Text File

Aucbvax.1723 fa.arms-d utzoo!duke!mhtsa!ucbvax!CAULKINS@USC-ECL Sat Jun 13 22:14:00 1981 US and Soviet Intentions PRESENT STATUS OF US/USSR NUCLEAR CAPABILITY

The arithmetic is quite compelling. The US and the USSR each possess upwards of 10,000 nuclear warheads, a number that keeps growing. Our survival depends on Soviet restraint; should they choose to do so they could utterly devastate the US. Similarly their survival depends on us; we can utterly devastate the USSR. No action we (or they) can take in 1981 can prevent them (or us) from doing this. Hence the madness of MAD; neither side dares do anything out of fear of what the other might do.

Defensive measures (and in this context counterforce strategies can be viewed as a weird kind of defense) do not alter the situation much at all. A 90% effective defense (spectacularly better than anything presently available or contemplated) still leaves them (or us) with 1,000 warheads - more than enough to accomplish the utter devastation. Even a 99% effective defense leaves them (or us) with 100 warheads; enough to destroy our (or their) industry and cause 10 - 50 million deaths.

The point is that the number of nuclear explosions which may or may not occur in the US (USSR) is dependent on Soviet (American) perceptions about what is best for them (us).

US/USSR ASYMMETRIES

Soviet Bad Dreams

About 75% of Soviet strategic nuclear forces are in the form of land based ICBMs increasingly vulnerable to high accuracy warheads (like the US Mark 12A) and to the 'MIRV payoff' - the fact a single accurately delivered warhead from a MIRVd missile can destroy the target missile and all its MIRVd warheads. Less than 60% of US strategic nuclear forces are land based ICBMs similarly vulnerable. Recent history makes Soviet fears of a US first strike reasonable:

1) The US pioneered the development of high accuracy warheads and MIRV.

2) The US has refused to consider a 'No First Use' policy with respect to nuclear weapons.

3) The Carter Administration's adoption of Presidential Directive 59, asserting that US nuclear forces would be used to attack military targets.

4) The American Congress rejected SALT II, indicating a possible resumption of a full scale arms race.

American Bad Dreams

The Soviets have maintained a steady buildup of strategic nuclear weapons during the past decade and continuing through today. There were some American expectations that the Soviets would stop when they achieved parity with us; there was a pause in American manufacture and deployment of land based ICBMs. These expectations were not fulfilled; the Soviets continued beyond what we regarded as an appropriate parity level.

Shared Bad Dreams

The vile communists (the evil capitalists), bent on world domination at any cost, are planning to fight and win a nuclear war. This verges on madness, but we must be ready for whatever happens and in consequence must continue to build up our strategic forces.

COMMENTS

My judgement is that both sides want rather badly to avoid nuclear war, but that mutual paranoia has lead us into a descending spiral that brings us closer and closer to nuclear war.

The US bears a particularly heavy responsibility in this matter since we have pioneered in developing and deploying destabilizing, first strike capable weapons - MIRV and high accuracy warheads.

SOME DIRECTIONS FOR SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM

First of all we need to devote significant resources (clever people, money, and time) to the solution of the problem posed by nuclear weapons. At the moment the amount of money spent to solve the problem is tiny compared to the amount spent for the weapons to aggravate it.

Since we are locked in a deadly embrace with the Soviets, we and they need to understand much more about what they and we want, how we think about these problems, etc., etc. One suggestion that I think has merit is for the US Congress to pay an extended visit to the Soviet Union. The probable result would be that the doves would come back depressed by the oppressive character of Soviet authoritarianism, and the hawks would return reassured by the deep seated Russian hatred of war. The equivalent bodies of the Soviet government should make a similar extended visit here.

We should put more money into defensive technology (zapsats, etc) even though the payoff from this is likely to be small in the immediate future. I believe this should take the form of a cooperative venture with the Soviets. It is in both our interests that a good defense against ballistic missiles be created and maintained; I think such a project can be designed to turn mutual distrust to advantage. I've run on at the mouth too much already; I'll save my Great Soviet/American Missile Defense Project for another ARMS-D. -------

----------------------------------------------------------------- gopher://quux.org/ conversion by John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> of http://communication.ucsd.edu/A-News/

This Usenet Oldnews Archive article may be copied and distributed freely, provided:

1. There is no money collected for the text(s) of the articles.

2. The following notice remains appended to each copy:

The Usenet Oldnews Archive: Compilation Copyright (C) 1981, 1996 Bruce Jones, Henry Spencer, David Wiseman.