poli-sci@ucbvax.ARPA (06/20/85)
From: JoSH <JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Poli-Sci Digest Wed 19 Jun 85 Volume 5 Number 26
Contents: Query
Space Colonies
Seatbelt Laws
Reactions?
[1 msg in the queue]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: The Moderator
Any thoughts on the hostage situation? In particular, shouldn't
the US develop a general set of responses and policies, and
follow them? Should we always negotiate? Should we ever "pay up"?
Shouldn't we just always send in a swat team, as quickly as possible,
no matter what, so that no kidnapping could ever succeed? Doesn't
an inconsistent policy encourage kidnapping? Or are the kidnappers
so irrational that that wouldnt make any difference, and more lives
can be saved by playing each case by ear? Would retaliation make
it harder to get future hostages back alive? Or would it be worth
doing if only so those particular radicals wouldn't be there to do
it next time?
--JoSH
------------------------------
Date: Thu 6 Jun 85 15:47:05-PDT
From: Terry C. Savage <TCS@USC-ECL.ARPA>
Perhaps I've been saturated living in California (and LA, even
worse), but whenever I hear someone suggest that a "network" is going
to accomplish some major project, I want to pinch them in the hope
that they will wake up!
A space colony is going to cost on the order of $100B for the first
large one. Due to economies of scale in life support (particularly
the production of artificial gravity through rotation), it will be
possible to build a large one that is viable much sooner than a small
one. I would like to hear an example of some project of comparable cost
(or for that matter 1/100 of that cost) that was ever accomplished by
a "network" without some form of organized decision making and a clear
analog to voting (or, alternatively, dictatorial power).
I think the idea of detachable modules is great, but it will be
quite a while before they are viable for any length of time (50-100years).
Incidentally, one of the major topics at a recent discussion group
was how to have a free society given all the "centralizing" pressures
of a large habitat. Any input on this question would be welcome--we
don't have a clear solution yet, and we definitely need one. An example
of a simple problem: Gun control--should people be allowed to possess
instruments capable of destroying the entire society? If not, how can
that be reconciled (or enforced) within a free society?
TCS
[How about the settling of the American West? I currently labor under the
impression that it was done piecemeal, by lots of individual small efforts.
The sort of "network" I'm thinking about is market-like; the models
I had in mind are the industries that have grown up around various
hobbies -- bicycling, model aircraft, boating, etc; I think I know the
sort of "network" you're thinking of, though, and I agree that a
sort of organizationless organization run entirely on "good will"
can't do anything.
I can't imagine how a large colony could be quicker to build than a
small one--personally I would class artificial gravity as a luxury.
I have sketchy designs for "instant" inflatable habitats, one family's
worth, which you merely boost into orbit, uncork, and inflate. What
could be quicker?
To my mind, the major problem between here and there is propulsion,
ie, getting there and being able to do things once you're there.
The only obvious answer is the NERVA ("Rocket Ship Galileo") -style
nuclear rocket. (That is, with current technology-- any number of
interesting possibilities suggest themselves for the future.)
Does your group have any ideas?
--JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 85 10:57:57 pdt
From: upstill%ucbdegas@Berkeley (Steve Upstill)
Subject: Seatbelt laws
Personally, I'm opposed to seatbelt laws for one simple reason: people that
stupid deserve to die before they can pollute the gene pool.
Steve "Populist Eugenics" Upstill
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 85 00:09:32 cdt
From: Scott Renner <renner@UIUC.ARPA>
Subject: seat belt laws
> ... However, I do support the laws on the following grounds: A
> person wearing a belt/harness is better able to control a car than
> someone who is not. ... If they are more likely to hit me because of
> their choice not to wear a belt, they are infringing on my rights.
> -- John Mills (Mills@CISL-SERVICE-MULTICS)
This is true, but: if smoking is illegal, your chance of contracting cancer
decreases. If extramarital sex is illegal, your chance of contracting
VD decreases (because there will be fewer carriers). Just exactly where
are you proposing to draw the line?
Scott Renner
renner@uiuc.ARPA
[Indeed. A seatbelt only does any good *after* you've hit something;
there may be a possibility, in some rare cases, that the car is still
moving and still controllable and would not have been controllable
without the belt, but sure not often. An actual, common, cause of
accidents is distraction. Would you prohibit car radios? Front seat
passengers? Ban good-looking women from the sidewalks?
--JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 85 12:03:44 PDT
From: Richard Foy <foy@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
Subject: Public reaction
How do you think Congress and the public would react if President Ronald
Reagan gave a speech substantially as follows and then proceeded to implement
through executive order the actions discussed?
"I have had an independant panel of experts review our defense needs. They
have advised me that we have at least ten times the nuclear capability which
we need to deter the Soviets. Even if the Soviets made a first strike we
would still be able to destroy all of their cities and kill almost all of
their people. The defense departments response to this study convinces me
of its accuracy.
Therefore I am immediately stopping all production of nulear weapons. During
the remaining three years of my term in office I will have fifty percent of
our nuclear weapons destroyed. We will continue with our research and
intelligence efforts in to insure that the Soviets do not surprise us with
any new military capability.
I hope that the Soviets will respond with a reduction of their nuclear arms.
I will make this reduction wether they do or not, because we have more
important things to do than build nuclear weapons which serve no military
purpose."
[I'm surprised at the oversimplification of the strategic interaction
implicit in this scenario, coming as it appears to do from a defense
contractor site. The major fact ignored is that the US and the
Soviets BOTH ALREADY understand the undesireability of a general
nuclear exchange. They have for a decade or more been both, in tacit
collusion, modifying their strategic doctrines to reduce the
number of conditions under which it could become necessary.
This is primarily done by introducing other options for situations,
like a NATO/Warsaw war in Europe, where our treaty obligations
require us to react in strong terms, but where something short
of MAD might do. These options take the form of replacing weapons
aimed at, and capable of destroying, cities, with ones of better
accuracy and lower yield, targeted at military installations.
The nuclear arsenals of BOTH the US and Russia have been DECREASING
in total megatonnage for many years. The process could be compared
to exchanging a sledge hammer for a ball peen hammer, a claw hammer,
and a tack hammer. There are many things to decry in our defense
establishment and doctrines, but the proliferation of special-purpose
weapons to prevent the necessity of a global exchange, is not among
them.
--JoSH]
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------