orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/12/85)
There has been much public debate and media coverage of the
Star Wars program. This week AT&T is sponsoring a special program
on PBS "Shielding America: Can Star Wars Make us Safe?" which
may provide interesting information. I am skeptical of any
devastating critique since the announcement says the issue will
be covered by "government and military officials" like Henry
Kissinger and Robert McNamera and once again, as so often, is
likely to exclude antinuclear experts like Randall Forsberg.
But it is worth watching if only to see if they present a balanced
presentation. Even Star Wars advocates admit that it cannot
stop 100% of attacking nuclear weapons but only 90%.
Given that 10% of either side's nuclear arsenal is still some
tens of thousands times the power of the Hiroshima bomb the
answer to any question of "protecting civilians" seems quite clear
at the outset.
But this issue has been often mentioned.
What I find more frightening is the issue that is *never* mentioned-
at least not in the general press: namely that in order to work
Star Wars planners themselves admit that it must be an *automatic
system* totally under the control of computers. This point is
made very clearly in the June, 1985 issue of Atlantic by Jonathan
Jacky. I would highly recommend it, particularly to programmers.
Jacky quotes from DARPA's own report, "Strategic Computing...
A Strategic Plan for Its Development and Application to Critical
Problems in Defense":
Instead of fielding simple guided missiles or remotely
piloted vehicles, we might launch completely autonomous
land, sea and air vehicles capable of complex, far-ranging
reconnaissance and attack missions....In contrast with
previous computers, the new generation will exhibit
human-like, "intelligent" capabilities for planning and
reasoning.......Using this new technology, machines will
perform complex tasks with little human intervention, or
even complete autonomy.......
Jacky quotes from an OMNI interview with Caspar Weinberger
on the *very short* time that a Star Wars system would have
to respond:
OMNI: You are talking about a total battle time of as
little as possibily one hundred twenty or
two hundred seconds?
WEINBERGER: It is very short. It is a very big task-
a task about which a lot of people say, "well,
we can't do it." But then a lot of people said that
we couldn't fly.
He also points out that the DOD's Fletcher Panel on Star Wars
concluded, "It seems clear....that some degree of automation
in the decision to commit weapons is inevitable if a ballistic
missile defense is to be at all credible."
He also quotes from George Keyworth and Robert Cooper's
testimony:
"who's going to make that decision?" said Tsongas.
"We don't know," said Keyworth, "By the year 1990, it
may be done automatically."
By the year 1990 is there any programmer willing to stake
the future of the world on a computer?
I think programmers should do all in their power to point out
that idea is *extremely* dangerous!
"Peace in the World,
or the World in Pieces!"
tim sevener whuxn!orb
bob@pedsgd.UUCP (Robert A. Weiler) (11/12/85)
Organization : Perkin-Elmer DSG, Tinton Falls NJ Keywords: In article <798@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: { a bunch of stuff about computers and SDI ending with ... } >By the year 1990 is there any programmer willing to stake >the future of the world on a computer? >I think programmers should do all in their power to point out >that idea is *extremely* dangerous! > "Peace in the World, > or the World in Pieces!" > tim sevener whuxn!orb > Tim; Currently this decision is in the hands of Ronald Reagan; I think maybe I *would* prefer a comupter. Actually, as a pacifist/realist I like nuclear weapons of the MAD variety. They are frightening enough that even the powers that be are afraid they wont survive. The part that bothers me about SDI is that when Reagan says everybody will be safe, I think he means everbody *important* anyway. This is the true danger of SDI. Bob Weiler of the MAD
al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus) (12/31/85)
> Even Star Wars advocates admit that it cannot > stop 100% of attacking nuclear weapons but only 90%. It's hard to tell, but recent Aviation Week and Space Technology articles seem to indicate that a 95% effective defense is considered 'totally effective' by the SDI program office. This, of course, could leave tens of millions of Americans very dead in the first few hours of a conflict. > > What I find more frightening is the issue that is *never* mentioned- > at least not in the general press: namely that in order to work > Star Wars planners themselves admit that it must be an *automatic > system* totally under the control of computers. No one will push the button, the button will push itself.
afb@pucc-i (Michael Lewis) (01/07/86)
To a large degree, the Russians would measure the success of any all-out
nuclear attack on the United States not on the totality of damage inflicted
but on the destruction of certain vital strategic targets, such as SAC HQ in
Omaha, or NORAD in Colorado. The success of their attack would be far from
complete if they failed to get any of these targets. The value of an ABM
system which was 95% effective would be in greatly reducing the Soviet
certainty of getting the targets they *must* get in order to ensure "success".
Thus, the mere existence of a 95% effective ABM system would be enough to
deter a Soviet attack in the first place. Isn't that the justification for
having a strategic missile force in the first place?
Mike Lewis @ Purdue University