abeles@mhuxm.UUCP (abeles) (11/14/84)
Just one thing. As a "real" (as opposed to social) scientist, and especially as a "hard" (as opposed to life) scientist, I feel that in the world today we are witnessing a general power struggle among intellectuals over the issue of nuclear power and weapons. As an example, take "Physicians for Social Responsibility." The name itself reeks of self-importance, as though Physicians are more socially responsible than others (what a crock that is). This group goes around informing the public about the dangers of nuclear weapons as though they were supposed to be safe! In fact, I suspect one of their hidden objectives is to present the message, "Remember those physicists who almost as g-ds transformed the world into it's modern form? Guess what? They're evil! Physicians are the experts who you should trust to tell you about the world of science." What about the Jane Fondas of the world who want to tell you that they are more aware of the scientific aspects of nuclear physics as they relate to you than are those malevolent mad scientists? Let's face facts. For better or worse, the world is divided into two classes of people: those who understand the calculus, and those who don't. (If you are smirking at this, consider that we are all expected to study English, history, etc. in school but you can graduate summa cum laude from Princeton without understanding the chain rule.) And those who don't understand it and therefore can't possibly comprehend the basic facts of physics don't like to be relegated to the back seat especially in public policy issues. If you don't believe it, try arguing the need for a "science court" to adjudicate matters of scientific fact with a law student. No way are they going to give up any of that political power! --J. Abeles
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/14/84)
> > Just one thing. As a "real" (as opposed to social) scientist, and > especially as a "hard" (as opposed to life) scientist, I feel that > in the world today we are witnessing a general power struggle among > intellectuals over the issue of nuclear power and weapons. > > As an example, take "Physicians for Social Responsibility." The > name itself reeks of self-importance, as though Physicians are > more socially responsible than others (what a crock that is). This > group goes around informing the public about the dangers of nuclear > weapons as though they were supposed to be safe! In fact, I suspect one > of their hidden objectives is to present the message, "Remember those > physicists who almost as g-ds transformed the world into it's modern > form? Guess what? They're evil! Physicians are the experts who you > should trust to tell you about the world of science." > Let's face facts. For better or worse, the world is divided into > two classes of people: those who understand the calculus, and those > who don't. > --J. Abeles To think that it is *only* the Physicians for Social Responsibility who are and have been concerned about nuclear weapons is a grave error. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists represents many physicists and other scientists who have been concerned about the arms race since it began. Several weeks ago the Federation of American Scientists warned that if Reagan stops observing SALT II that the Soviets are in position to benefit immediately by removing the 818 ICBM limit they are currently observing. Neils Bohr, one of the founders of Quantum Mechanics warned Truman not to expect an American monopoly on atomic weapons and come to some International control of nuclear weapons. He told Truman in 1946 that the Russians would have a bomb in 3 years. In 1949 the Russians exploded their first a-bomb. Albert Einstein warned that the atomic bomb had changed everything except our mode of thinking. Linus Pauling said "We have had only a few years to comtemplate the nature of life in a world of H-bombs and superbombs. The facts about these bombs and the predictions about the nature of nuclear war have ...often been released in a protecting cloud of reassuring verbiage. But now the facts are at hand,and we can see for ourselves that our own future and the future of the human race depend upon our willingness and ability to cooperate, to work together in a world-wide attack on the great world problems." Bertrand Russell, with Whitehead, the author of "Principia Mathematica" and joint developers of symbolic logic (hardly one who could be accused of not understanding calculus!) campaigned for nuclear disarmament. It does not take a keen understanding of mathematics to understand that if one atomic bomb could devastate a city of several hundred thousand people that one million six hundred thousand such destructive powere would devastate the whole world. Apparently some people still cannot do such elementary arithmetic. Peace, before it's too late! tim sevener whuxl!orb
rohn@randvax.UUCP (Laurinda Rohn) (11/16/84)
*>From: donn@utah-gr.UUCP (Donn Seeley) *> ... In this sense strategic study is not a *>science; it must rely on incomplete information derived from case *>studies, and can only make very qualified predictions. It is perfectly *>possible for two individuals to take contrary positions based on their *>interpretation of evidence that can't be confirmed by experiment, and *>it is even possible for both individuals to be intellectually honest. Strategic study is also based on incomplete intelligence information. No one can know everything about what the "other side" has. What Mr. Seeley says is quite true. It is indeed possible for two (or even more!) strategists to come up with entirely or partially differing opinions. And both of them could in fact be both intellec- tually honest AND right! "What? You mean it's not black and white? There may be no right and wrong? Ack!!!" Life is tough! :-) *> ... To rectify this it would be *>interesting if the more informed readers (hello, Milo?) justified some *>of their reactions to the speculation here, instead of simply *>contradicting. For example, why is it that MAD cannot be guaranteed if *>the Soviets develop more land-based ICBMs without a similar increase on *>our part? Or, why is it more useful to spend money to keep parity in *>nuclear forces than to keep parity in conventional forces? Or, why do *>we want to continue develop chemical and biological deterrents when we *>have promised not to use them, when we could instead use the funds to *>to improve our preparedness for their use by the bad guys? All these *>questions perhaps sound naive, but they need to be answered if the *>public is to stay informed. Every little bit helps... Well, I'm not Milo, and this isn't net.nuc-issues, but I'll answer anyway. MAD may not be guaranteed in the above situation for the following reason. One typical MAD scenario says that if the Soviets strike first, we can assure them that we will have the capability to strike back and destroy them. But if they build lots more ICBMs and we don't, they may have the power to destroy so many of our ICBMs if they strike first that we would no longer have the ability to destroy them in a retaliatory strike. But this is not a certain problem. It depends on other things as well, like our bombers and subs. The second question is still uncertain. Both sides argue that their view is right. Who knows? I don't have much to say about chemical and biological weapons. Personally, I wish that the public could be more informed about the issues. Unfortunately, not everyone would understand the various arguments. I don't want to come off as an elitist, though. Not everyone understands linear algebra, either, but it doesn't mean that they aren't intelligent. It seems that the most prevalent form of information is "They have X warheads/launchers/bombs/planes/subs/etc. and we have Y." This, as I've said before, isn't a good measure of strength. > from tim sevener whuxl!orb > To think that it is *only* the Physicians for Social Responsibility ... > The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists represents many physicists and other > scientists who have been concerned about the arms race since it began... > Several weeks ago the Federation of American Scientists warned that... > Neils Bohr, one of the founders of Quantum Mechanics warned Truman ... > Albert Einstein warned that the atomic bomb had changed everything ... > Linus Pauling said "We have had only a few years to comtemplate ... My, my, my, this is an impressive list. However, I don't know *anyone* who isn't concerned about the effects of nuclear weapons. ****But that still doesn't qualify them to make nuclear policy or engage in arms control negotiations!**** > Bertrand Russell, with Whitehead, the author of "Principia Mathematica" > and joint developers of symbolic logic (hardly one who could be accused of > not understanding calculus!) campaigned for nuclear disarmament. > It does not take a keen understanding of mathematics to understand that > if one atomic bomb could devastate a city of several hundred thousand people > that one million six hundred thousand such destructive powere would > devastate the whole world. Again, just because one understands what nuclear weapons can do doesn't mean one understands nuclear strategy or how they should be controlled. Mr. Sevener continues to confuse this issue. And I hope he doesn't mean that just because one understands calculus, one automatically understands nuclear policy or strategy. That is definitely absurd. Lauri Rohn rohn@rand-unix.ARPA ...!decvax!randvax!rohn Note: The above views are simply mine and do not necessarily represent those of the Rand Corporation or any reasonable entity.
rohn@randvax.UUCP (Laurinda Rohn) (11/26/84)
> Lauri, you ignored my earlier posting about the support of former CIA director > Wm Colby, Herbert Scoville and other "strategists" for a Nuclear Freeze. > This list of scientists was in response to the notion propagated by Milo > and others that all the "experts" and anyone who knows anything support an > allout nuclear arms race. The idea of no more nuclear weapons is on a par with Mom and apple pie. I don't think anyone particularly likes nukes. I'm sure there are lots of "experts" who would like to get rid of all of them. But again, the key word is "verifiable." It is absurd to have the US unilaterally freeze without being able to verify whether the Soviets are doing the same. Lauri NOTE: The above are my own peculiar views and do not necessarily represent those of the Rand Corp. or any other reasonable entity.
lkk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (11/29/84)
From: rohn@randvax.UUCP (Laurinda Rohn):
"The idea of no more nuclear weapons is on a par with Mom and apple pie.
I don't think anyone particularly likes nukes. I'm sure there are lots
of "experts" who would like to get rid of all of them. But again, the
key word is "verifiable." It is absurd to have the US unilaterally freeze
without being able to verify whether the Soviets are doing the same."
----- I know of no "experts" who would like to get rid of all nuclear
weapons. Given that nuclear technology exists, someone will build them.
The question is how many (and of what type) we should have. I asked
Phillip Morrison (atomic scientist and "expert" on Arms Control) what
his ideal scenario for the US atomic arsenal should be. He said that
having about 200 SLBM's controled by an international organization would
be enough to prevent rogue countries from blackmailing the rest of the world,
and would allow the U.S. and USSR to stop competing with each other.
Admittedly this plan is vague, but it does indicate what one of the more
"unilateralist" experts is aiming for.
Please tell me why it is "absurd to have the US unilaterally freeze without
being able to verify whether the Soviets are doing the same."
Do you think the Soviets will attempt a preemptive strike if they think they
are "ahead" of us? I think that risking the destruction of their world
because they think they probably will be able to eliminate ours
would be sheer lunacy. The Soviets are not lunatics. Far from it, they are
among the most "conservative" of world leaders.
At a recent symposium at MIT, Prof. Joseph Weizenbaum asked Paul Warnke
(chief arms negotiator for the Carter administration, and recognized expert)
what they effect on the Defense of the USA would be if we were to unilaterally
destroy ALL of our land based ICBM's. The response: "Nothing, sir".
What more is there to say?
--
larry kolodney (The Devil's Advocate)
UUCP: ...{ihnp4, decvax!genrad}!mit-eddie!lkk
ARPA: lkk@mit-mcorb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/30/84)
> > Here is Lauri's response to my addition of experts who favor a Freeze: > > Lauri, you ignored my earlier posting about the support of former CIA director > > Wm Colby, Herbert Scoville and other "strategists" for a Nuclear Freeze. > > This list of scientists was in response to the notion propagated by Milo > > and others that all the "experts" and anyone who knows anything support an > > allout nuclear arms race. > > The idea of no more nuclear weapons is on a par with Mom and apple pie. > I don't think anyone particularly likes nukes. I'm sure there are lots > of "experts" who would like to get rid of all of them. But again, the > key word is "verifiable." It is absurd to have the US unilaterally freeze > without being able to verify whether the Soviets are doing the same. > > > Lauri Lauri, this is *precisely* what these experts are arguing: that a Nuclear Freeze IS verifiable, and in fact, more verifiable than other more limited arms control agreements. William Colby is *still* defending his role in the counterinsurgency program in Vietnam and arguing that such tactics are good. Yet Nixon's Director of the CIA *also* argues that a Nuclear Freeze is verifiable and should be sought. If all testing, production, and deployment of *all* new nuclear weapons is stopped then the major sources of past arms control compliance disagreements- whether this or that new nuclear weapon violates existing agreements will be easily settled: *any* new nuclear weapon OR its testing OR its production will violate a Nuclear Freeze. It makes the whole issue of compliance far simpler. How did the US suspect that there might be MIG's on the Burkiana? Because they could see much of the actual loading of the Burkiana from a satellite. Satellites can read license plates. They can also detect any missile tests. Especially when both sides agree to procedures which make such observation possible. One can detect nuclear tests with geological seismograph stations. There are numerous means to verify treaty compliance and those means are being used right now. Herbert Scoville, former Deputy Director of the CIA has made the same point. He wrote an article in the New York Times several weeks ago that argued that a Nuclear Freeze *was* verifiable. The Nuclear Freeze *is* like Mom and apple pie: so why doesn't Reagan or many others support it? Could it be the $200 billion to be spent on new nuclear weapons in the next few years? Lots of money there, isn't there? peace, tim sevener whuxl!orb
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/30/84)
> > Lauri > > > NOTE: The above are my own peculiar views and do not necessarily > represent those of the Rand Corp. or any other reasonable entity. I am glad Lauri is careful to distinguish the Rand Corp. from any *reasonable* entities!
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (12/01/84)
> > > > Lauri > > > > > > NOTE: The above are my own peculiar views and do not necessarily > > represent those of the Rand Corp. or any other reasonable entity. > > I am glad Lauri is careful to distinguish the Rand Corp. from any > *reasonable* entities! Read the sentence again, Tim. Note in particular the way she used the word ``other''. You have a right to make your statements, but not to twist those of others. By the way, Tim, perhaps you don't know about some of the defense- related research done by your organization, Bell Labs. If the US launches a nuclear strike (real or accidental), you can be sure that it will depend upon work in defense communications undertaken by your institution. This isn't at issue, you say? Then once again, I request that you leave such irrelevancies out of your postings. We speak as individuals, here. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) (12/02/84)
Well, there certainly has been a lot of activity since I last read
this newsgroup, so here is a blanket reply to all the points I can remember.
First off, I want to say that I heartily agree with Lauri's
responses on the net. I think they are rational, factual, and to the point.
Secondly, Sevener's comments about US capabilities with respect to
verification are all wrong. You say a satellite can read a license
plate. This is only true in certain very limited circumstances.
That freighter you cited had apparently offloaded its MiG's during
a stop under cloudcover. What do you want us to do, only verify
treaties on clear days? Also, while you maybe able to see the
license plate, you can't see what's in the trunk. Nor can you
see what's in the ground, covered by concrete, nor what's under
a nose cone on an ICBM. There are some other points, but I feel
I really can't go into them in this forum.
Thirdly, to the person who said that there are indeed people
who don't think nuclear war is bad, and cited the example of
the person on the net who verified that T.K. Jones comment
on Civil Defense, I can only say you are way off base.
Just because a person advocates Civil Defense doesn't mean he
likes nuclear war. You have insurance of some type don't you?
If you have life insurance, does that mean you don't mind death?
Or if you have health insurance, does that mean you like to be
ill? Of course not, and likewise Civil Defense doesn't mean
you advocate nuclear war. Civil defense is a damage limitation
mechanism, just as insurance is. We all want to prevent nuclear
war, and few people look forward to it, certainly noone outside
of a hospital somewhere. But if it comes, should we be telling
people it's all over and they only option left is suicide?
May I point out that the difference between 200 Million people
and 100 Million people is 100 Million people. I for one am
comfortable enough with the idea of death that I would rather
die initially in the attack than live in a postattack world,
but if I survived, I wouldn't kill myself either. And I'm sure
most people if really put to the test would do the same thing.
I too saw Testament. It's very depressing, I agree. But none of
those people had to die in that situation if proper measures
were taken. There was no Civil defense program in that city,
had there been, there probably would have been many more
survivors. Didn't see anyone digging any fallout shelters did you,
not even a one staying in his basement. And not even one geiger
counter. There are plenty of technical inaccuracies as well, but
I made my point.
Fourthly, the person who cited the statement about Paul Warnke
saying nothing would happen to the US defense if we scrapped
all our ICBM's is citing Warnke as an expert. He is an expert.
I talked to him when he was here in Berkeley giving a seminar.
He still is living in a countervalue world. But strategy has
past him by. He is an old MAD'er from way back, along with other
experts like 'One Bomb' Bundy. I don't buy MAD, and the administration
doesn't, and neither do the Soviets, so why should anyone?
Warnke believes all you need is the SLBM retaliatory force, and
nothing else. And we have gone through the discussion about
the effacy of low-yield inaccurate weapons before, and all the points
apply. In short, I don't think much of Warnke's line of reasoning,
and I don't think an objective observer would either. Statements
like Warnke's show arrogance in the n'th degree. If you've heard
him speak in person you know what I mean.
Fifthly, to the person who cited Herbert Scoville's comments about
a Nuclear Freeze being verifiable, I'd like you or anyone else to
please give me his address so I could write him and ask him
how you can verify that I don't have a cruise missile stashed
in my basement. Noone has ever come up with a way other than
going into that basement and taking a good look... This is one
way that technology has again outstripped old strategies and
ways of thinking about arms control. There is a big debate
going on inside the administration about verification. Weinberger
is making very strict guidelines about addressing the issue, and
I hope they are considered. I personally believe that the age
of verifiable treaties of any significance has past us by, and
we are in a period where unilateral actions are the only way
of effecting any real change.
Sixthly, the people who claim the Soviets don't believe they can win
a nuclear war haven't been reading what the Soviets have been
saying in the military doctrine. The 'integrated' battlefield
is a cornerstone of their military doctrine. If you look at even
a sprinkling of what's trickled out, its fairly obvious.
Seventhly, to the person who responded to my flame about the
various Bozos in Congress who passed funding restrictions, I can only
conclude 2 things:
1) The Congress didn't know what they were doing (not an out
of the ordinary event).
2) or The Congress was trying to force the administration
to get the Soviets back to the table at any price, even giving
them a concession to come back to the table which THEY walked
out on. If this keeps up, all they need to do is walk out a few
more times and we'll be signing a nuclear freeze.
Now, I think its a combonation of both reasons, both of which are
BAD for the US.
Lastly, Sevener's comments about the ABM treaty not stopping
an ABM arms race (a one sided race I might add) are, for once,
correct. This is typical of what we are in store for if more
treaties like it are signed (read ASAT folks). Let's hope
the administration holds the line firm on the future discussions
with the Soviets about the agenda for the possible umbrella talks.
Now, let me get back to work. I'll try and keep as current
as I can...
Milodavid@randvax.UUCP (David Shlapak) (12/02/84)
> ----- I know of no "experts" who would like to get rid of all nuclear > weapons. Well, here's one who does. If we could "uninvent" nuclear arms (or at least develop a foolproof way of determining if anyone were cheating on a universal ban), this "expert" would gladly see them all shot into the sun... Once we accomplish this, of course, we can move on to other things, like convincing lambs to lay down with lions... > At a recent symposium at MIT, Prof. Joseph Weizenbaum asked Paul Warnke > (chief arms negotiator for the Carter administration, and recognized expert) > what they effect on the Defense of the USA would be if we were to unilaterally > destroy ALL of our land based ICBM's. The response: "Nothing, sir". > > What more is there to say? > -- > larry kolodney (The Devil's Advocate) Well, one thing at least: Mr. Warnke represents one view of the strategic situation, and I respect his opinion. His perspective is by no means universally shared, however, within the community. I would like to hear his supporting arguments rather than merely read an ex cathedra statement. --- das
david@randvax.UUCP (David Shlapak) (12/02/84)
> > > > Lauri > > > > > > NOTE: The above are my own peculiar views and do not necessarily > > represent those of the Rand Corp. or any other reasonable entity. > > I am glad Lauri is careful to distinguish the Rand Corp. from any > *reasonable* entities! Hey, congratulations Tim...this is definitely one of the USDA Choice cheap shots of All Time. You should sure feel proud of yourself... --- das PS --- My views may or may not represent the views of the Rand Corp- oration...anyone out there wanna make something of it?