ARMS-D-Request@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU.UUCP (03/12/87)
Arms-Discussion Digest Wednesday, March 11, 1987 11:13PM
Volume 7, Issue 108
Today's Topics:
Administrivia
barrage attack on submarines
Re: Verification of Mobile Missiles
SLBMs in the Great Lakes
Censorship on Arms-d (complaint)
Re: Verification of Mobile Missiles
preventing tampering with verification devices
THE ECONOMICS OF MILITARY SPENDING AND SDI
slimy aliens & contras (long msg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1987 20:57 EST
From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: Administrivia
The following recipient is now off the list.
maarten@WHARTON-10.ARPA.#Internet: 550 User "maarten" Unknown.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1987 13:11 EST
From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: barrage attack on submarines
"If the kill radius of a nuclear weapon [against a submarine] is of
order 5 nautical miles...."
From OTA MX Missile Basing study, page 178. No comments about yield,
though 1 MT is probably about right.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 87 09:15:55 PST
From: ihnp4!mhuxd!wolit@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: Verification of Mobile Missiles
There is a major flaw in the mobile missile verification
concept proposed by Herb Lin. He acknowledges that the
Soviets, e.g., might not wish to transmit the response from
the interrogated missile carrier immediately to the U.S., to
avoid providing useful targeting information. The U.S.
request for verification, however, includes the position of
the carrier in question -- the unknown quantity for the U.S.
is whether this carrier has an identity box attached. The
U.S. already has all the targeting information it might
need. What the Soviets would be understandably reluctant to
provide is confirmation of the U.S. "National Technical
Means" ability to correctly identify a mobile missile
carrier in the field. This is information they would wish
to deny even if delayed, since the U.S. request for an
identity check on the missile carrier at such-and-such a
location at such-and-such a time can, in fact, be viewed as
a request for confirmation that there was indeed a missile
carrier at that location at that time. To a great extent,
the security of mobile missiles, whether based on
submarines, railroad cars (as proposed for the MX), or
road-mobile launchers (as proposed for the Midgetman SICBM),
depends on their being difficult to locate when dispersed.
Neither side would willingly negate their efforts to
camouflage these missiles by, in effect, assisting their
opponent's efforts to develop means of detecting them.
Other than using NTM for detecting all the manufacturing
sites of mobile missiles, and then using either NTM
(difficult) or on-site inspection (difficult to negotiate)
to count all the output of those sites, there appears no way
to verify compliance with a limit on such weapons.
Jan Wolitzky, AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ; 201 582-2998; mhuxd!wolit
(Affiliation given for identification purposes only)
------------------------------
Subject: SLBMs in the Great Lakes
Date: 09 Mar 87 14:11:03 EST (Mon)
From: dm@bfly-vax.bbn.com
Fresh water is transparent to radio-waves, so you could communicate
directly with an SLBM in the Great Lakes -- no need for ELF (or
GANDALF, or whatever it is they're calling the extremely-low-frequency
communication system).
Unfortunately, being transparent to radio waves also probably means
that fresh water is transparent to radar as well -- meaning that the
advantage of a submarine (concealment) is lost in the Great Lakes.
------------------------------
Subject: Censorship on Arms-d (complaint)
Date: 9 Mar 87 22:45:29 EST (Mon)
From: campbell@maynard.BSW.COM
In article <8703081904.AA27357@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> you write:
>
>[If you want more information, contact POM directly. Application form
>and fee information provided by POM deleted by moderator. Complains
>about censorship will be entertained.]
Consider this a complaint. AI is a non-partisan organization with
no political axe to grind. It exists solely to end the use of torture
and of imprisonment for purely political crimes. I can't see any reason
whatsoever for censoring this message.
In fact, now that I think of it, I would object even if POM had been
talking about a political or partisan organization -- say the Heritage
Foundation, or Physicians for Social Responsibility. What possible harm
could there be in dissemination purely informational material (name,
address, phone number, annual dues, etc.) about such organizations?
--
Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc.
Internet: campbell@maynard.uucp 120 Fulton Street, Boston MA 02109
uucp: {alliant,wjh12}!maynard!campbell +1 617 367 6846
ARPA: campbell%maynard.uucp@harvisr.harvard.edu MCI: LCAMPBELL
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 87 09:48:01 pst
From: pyramid!utzoo!henry%hplabs@hplabs.HP.COM
Subject: Re: Verification of Mobile Missiles
> In all cases, the Soviets would know what data had been
> transmitted. This would alleviate their apprehension that
> these identity boxes could be used for non-agreed purposes.
A serious problem: how do they know that the box does not contain a
cartridge of nerve gas that can be triggered by remote control? Or even
a miniature fission bomb? Even remote control is not actually needed,
just a timer: "detonate at 0400 GMT on 4 July 1999".
> Of course, the technical challenge is to design a
> tamper-proof identity box that cannot be removed from the
> platform surreptitously...
Tricky; how do you know that box and mounting have not been cut away from
the platform? Maybe with optical fibers imbedded in the platform itself
during manufacturing, it could be done. This would require detailed
supervision of manufacturing, though.
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
------------------------------
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject:preventing tampering with verification devices
<LIN> Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1987 20:07 EST
<LIN> From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
<LIN> Subject: Verification of Mobile Missiles
<LIN> Note to the Reader: This is a working paper only; I am not
<LIN> prepared to say that it is a workable scheme. Nevertheless, I
<LIN> think it presents some potentially useful ideas that warrant
<LIN> some attention. Comments are solicited!!!
Mostly I like it and think it workable. The only problem is physical
tampering. Any time you don't have pysical control over some place,
you can't prevent physical tampering with equipment at that place.
This includes responder-boxes mounted on Soviet missile carriers. The
only reasonable solution is random spot checking.
Suppose that every year we pick 5% of Soviet missiles at random to be
physically inspected. (Likewise they pick 5% of ours at random.) We
choose the time, within a time-window such as a two-month period. We
pick 5% at random, then notify the USSR to be ready, they say "we're
ready", then we issue commands to those particular responder-boxes via
the Soviet communications people which they are required to forward to
the actual boxes within one hour (this gives them time to decrypt all
the messages to verify they are proper, and time to issue commands to
their troops to stop those particular units if they were in motion or
planned to move, but not time to clandestinely move the equipment very
far). The commands cause the boxes to transmit full information
directly to satellites. The USSR is then required to remove those
units from action, letting them sit exactly where they are until USA
technicians can arrive to inspect them for tampering. As soon as each
unit is inspected, it can be returned to active service, immediately
moved to a new location most likely.
5% surprise inspection&freezing isn't a drastic reduction in force. If
we started such an inspection, then while that 5% was pinned down we
launched a pre-emptive attack, the remaining 95% could surely destroy
the USA.
But that 5% is very effective in preventing physical tampering.
Suppose for illustration that they had 1000 units, of which 10% had
been tampered with. If we inspect 5%, we are inspecting 50 units, of
which on the average 5 would be among those tampered with. There could
be more than 5 or fewer than 5 actually, but it is very unlikely that
there would be fewer than 2, so we would have ironclad evidence that
tampering was occuring and could then order additional inspections to
verify the amount of treaty abrogation.
Alternately we might inspect one at a time, distributed throughout the
year. That way we get speedier information in case of massive
abrogation, but about the same information in case of 10% abrogation
(it still takes a year to accumulate those average-5 tampering cases
at which point we can start to loudly claim abrogation).
------------------------------
Date: Tuesday, 10 March 1987 15:52-EST
From: John_Boies at ub.cc.umich.edu
REPLY TO: HENRY SPENCER
Subject: THE ECONOMICS OF MILITARY SPENDING AND SDI
1) HENRY SPENCER SEEMS TO WANT TO SUGGEST THAT JUST BECAUSE THE US IS
CURRENTLY SPENDING HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS THE US CAN SPEND
MORE HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS (EVEN SEVERAL TRILLION DOLLARS). THE POINT
OF MY SUBMISSION ON THE COSTS OF SDI WAS THAT WE CAN'T AFFORD THE
CURRENT HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS WE ARE CURRENTLY SPENDING AND THAT SDI
COULD POTENTIALLY BE THE STRAW THAT BREAKS THE CAMELS BACK, UNLESS OR
OR COURSE WE CHOOSE TO GO WITHOUT SOMETHING. WHAT I ASK KNOW IS WHAT
ARE WE WILLING TO GIVE UP TO HAVE SDI?
2) IT SEEMS THAT IN ORDER TO DO A COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS ONE NEEDS TO KNOW
THE COSTS OF WHAT YOU ARE ANALYZING. MOREOVER, YOU NEED TO KNOW THE
EFFECTS OF SPENDING HOWEVER MUCH SOMETHING COSTS INORDER TO FIGURE
OUT WHETHER YOU WANT TO DO SOMETHING OR NOT. I ARGUE THAT SDI WILL
BE EXTREMELY COSTLY BOTH IN TERMS OF ABSOLUTE DOLLAR COSTS BUT ALSO
IN HUMAN, SOCIAL, AND INDIRECT ECONOMIC COSTS. THIS MEANS THAT SDI
HAS TO BE AWFUL DAMN GOOD TO JUSTIFY ITSELF. REMEMBER THE MX MISSILE,
IT WAS GOING TO COST A LOT (BOTH DOLLAR WISE AND EVIRONMENTALLY) BUT
IT WAS GOING TO REDRESS THE "WINDOW OF VULNERABILITY". SOMEHOW
WE ARE AT THE TAIL END OF THE WINDOW OF VULNERABILITY AND NOTHING HAS
HAPPENED--NO MX (AT LEAST NOT MANY) AND WE WILL HAVE SPENT LESS THAN
1/3 WHAT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO ON THE PROJECT, SO FAR. WHILE THE POTENTIAL
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COSTS OF SDI ARE RELATIVELY OBVIOUS, MUCH OF THE
EFFECTIVENESS I HAVE HEARD OF SO FAR (AND I HAVE READ A GREAT DEAL AND
WRITTEN A GREAT DEAL ABOUT IT) SOUND REMARKABLY LIKE THE HOOPLA OF THE
WINDOW OF VULNERABILITY ARGUMENTS OR THE FANTASTIC THINGS THE B-1 BOMBER
WAS SUPPOSED TO DO FOR US.
3) A LAST POINT ABOUT COST EFFECTIVENESS. EVEN IF 30 YEARS FROM NOW SDI
IS ACTUALLY LIKELY TO SAVE OUR BUTTS FROM THOSE DASTARDLY RUSSKIES,
AND WE *KNEW* THIS NOW, WOULD WE STILL WANT TO SPEND THE MONEY IF BECAUSE
OF THOSE EXPENDITURES, OUR NATION WASN'T REALLY WHAT IT IS NOW? IF
INSTEAD OF THE WEALTH AND HEALTH WE ENJOY NOW OUR ECONOMY WAS REDUCED TO
A STAGNANT DYING BEHEMOTH DEVOTED LARGELY TO PROVIDING SERVICES TO THE
WEALTHY AND SUPPORTING AN ENORMOUS MILITARY MACHINE. IF, RATHER THAN THE
20-25 PERCENT THAT ARE POOR (ALTHOUGH ONLY 15 PERCENT LIVE BELOW THE
POVERTY LINE TODAY, SOMEWHAT MORE LENIENT DEFINITIONS WIDELY USED BY
SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCIES PUT THE NUMBER HIGHER), WE FACED SAY 35 OR 45
OF OUR POPULATION LIVING IN POVERTY AND MOST OF REST NOT DOING TO WELL?
I COULD GO ON. BUT THESE ARE THINGS TO THINK ABOUT WHEN WE ARE DOING
A COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS. DO WE WANT A COMMAND ECONOMY DEVOTED TO
SUPPORTING THE MILITARY JUST LIKE AS SOME PEOPLE DESCRIBE THE RUSSIAN
ECONOMY.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 87 07:37:57 PST
From: pom%under.s1.gov@mordor.s1.gov
Subject: slimy aliens & contras
Subject: Two points: contras and slimy aliens
pom:Today I will cover just two minor points, point 1) and point 2)::
===================================================================
1) pro and contra of contras
----------------------------
a:>In the third case, the Contra's are fighting a government that does seek to
>expand itself by giving arms to rebels in El Salavador. The contras (regardless
>of their human rights) will not do this. Therefore, the best way to have peace
>in Central America is a Contra victory.... The bottom line is that we need to pick
>between an agressive government with poor human rights that we have no
>influence over or a peaceful government with poor human rights that we do
>have influence over and can steer towards democracy later.....
b:>Despite my Germanic name, I am mostly Irish. Irishmen love a lost cause and
>any fool can tell you that Ireland is God's favorite country. As an Irishman,
>however, I strongly aprove of getting drunk
> Allen Sherzer
> SHERZER%NGSTL1@TI-EG.CSNET
@a: In all recorded history, there never was a democratic quisling
government. If we really ever tried, we never succeeded. It's a
contradictio ad adjecto (contradiction in adjectives?).
@b:That's no real prob: In my belief system God can have more then one
'most favorite country' at the same time
(I have to ask though if any can be catholic).
I any case, when you visit His most favorite city of SanFrancisko,
give me a call; May be we can get drunk together...
2) is 'hi-story' simply a story of 'the bad guys against bad guys'?
------------------------------------------------------------------
a:> ....2) Not everyone in the U.S. can afford to spend a year off from their
> jobs checking out how tough it is in rest of the world.
b:>...6) I think it is interesting that you choose a work by a Czech emigre
> organization as a reference concerning the evils of those Russkies.
c:>... You should read
> some things about the civil rights movement in the south, the Filipino
> insurrection in 1902-1908, the treatment of Indians by the U.S.
>From: John_Boies@ub.cc.umich.edu
@a: I know. I am not rich either. What I said is neverthless true.
Go and see The American Tale - do you need five bucks for a ticket?
@b: CSAS is not emigre organisation. You cannot judge this book before
seeing it; I said it is unusual. I am a scientist; don't you think
I know what 'scholarly' means? It is a scholarly book.
@c: I read about Indians, Wounded Knee, etc. I was moved but my hair
did not do the things you said they will. Thats not the point though.
You cann't argue with my description of the Soviet reality by
pointing out ugly things US, or ku-klux-klan did.
The issue "Who is worse? " is a different issue, but would you
want to argue that?
Standard Disclaimer
=========================
Sometime I post some fact on Soviet reality
and get mail which does not argue with me but with Mr. Buckley.
Some other time I say something on Central America and
people write to me that I am 'naive about communism' and ask me pointedly
if I know 'anything' about Soviet history.
I apologize for not fitting into standard pigeon holes.
I tried my best to be a 'regular guy', but looking back; well....
That's why I composed this 'standard disclaimer'::
-----------------------------------------------
I proclaim that I am familiar with all three versions of the
Russian and Soviet history. I did indeed noticed a steady
expansion of the empire. Very little is ever returned. Only instances
which come to mind are Austria and Finland. (And speaking of Finland,
let's not forget that the strip of land, which Soviets retained,
still has the most sought-after and plush 'Dacha's" (summer homes)
for VIPs of Leningrad.
So. How do I know that? I learned that from a friend whom
I met in Leningrad. Only rarely is the 'telephone' from me to the direct
participants much longer than second hand (which is mostly because
I did not so far found a 'really good book on SU'. Naturally, she
said it 'off the record', and she knew that I know that, otherwise she
would not say it - so do not quote her.
I am not attempting 'to prove that Russkis are devils'
neither that they are angels, since I know that they are neither; they
are human, just as Americans. BUT does that means that there is
NO DIFFERENCE?? Well, if we are not sure, let's call the experts:
Just a moment -- --here it is-- 011-76-90886-9676 (now you can dial
direct) Hallo, yea. Is that Radiostation Armenia?
"Da. You are on the air".
"We have an argument here. Some say that if you really
examine all the facts, there is little difference between
the Two Systems", They are both bad! "Is that true?"
"That is totally false! There is a basic and principal difference:
Under the Capitalistic System, there is an exploitation of one
man by another man. Under the Socialistic System such unacceptable
human relationship is completely reversed!"
"Thank you. click"
So, you see, there are things which are very similar, and there
are things which are indeed opposite. For instance, here in US,
when you graduate from college, you start job-hunting. It is often
complex and difficult and some fail.
Overe there, in SU, when they graduate, they start complex and
often difficult maneuvres to get out of the job which was
assigned to them. Some succeed.
Similarity between SU and US, which strikes me most, is the mentality
of a BIG nation. They both have complete lack of comprehension of how it
feels when a small nation gets kicked around by a powerful neighbor.
It's like if man would attempt to imagine how it feels to be raped.
There is a huge blind spot there; men simply are not equipped for that.
So, I do not think that US is practising its suicidal foreign policy
in Central America because 'Americans are either evil or stupid or naive'
as many foreigners believe. Americans simply are unable to differentiate
between Freedom Fighters and "Freedom Fighters". They all look same to
them! The Freedom Fighters of Albania fight because they did choose to be
free or to die. Noble people; They are not paid to fight. I would not mind
to have one of them as a neighbor or even a friend.
On the "Freedom Fighters" of Nicaragua we (so far and still counting) spent
$200,OOO,OOO dollars. Thats about $5 per Nicaraguan. Imagine for how many
days this amount would feed a hungry child in a poor country? Soviets
sure try, but they do not really need to bother: Marxism is a fairly
natural choice of a belief system for very poor people without hope.What
is a better way to save a man from the clutches of Marxism ? Check one
1) Hire somebody to shoot his uncle (without trial)
2) Make it possible for him to earn enough money to feed his child
If those contras would have any brains, they would take the money, split
them with their relatives and invest them into Nicaraguan economy. But
they don't and so when these "Freedom Fighters" fail, and that's inevitable,
US has to make an extra immigration refugee quota for the and I do have a
problem: I would not want to have one of them as a neigbor. Why? A poll
of Nicaraguan soldiers, who were sent to Chile by Somoza, revealed that
none of them owned any stock of the Anaconda Copper Company. It was not
really in their interest to fight. That's one reason why Somoza is called
a quisling. Since he betrayed his own people, he would not hesitate to
betray me either. I do not care for Mr. Rheza Pahalavi and his friends
either. They care little whom they serve and to illustrate that,
I will close with one more 'political joke'. This one is not Russian but
from an East Europan nation, about the size of Nicaragua:
'They' were running one of those regular purges and 'verification of
the proper background for each job' and so they called Janosh, a gypsy,
in front of the commission. "What is your occupation?" asked the chairman?
"Eh, you!" says Janosh "Don't you know John I am playing fiddles in the pub?"
(It was a small village, you see), that's all I know!. "Well,well,let's see"
says John - "ahm Next question: What did you do during the Nazi occupation
of our country?" "What ?! I was playing the fiddles, damn You.". And
so Janosh did not pass. His activities during the previous occupation
were interpreted as collaboration with enemy. " You idiot!" says his friend
why didn't you said you were with the resistance. Why didn't you lie?
"How could I? 'They' were all there!"
I know it does not sound funny. Janosh was referring to the fact that
the 'same they' who previously collaborated with Nazis often end up
as 'enforcers' for the Soviet occupants. I guess one have to live that,
to either cry of laugh at that. Decent people usually do not want this
kinds of job and 'they' care little whom they serve. When you put
'Help wanted" ad in the papers: "Need someone with gun to sell his people
to foreign interests" only scum of the Earth applies - and whether
you are KGB or CIA makes little difference to them.
It was so preordained by omnipotent deity that BIG american nations
will relate to the BIG Russian jokes and tiny american nations can 'get'
the tiny East European jokes. But that does not means that SU and US
are the same. American military bases abroad are paid for by the
American taxpayers. They actually boost the local economy with all
those services like hot dogs and prostitution. That's one reason all
foreigners know that Americans are not normal. All normal occupational
armies are paid for by the occupied - and that's not a Soviet invention.
Mr. Metternich, who was a cross between Machiavelli and dr. Kiessinger
for the Austrian Habsburgs did that: If your village got any funny
ideas, he would just station squadron of Hussars there, so that in addition
to your regular chores, you had to feed and quarter the Hussars. When they
left, you were in heaven. I suspect Romans did that, and if you recall
those stories of dragons, demanding dozen maidens for brekfast every day,
you will agree that the 'normal way' is really ancient. BUT, where are all
those BIG empires and reptiles? They all gonners. There is message somewhere..
So, that ends the disclaimer. It's a bit too long - so I will post it
just once and than - just mail it, when I feel missclasified.
It applies to my past and (very few remaining) future postings.
I hope it explains a bit why I feel the way I do, and, to end
on a more cheerful and melodramatic note, I want to say, that if I
would have to choose a country to live in (and if absolutely necessary
to die for) it would be US. As a matter of fact I had to choose.
I still cherish some childhood memories and values and so when people ask:
"Hey Dr. Pom, which side are you on? Are you with 'us' or with 'them'??"
I like to say: "What do you mean? 'which side?'. Earth is round,
it has no 'sides'. I am a cheerleader for global concsiousness.. pom.
=================================no!==no!!===not on the arpanet!!!======
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************