Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ucbvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!ucbvax!medin From: medin@ucbvax.UUCP (Milo Medin) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Nuclear Winter and Nuclear Freeze (second try) Message-ID: <1447@ucbvax.UUCP> Date: Sat, 28-Jul-84 21:35:54 EDT Article-I.D.: ucbvax.1447 Posted: Sat Jul 28 21:35:54 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 30-Jul-84 01:18:11 EDT References: <650@teltone.UUCP> <1854@randvax.UUCP> Organization: U.C. Berkeley Lines: 61 I agree. The Nuclear Winter scenario is only a theory, and while more studies need to be done, I wouldnt count on it being true, and certainly not count on anyone in a position of power believing it. I talked to a friend of mine who works at Lawrence Livermore the other day about it, and he doubts its validity. He said the entire report is based on the fact that huge firestorms would be started and pour tons of soot into the air. He noted that the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki didnt start any firestorms, that is, the flash started many fires, but the blast blew them out just as quickly. The Soviet Union has always believed that a nuclear war is winnable, and trains it personell in tactics that are used in an integrated battlefield. Their forces are postured in a way that supports this doctrine, and while propaganda says one thing, its purely for external consumption. Their military doctrine points to something else entirely. Another point that seems very interesting to me is that many people feel the world is much more insecure (in a strategic nuclear sense) than it was 4 years ago. Nothing could be farther from the case. When Carter took office, the Soviets felt him out, first it was the little things, then more and more. During the Carter administration we saw African countries turn communist, Nicarauga fall, and then the invasion of Afghanistan. It was a slow steady escalation, always feeling Washington out. When in the early stages, they felt no opposition, they became bolder and bolder, and the situation escalated more and more, until the Afghanistan affair. Reagan on the other hand, opposed them in every arena right from the start, and even took the initiative in Grenada. The Soviets looked and saw that the U.S. would not allow them to be unopposed, and became very cautious. Look at how the cubans left Nicarauga after the Grenada invaision, like rats leaving a sinking ship. The Soviets are very conservative and will not move unless they have an extremely good chance of going unopposed. They do not have that chance with Reagan, and therefore will not move nearly as boldly. There is a theory in political science that war is the result of an ambiguity is power distribution. As long as people are sure of who is strongest (in terms of will as well), there will be no hot war. Now picture what might have happened if Carter had been reelected. The Soviets, seeing no opposition, continue to expand the number and magnitude of their military activities. They decide Washington wont act, and move into the middle east in some place like Iran. Carter seeing massive Allied pressure and pressure from Congress and the people decides to finally put his foot down and sends in troops. We have superpower confrontation and escalation into God knows what. I see the world in a much better way than the Freeze people do. Things just aren't that simple. Milo Medin ...!ucbvax!medin medin@ucbarpa