Letters

Move beyond the logic of the Cold War

ALTHOUGH I AGREE WITH WILLIAM ARKIN that the U.S. nuclear-weapon targeting list, the Single Integrated Operational Plan (siop), is “forever immoral” (“Last Word,” September/October 2000 Bulletin), I am troubled by his arguments. Arkin describes the Natural Resources Defense Council's (nrdc) impressive new computer simulation program, which calculates the effects of various targeting strategies and exposes the genocidal nature of the present siop counterforce strategy. Unfortunately, he uses this information to argue for more “honest” nuclear targeting of Russian cities and civilians–with fewer weapons.

Why bring morality into the discussion if the NRDC simulations are only to be used to develop a utilitarian targeting strategy? Matthew McKinzie's database, discussed in Arkin's article, clearly proves that any of the “major attack options” will murder millions of Russians. Shouldn't this instead provide a powerful argument for the de-alerting of strategic forces and the abolition of nuclear weapons?

Furthermore, current counterforce strategies are said to have been influenced by nuclear winter studies conducted in the 1980s. This research brought to light the long term biological, environmental, and atmospheric consequences of nuclear war.

A 1990 study published in Science, “Nuclear Winter: Global Consequences of Multiple Nuclear Explosions,” reaffirmed findings that the threshold for inducing nuclear winter is relatively low (100 megatons on 100 large urban targets and oil refineries). Countervalue targeting as advocated by Arkin is precisely the type that would generate nuclear winter.

Of course, no research on nuclear winter has taken place for more than a decade. Perhaps the nrdc could utilize its database as the basis for an updated study, using improvements in atmospheric science and computer technology to reevaluate the threat of global nuclear arsenals.

It's time to move beyond the logic of the Cold War and finally abolish nuclear weapons.

Steven Starr

New Bloomfield, Missouri

The new look

I was very impressed with the first issue of the new-look Bulletin. The layout is more reader friendly, and the magazine looks less like a scientific newsletter. Maybe that was not your intention, but that's how it looks to me.

Using more color photos may help to interest new subscribers. There was nothing wrong with the old Bulletin, but a fresh look fits the new millennium.

Thanks for the constant effort to keep us informed.

Mark Petnuch

Richton Park, Illinois

There is a great divide across the nuclear world. On one side you have the very respectable number of people who read the Bulletin until December 2000. On the other, you have the privileged ones: The select group of people who were fortunate enough to get a copy of the dazzling January/February issue of the Bulletin.

Miguel Monjardino

Birmingham, England

WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU

The Bulletin welcomes your comments.

Send them to:

Letters to the Editor

The Bulletin

6042 South Kimbark

Chicago, IL 60637

fax: [phone]

e-mail: [e-mail]

Be sure to include your mailing address and phone number.

Updates

Daddy was a submariner

In 1999, the Bulletin reported on the U.S. Army's Cold War recognition certificate program, established by the 1998 Defense Authorization Act (“What Did You Do in the Cold War, Daddy?” September/October 1999). The program, which honors the 22 million veterans and Pentagon employees who served during the Cold War, appears to be a victim of its own success. According to its web site (coldwar.army.mil), the program has been so overwhelmed with certificate requests that the turn-around time for mailing them out is at least 12 months. And what's next? Navy veterans are planning to make a “Cold War Submarine Memorial” in Charleston, South Carolina. According to their web page (www.cwsmf.org), “Arguably, the most unique and important element of this unified free world effort was the singular deterrent role played by our nation's ballistic missile submarine force.”

Changing tactics

In the November/December 2000 issue, the Bulletin took a look at government secrecy. Since then, at least one government agency–the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO)–has suggested increasing the classification of government documents. Steven Aftergood revealed in the November 15 Secrecy News that the BMDO was proposing to keep the dates of interceptor tests secret. One defense contractor said a new security guide would also classify areas that “have been criticized in the past, such as the ability of the system to discriminate real warheads from decoys and debris.” After the policy was criticized, the BMDO rolled back its decision to hide the dates of tests.

www.thebulletin.org

The Einstein Fund

Thank you to those who have contributed to the Einstein Fund. Your gifts help us bring you the best in global security news. If you did not receive the annual Einstein letter, or if you would like to make a tax-deductible contribution, please contact Bulletin Business Manager Nicole Mallett at 773-702-2555.