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