" was to show that a 95% effective defense removes the possibility of the strategic first strike as an effective strategy against the United States. Therefore the Soviets couldn't even consider it. >> According to the newest theories, 100 bombs is enouch to cause a >> global climatic catastrophe. ... >First, these are only theories and no one knows if they are correct. % How shall we test these "theories"? Shall we just hope that they are % false? How shall we test the hypothetical defense? Shall we just % hope that the "theories" on which it is based are true? You have missed the point of all of my articles on this subject. I am not suggesting blind acceptance of any theories. I propose that we research the theories to determine what basis they have in reality. But WE SHOULD NOT ASSUME THAT THE NUCLEAR WINTER THEORY IS A FACT and base our military planning on that unproven assertion. Especially when the person quoting the "theory" didn't even bother to get the magnitude of the numbers correct. >> There is exactly one defense against nuclear war; proscription of nuclear >> weapons. Until then, there is no safety in any defense plan. >This is the kind of defeatist attitude which prevents progress in all >areas. % Is the opposite attitude, which claims that a large enough military % budget will make us safer, leading to progress? Where did I say that? In all of my articles on this topic, I have taken the stand that we shouldn't just rule out this idea because some of arms control advocates are against it. % There is very little rational debate in your statements, Allen England. % Could you please think harder or move your remarks to net.flame? I, % for one, will promise not to argue with you in that newsgroup. % Matt University ARPA: crawford@anl-mcs.arpa % Crawford of Chicago UUCP: ihnp4!oddjob!matt This is a very interesting statement. I have noticed that whenever someone takes the viewpoint that some military objectives are desirable, there is loud and indignant outcry from many netters. It must be very comfortable to *know* all of the answers and then sit back and attack those with the *wrong* viewpoint. Matt, why don't you join me in the endeavor to "think a little harder?" For the record, let me state that I am not in favor of a massive arms build-up. However, I do not believe that we should just lay down our weapons and depend on the good will of the rest of the world. I believe that a strong military is important to our national well-being and I am willing to listen to new military ideas (which it seems, Matt Crawford doesn't want to hear since they can't possibly be rational). Allen England ihnp4!ihuxb!alle