ARMS-D-Request@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU.UUCP (04/11/87)
Arms-Discussion Digest Saturday, April 11, 1987 12:10PM
Volume 7, Issue 113
Today's Topics:
paper sympathetic to battle management solicited for CPSR conference
Flyer on MIT
Resubmittal -- MIRV Dispersion Capability
Re: citing Arms-D in traditional media
RE: POM/PARADIGM SHIFT/US. FOREIGN POLICY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jon@june.cs.washington.edu (Jon Jacky)
Subject: paper sympathetic to battle management solicited for CPSR conference
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 87 09:37:02 PDT
Some newsgroups have lately seen a flurry of postings on the American
Association for Artificial Intelligence-sponsored
workshop on Battle Management at the Seattle meetings this summer. CPSR
(Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility) is also sponsoring a
conference in Seattle the Sunday before AAAI. Not suprisingly, considering
CPSR's origin as a largely pro-arms-control activist group, we have several
papers submitted which criticise battle management AI applications as
generally ill-conceived and dangerous.
We were hoping to get a few papers
that would argue the other side, which appparently is that it permits the
US and its allies to have an effective military force with fewer people and
at lower expense, that it could minimize random destruction in favor of
pinpoint accuracy, thus reducing casualties, and that it could reduce
reliance on nuclear weapons since "brilliant" conventional weapons would
be more credible. This position has been argued by the dovish, in particular
by Frank Barnaby, a Britisher who worked with the Stockholm Peace Research
Institute, who has recently published a book called THE AUTOMATED BATTLEFIELD.
Randall Forsberg, who originated the Nuclear Freeze idea about 1980, also
argued this position with Phillip Morrison and others in a SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN
article around 1978 or so.
So, to any of you out there who are going to the AAAI Battle Management
Workshop (or any other interested people)
-- have you got anything you would like to submit to us as well?
Our closing date for papers was April 1, but we could make an exception for
this. I stress that this conference is not planned to be an arena to push
some particular partisan position that CPSR is trying to advance. The list
of participants should make that clear:
One of the two keynote speakers is Bob Kahn, who was director of the DARPA
Information
Processing Techniques Office until 1985 (the other is Terry Winograd). We
have been promised a submission from historian David Bushnell at George Mason
University in Virginia
who presents a generally favorable view of the influence of DARPA on
computer science and the civilian economy, but we do yet not have any
favorable assessments of DARPA's contributions to weapons technology.
-Jonathan Jacky
University of Washington
jon@june.cs.washington.edu
------------------------------
Date: Mon 6 Apr 87 23:23:08-EDT
From: Richard A. Cowan <COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Flyer on MIT
The following flyer was distributed all over MIT. It is reproduced
here to get comments from all of you and to spread the
extensive bibliography that appears at the end. Tell me what you
think.
-rich
*********
"What's all this fuss about Star Wars and military research?"
In recent months, military research has been the subject of
considerable acrimonious debate on the MIT campus, with a special
emphasis on the Strategic Defense Initiative, or Star Wars program.
Many students are somewhat confused by this explosion of political
activity -- particularly on research programs that have not yet
reached the development stage. This flyer attempts to explain why so
many people are concerned about these issues.
THE ISSUE AFFECTS MIT AND MIT STUDENTS! A majority of MIT graduates
go directly into research jobs. Therefore, the fraction of research
devoted to military programs determines to a large degree the fraction
of MIT graduates going into the military industry. Furthermore,
professors and students doing research here at MIT are directly
affected by national shifts in research funding patterns.
MAJOR CHANGES ARE TAKING PLACE. A primary reason for the volatility
of the military research issue is the degree to which the national
research situation has changed. In the 1970s the percentage of
federally funded R&D devoted to military programs stood near 50%.
Since 1979 this percentage has been steadily rising, reaching 67% in
1985 and 72% in 1986.1
NON-DEFENSE AGENCIES ARE GETTING INTO THE ACT. Over the past ten
years, civilian agencies have been slanted toward military needs. For
example, the Energy Department devotes over two-thirds of its $10.5
billion budget to nuclear weapons programs, including Star Wars.2 The
space station project planned by NASA is being structured to develop
expertise in building SDI battle stations,3,4 just as the Space
Shuttle cargo bay was redesigned to accommodate KH-12 spy satellites
for the National Security Agency,5 the highly secretive US
intelligence agency that is larger than the CIA.6 And last December,
the Pentagon prohibited NASA from entering into an international
agreement for peaceful cooperation on the space station which it
suggested might be "inconsistent with potential US military research
activities" related to SDI.7
EVEN PEOPLE WHO OPT OUT OF THE MILITARY INDUSTRY ARE AFFECTED. Of
graduates not pursuing careers in academia, about one-third work
directly on military contracts8 and another third work on commercial
products (certain electronics, computer, and software products) whose
primary market is, increasingly, the defense industry.9 There are
places to work in high tech where this is not the case. Most of these
places, however, are outside the United States.
ALLOCATION OF RESEARCH FUNDING EFFECTS THE ENTIRE SOCIETY. Everyone
should care how the government is using our taxes and scientific
resources. Both are limited, and the exorbitant military expenditures
drain talent from many socially useful and economically beneficial
activities. Federal research funding for national resources and
environment declined 39.9% from 1979-1986.10 Research allocation
determines what problems are solved, and what problems (such as acid
rain, housing, or lead-polluted groundwater) go unsolved. While the
US infrastructure -- roads, bridges, water pipes, power networks, etc.
-- has been deteriorating, there has been correspondingly little
federal support for civil engineering projects.11 Meanwhile, the US
commercial electronics industry has been dwinding despite all the
recent military R&D for electronics.12
WHY IS SDI OF PARTICULAR CONCERN?
SDI REPRESENTS A HUGE CHUNK OF ALL NEW RESEARCH. Very simply, SDI
dwarfs any research project ever undertaken. It is already 12 times
the size of the famous MIT radar project conducted during World War
II.13 The current national budget for SDI research, $3.2 Billion, is
far in excess of a low-level research effort to simply investigate the
technology. The administration's latest proposal would raise that
figure by 81%, to $5.8 billion in 1988.14
RESEARCH DETERMINES WHAT IS DEPLOYED. When military research
projects as large as SDI are undertaken, they acquire a political
momentum that is hard to stop, regardless of the feasibility or
desirability of the program being researched. Every major weapons
research program has resulted in deployment, although some projects
(like ABM and Sergeant York) were cancelled after deployment began
because they didn't work.15 SDI fits this pattern perfectly. Despite
overwhelming agreement among members of the scientific community that
SDI is useless as a defensive shield and will force both sides to
deploy offensive weaponry,16 Secretary of Defense Weinberger now calls
for early deployment, citing a Soviet lead in SDI technology.17
Pentagon estimates, however, indicate a large US advantage.18
"DEFENSE" RESEARCH CAN HAVE OFFENSIVE SPINOFFS. Pentagon studies have
suggested that lasers developed under SDI could be used to attack
aircraft and human targets.19 Even Undersecretary of State Richard
Perle agreed the Soviets could be concerned "that we might somehow in
the course of the SDI program stumble upon offensive
technologies."19
HOW IS MIT INVOLVED?
MIT is the leading on-campus military contractor, with $45.0 million
in military contracts for Fiscal Year 1987, up from $15.2 million in
1979.20 Around $4 million of this research goes for SDI. Professors
sometimes claim this research is unrelated to military applications.
However, actual research contracts such as this excerpt from a
proposal by James A. Cornie reveal otherwise: "The development of
more weight/volume efficient components could readily be the key to
making some of the SDI systems components a reality by making them
more affordable and deployable."4 This year, 22 MIT Corporation
members and over 60 MIT faculty members are directors or consultants
for companies on the DOD's top 100 contractor list.21
SURE, MIT'S RESEARCH IS AFFECTED, BUT WHAT ABOUT ITS EDUCATION?
Research is considered part of the MIT education, and is the main
priority of most MIT faculty. Therefore, the educational program
tends to adapt so that it feeds into MIT's research activities. The
full impact of this adaptation process can best be understood by
visiting one of the highly classified military laboratories described
in Section VI of the MIT Bulletin. Unfortunately, you may need a
security clearance to get in. Eleven percent of the student body
already have one.22 MIT's President and Provost have them too.23
DRAPER LABORATORY designs and builds inertial guidance systems,
primarily for nuclear weapons like the submarine-based Trident II
missile. Although the Laboratory officially moved off the MIT campus
in 1973 after students demanded it be converted,24 Draper still
maintains strong ties to MIT, actively recruiting engineering
professors and students.25
LINCOLN LABORATORY is a "key US military laboratory"23 with a budget
of $334 million in 1987, up 30.5% in two years.20 The lab remains part
of MIT and, in fact, accounts for 56.0% of MIT's research.20
One-quarter of Lincoln's work is for the Strategic Defense Initiative.
Faculty consulting at Lincoln clearly affects the research areas of
MIT professors, who return to the campus to teach students military
technology while concealing the motivation or applications of the
work.26According to the Smullin report, and information from other
unclassified sources, other major activities at Lincoln are the
tracking of Soviet satellites, military satellite communications, high
energy laser technology, the collection of data in ballistic missile
tests in Kwajalein Atoll of the Marshall Islands, nuclear submarine
communications, and air traffic control.23
MUST MIT BE SO INVOLVED? Certainly, the answer to this question
depends on the effect MIT's research will actually have. If MIT's
research is really necessary for defending the security of people of
the United States, then it should continue. But if MIT is merely
serving to destabilize the nuclear balance, we are all responsible for
changing MIT if we do not want to be responsible for a nuclear
holocaust. Changing the leadership of the US government won't change
MIT very much; MIT is a powerful institution which greatly influences
the government. To change MIT, we must act right here in
Cambridge.
WHAT CAN I DO?
As scientists and engineers, we all have a responsibility to be
concerned about the social implications of our work. Educating
ourselves and becoming aware of these issues are the most important
things we can do as students. An important part of any education is
learning about how one's training can be applied to the solution of
problems that face society. This is something in the MIT education
that could perhaps be improved. By talking about these issues with
your friends, professors, and advisor, you can go a long way towards
raising the consciousness of the entire MIT community.
I'M BUSY NOW. SHOULDN'T I WAIT UNTIL AFTER I GRADUATE? Certainly,
MIT gives you plenty of things to do. But if you have broad questions
about the world, it makes sense to ask them now -- that's what an
education is for! To restrict your activities to those that increase
your marketable skills would be a sad waste of your MIT experience.
Don't put it off until grad school, then put it off until qualifiers,
and then until you get a PhD -- only to wake up one day on a career
path that is unfulfilling. Yes, you do have alternatives, but you
will not find them unless you look for them!
You don't have to get involved in somebody else's politics. We're
only asking you to begin to take control over the politics that affect
your everyday life. You may think you are powerless to change things,
but if you band together with other students and faculty to study how
this institution could change, you will discover that you have a lot
more power than you think. Please join us as we study an institution
needing some change. That institution is called MIT.
_____________________________
1Kistiakowsky, Vera. "Should University Researchers Accept SDI
Funding?," Technology Review, Jan. 1986.
2Kaplan, Fred, "Markey raps energy budget as Tall nuclear,U" The
Boston Globe, March 15, 1986.
3Warsh, David, "Space station program set back," The Boston Globe,
January 30, 1986, p.7.
4Cornie, James A., "Fundamentals of Ceramic and Metal Matrix
Composites," SDI Research Proposal at MIT, 8/85.
5Kaplan, Fred, "Pentagon key player at NASA," The Boston Globe, March
23, 1986, p.1.
6Bamford, James, The Puzzle Palace: A Report on America's Most Secret
Agency. Bantam Books, 1984.
7Willford, John Noble, "Pentagon, in Reversal, seeks a major role in
space station," New York Times, Dec. 20, 1986, p.1.
8"Arms And America's Fortunes," The Washington Post, Dec. 1, 1985.
9Zuidema, Paquita, "Are You Considering a Career in the Defense
Industry?" Pamphlet available from HTPFP, 1985.
10National Science Board, Science Indicators 1985.
11Melman, Seymour, "Economic Conversion: from Swords to Plowshares,"
Technology Review, Jan. 1986.
12Robertson, Jack, "Remember the RAM," Editorial, Electronic
Engineering Times, September 28, 1985.
13Final Report of the Review Panel on the Special Laboratories, MIT,
October 1969.
14Crawford, Mark, "R&D Budgets: Congress leave a parting gift,"
Science, October 31, 1986, p. 536.
15"Star Wars: The Final Solution," The Progressive, September 1985.
16"Academy Members skeptical on SDI," Science, Nov. 11, 1986.
17"Speeding Up Star Wars," Newsweek, February 16, 1987, p. 28.
18"The Dark Side of SDI," Science, February 27, 1987, pp. 962-3.
19see Congressional Record, SDI debate of August 4-5, 1986, estimates
of Joint Chiefs of Staff.
20Dankese, Robert M., "F.Y. '87 Sponsored Programs Research Volume
Forecast," internal memo, MIT, Jan. 2, 1987, p. 6.
21SACC Report on the Military Influence at MIT, in progress.
22Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Military Presence at MIT, MIT,
May, 1986.
23Preliminary Report of the Lincoln Laboratory Review Committee,
(Smullin Report), February 23, 1986.
24Nelkin, Dorothy, The University and Military Research: Moral
Politics at MIT. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1972.
25"DL-2: The Challenge of Scientific and Engineering Problems,"
MIT-Draper Undergraduate Seminar brochure, Fall 1986.
26"How to Publish Your 'Confidential' Results," IEEE Aerospace and
Electronic Systems Magazine, September 1986, p.1.
Sponsored by the MIT Science Action Coordinating Committee (SACC)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 87 8:58:10 CST
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA>
Subject: Resubmittal -- MIRV Dispersion Capability
I think this must have been one of the messages that was lost. It never
appeared in Arms-D, as far as I can see, and the timeframe is about
right for the missing issue #110.
Will Martin
----- Forwarded message # 1:
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 87 13:52:02 CST
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <wmartin@almsa-1>
To: arms-d@mit-xx
Subject: MIRV Dispersion Capability
I've been catching up on back issues of Arms-D, and one of the topics I
had just run through was the one about the destructive capability of one
remaining nuclear-missle-launching submarine following a first strike
(this was part of the wait-24-hours-before-retaliating discussion, if
you recall that). The comments seemed to be ignoring a point which I
realized I knew little about, so I am asking for clarification. What is
the dispersion capability of a single missle's MIRVed warheads?
I realize that exact answers would be classified, so I am not asking for
details, but just a general statement. It would make a big difference if
a single sub, with 16 or 24 missles total, could spread the warheads
from that limited number of missles freely across the entire landmass of
the USSR, or if each missle's warheads could disperse only to a maximum of
some relatively small distance. I would think that there would be some
limit -- that one individual missle could not dispatch one warhead to
Leningrad and another to Vladivostok, for example, at opposite ends of
the Asian continent -- but maybe I'm wrong about that, for all I know.
Maybe the technology allows such flexibility. The other extreme is that the
allowable dispersion is very slight, like 300 km per vehicle, and all the
MIRVed warheads from a given missle must strike within a relatively short
distance of each other. I would guess that the truth lies somewhere in
between these two possibilities.
Also, I've only mentioned sub-launched missles. I'm curious if this
parameter would vary with the type of missle, and if it is greater with
land-based missles, and if it is one of the specifications that is
constantly increasing with technological improvements, or if it is
limited by some physical principles and has a theoretical limit. I would
think that it perhaps is limited by the height of the trajectory? Or
would techniques such as skipping the warhead along the fringes of the
atmosphere allow one to extend the dispersion indefinitely in at least
one direction? Maybe the dispersion pattern is a very elongated oval?
Regards,
Will Martin
wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA (on USENET try ...!seismo!wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA )
----- End of forwarded messages
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 87 16:55:00 pst
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Re: citing Arms-D in traditional media
I don't know how far back Herb has Arms-d archived, but I think
Arms-d represents an important historical (hysterical) record.
I have been archiving arms related postings to the RISKS board
(Peter Neumann at SRI editor) for my old history of the Atomic Age
professor at UCSB: Larry Badash. It's important because we have the
real experts in the field like Dave Parnas contributing to the
discussion (I've not forgotten you Dave, I'm still trying to get that
big (300+ pages) document for you).
Larry was the first historian to cover the Nuclear Winter study when it
first came out. I think arms-d represents another interesting media for
historians because of its capability to multicast discussions (too bad
guys like Kissinger don't read it). The ability to capture (is this a
bad word) discussions like this is unprecedent in history. Not many
history departments have network access, and Badash is thinking about
having me stop by and give a talk about computer networks to his
students.
I can see it now: contributors of arms-d denying saying anything (like
the NSC ;-).
--eugene miya
NASA Ames
------------------------------
Date: Tuesday, 7 April 1987 15:03-EDT
From: John_Boies at ub.cc.umich.edu
To: arms-d
RE: POM/PARADIGM SHIFT/US. FOREIGN POLICY
Hmmmmm. Interesting commentary about personal experiences shaping world
views. While few folks in the scientific community would debate that
issue a great deal...I like to think that after spending 7 years studying
the military, U.S. foreign policy, social change and social movements, that
the way I think about the world is at least somewhat based on more than
my own limited experiences. Blind ethnocentrism (the value of western
civilization to *ALL* people of the world---I wonder what
slaves in the south would have said about that) may come from limited
personal experiences, but it is more likely something deliberately taught
by the schools we go to, the people we listen to, and the things we read.
Give me a break....we may have one of the most materially pleasant societies
in the world....but that does not mean it is either human, nor the best.
To believe that military force and power is all that stands in the way of
our world collapsing into the chaos and tyranny of a totalitarian, left
wing militaristic dictatorship seems a bit ironic. We should all remember
on this conference that the U.S. is the only nation to date to publicly
threaten to drop nuclear weapons on other nations. At what point in time
will we be responsible for killing more people than any list of left-wingers,
right-wingers, atheists, crusaders, purges, pogroms, and plagues combined?
The world is in our hands....as shaky and weak as they are.
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************