ARMS-D-Request@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU.UUCP (02/09/87)
Arms-Discussion Digest Sunday, February 8, 1987 11:58PM Volume 7, Issue 102 Today's Topics: SDI in fixed orbits "America" and Hitler (two separate topics) Star Wars as Bad epilog on the Tau Ceti Initiative Economics of SDI (Request) Re: I'm Warning You! The economics of SDI Economics of SDI (and other military expenditures) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 3 Feb 87 15:57:57 cst From: convex!paulk@a.cs.uiuc.edu (Paul Kalapathy) Subject: SDI in fixed orbits > From: David Sher <sher@rochester.arpa> > > Why would an SDI be limited to fixed orbits? How much would having > SDI platforms capable of periodically and randomly changing orbits > cost over a fixed orbit system and would such a system foil very many > counter measures? SDI platforms would almost certainly be constrained to fixed orbits because: 1) It is very costly (in terms of propellant) to change the orbit of a satellite. Remember that a spacecraft must carry, from launch, all of the propellant that it will use in its entire life. An orbit change corresponds to a (vectored) velocity change. Each velocity change (delta v) requires some mass of propellant. A major orbit change would require an amount of propellant well in excess of one percent of the mass of the spacecraft. Now, a satellite with a lifetime of ten years will be in operation for about 3600 days. This doesn't allow for very frequent orbit changes. 2) The constellation of SDI platforms could not move in a random fashion and maintain their relationships with one another. These relationships need to be maintained in order to be certain that enough platforms will be in view of any missile launch. Also, battle management and communications would be grossly complicated by a changing constellation. 3) Changing orbits would probably not foil any countermeasures. Even a satellite which is thrusting is constrained by orbital mechanics and could be tracked easily. Space mines could potentially be foiled by this tactic, but whoever put up the mines would know that the SDI moves around and would certainly make their space mines tag along. The above simplifies some points, but is still valid. Exploring all of the intricacies of this point would require pages of useless pontification on my part :-) -Paul Kalapathy ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1987 17:26 EST From: Rob Austein <SRA@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU> Subject: "America" and Hitler (two separate topics) Re: "America" as a term for the USA. What's the fuss? Call the country "the USA" and the inhabitants "Yankees". "Yankee" may annoy some soreheads in the South, but it's what English speaking people in Europe call us anyway (I have heard it used by the British and by Canadian Air Force personnel stationed in Germany). Re: Hitler. Somebody recently said that Hitler's foreign policy was disorganized and/or random. Not so. Followed very twisted logic, that's all. For those who are interested, I highly recomend "Hitler's Weltanschauung" by Eberhard Jackel (available from Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA & London UK, under the title "Hitler's World View"). (Those who read this list regularly will recognize this as my annual plug for this book. I am very scared by the number of educated people who mistakenly believe that they understand Hitler and the Third Reich (which is not to say that I do, but most people I know are even more ignorant than me). Don't think it can't happen here.) Oh, and keep in mind that -everybody- in that part of Europe had a non-agression pact with Hitler in the late 30s. Including Poland, for all the good it did them. It was the "obvious" thing to do with a neighbor that had gone from disarmed bankruptcy to preeminant military power in six years. --Rob Austein <SRA@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU> ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Feb 87 16:39:19 pst From: pyramid!utzoo!henry@hplabs.HP.COM Subject: Star Wars as Bad > The high-speed projectile (smart rock) would be capable of accurately > delivering meteorite-like energy on the ground.... If it's capable of surviving the passage through the atmosphere, which is not automatically the case for a system built for in-space use. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Feb 87 01:37:11 pst From: pyramid!utzoo!henry@hplabs.HP.COM Subject: epilog on the Tau Ceti Initiative Thought this might be of interest... The latest issue of Space World has an interview with Robert Forward, in which he mentions a proposal that he and some folks from Rand, JPL, Los Alamos, and the USAF Rocket Propulsion Lab made to SDIO to make antimatter-based space propulsion real. Given ample funding but not a crash program, it would take about 30 years. The first ten years gets you all the basic technology. The next ten years builds a big, specialized accelerator, useful for physics research but mainly aimed at making enough antimatter to test-fire a full-scale rocket engine. The last ten years builds an antimatter factory on the same scale as the Hanford uranium-enrichment complex, which makes enough antimatter to fuel a large, active space program. This was not a high-risk proposal, just a big and rather long-term one. SDIO decided it was too long-term for them, but the potential remains. "If we don't do anything, then all the people who say that antimatter is foolish and will never come to fruition are correct. Because if we don't do anything, of course nothing will happen and it will take 50 years or 100 years before we have it. But if we *do* something, then we can get it done in 30 years." Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Feb 87 23:28:28 pst From: pyramid!utzoo!henry%hplabs@hplabs.HP.COM Subject: Economics of SDI (Request) Although I agree with Larry Yaffe that the economics of SDI are a major issue, I have a modest reservation about some of his questions: they are subtly but seriously slanted. Asking, for example, "How does this level of money compare to the amount of federal funding for basic science ?" is begging for an "SDI is bad" reply. If one is asking that question, one should also ask reasonable related questions like "How does this level of money compare to the amount of federal tobacco-farming subsidies?". (Yes, there are federal subsidies for the #1 cause of preventable cancer.) If one phrases questions about SDI economics as SDI versus some-obviously- desirable-thing, one is not going to get honest answers about the economic issues. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Feb 87 23:28:37 pst From: pyramid!utzoo!henry@hplabs.HP.COM Subject: Re: I'm Warning You! > The above two recent postings both make an assumption about our strategic > situation: we must defend against a ``bolt from the blue'' attack... > Is this a realistic assumption? What would happen to our position if we > relaxed our perception of ``warning'' (i.e. assumed that we would have at > least a day's worth or more of advanced warning to prepare for a Soviet > attack?) It depends on what one wants to do in response to an attack, and what flavor of attack one is thinking of. In one sense a bolt-from-the-blue attack is not very realistic, since it would take something truly drastic to make the normal Soviet leadership "roll them big dice", and we are likely to get some warning that something like that is happening. In another sense it is quite realistic. If you believe that the cause of nuclear war would probably be accident or madness or such, rather than a calculated, rational decision, then it might well happen suddenly. To a defence planner, the big question is whether the second type of attack would be as large, systematic, and coordinated as the first type. If it could be, then one really must prepare for the full bolt-from-the-blue scenario. A type-two attack would *probably* be less organized than a type-one attack, but *must* it be? I have a nagging feeling that the worst- case answer is "no". Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Feb 87 22:26:38 EST From: John_Boies@ub.cc.umich.edu re: The economics of SDI Reply to Larry Yaffe From: John L. Boies Subject: The economics of SDI The Office of Management and Budget has estimated that a program of R & D and procurement for a BMD system with the capabilities envisioned by President Reagan could be as much as $500 billion dollars over a period of 10-20 years. Former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger along with others both inside and outside the federal government have suggested figures as high as $1 trillion dollars over a ten or twenty year period.(G.E. Hudson and JK. Kruzel, edit. American Defense Annual, Lexington Books, Lexington, Mass. pg. 194) Figures such as these might sound farfetched to some, but when you consider the staggering estimated costs of some of the systems suggested as low technology alternatives (or sometimes as stopgap measures to protect us against the Russians until a truly effective BMD can be devised) to SDI estimates for a system with all the capabilities envisioned for Star Wars of even $2 trillion may no longer seem unreasonable. To get a better handle on what SDI might cost us, some of the details of what we are spending and planning to spend on SDI related programs is necessary. The Pentagon suggests that they will need $33 billion between now and 1990 and perhaps another $30 billion (or more) between 1990 and 1995 #(just to determine the feasibility of a high technology BMD system like SDI).(Office of Technology Assessment, Strategic Defenses, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, pg. 293) In addition to the $33 billion budget to research and demonstrate SDI technologies to be spent through the DOD, the Department of Energy will likely be in line to receive $2 billion over the next five years for BMD research. The existing ASAT program, which concerns many technologies directly relevant to SDI as well as less technologically sophisticated BMD systems, will absorb $4 billion over the five years. (Office of Technology Assessment, Strategic Defenses, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, pg. 292-3) No source I have found has as yet discussed additions to be made to the NASA budget, to the NSA budget, and to the budgets of other programs that either support the SDI program or will contribute to the research effort in other ways (such as by researching related technologies, e.g. the VLSIC program, or the Naval and Air Force directed energy weapons research), but it is likely this would add more billions to the basic research costs of Star Wars. Thus, even if SDI is not technologically possible, our government (either you and me or the deficit) will have shelled out over $60 billion dollars!! 0 It is important to realize, however, that the push for SDI is not just an attempt to promote research on an interesting group of technologies that may or may not be used. Quite the contrary, the current interest in SDI is part of a long term and strong interest on the part of the Air Force, Army, and other parts of our military and government in having a BMD system. For example, between the signing of the ABM treaty in 1973 and 1985 the U.S. has spent $4.268 billion directly on BMD programs (A. Carter and D. Schwartz, Edit. Ballistic Missile Defense, The Brookings Institute, Wa. D.C., pg.344) plus another $3.175 billion on directed energy research (Lasers, particle beams, etc.)(J. Hecht, Beam Weapons, The Next Arms Race, Plenum Press, New York, pg. 353). Moreover, the defense contractors that are likely to build any future BMD system are the very same contractors that are currently receiving the contracts to research the feasibility of a BMD system. Consequently, regardless of the outcome of the SDI research program, it is likely that there will be pressure to procure some kind of BMD system. 0 To put the potential price tag of SDI or any other related BMD system in some kind of perspective I will now briefly describe the estimated costs of two ABM systems using considerably simpler technologies than are likely to be developed from the SDI research. The simplest of all proposed "active" systems is a "pop-up" terminal defense system deployed close to the targets of the incoming warheads. This system, in its current form called LoADS (Low Altitude Terminal Defense System), would consist of large numbers small high acceleration nuclear tipped radar or infra-red guided missiles. The LoADS system is largely a somewhat more advanced and compact version of the old Sprint ABM system designed during the late sixties. In addition to a large phased-array early warning radar tracking system, LoADS requires a small phased-array tracking radar for each ABM (or perhaps for every few ABMs). The DOD gives a rock bottom minimum price tag 21.5 million dollars for each interceptor deployed.(R. Starsman, Ballistic Missile Defense and Deceptive Basing: A New Calculus for the Defense of ICBMs, National Defense University Press, Wa. D.C. p. 28) Thus, for a system allowing 1000 shots against incoming RVs, the cost would be $25-30 billion including R & D. While this may seem like a large number of interceptors, (and thus likely to make an effective shield against incoming warheads) The D.O.D. suggests that if the Soviets were unconstrained by SALT II, they might deploy as many as 14,000 warheads capable of striking hard point targets by 1990-1995. Even if the LoADS interceptors had a 100% kill probability, the U.S. could spend $300 billion dollars and the Russians could still count on 3-4,000 of their warheads striking the U.S.'s missile silos. 0 A more technologically complex and potentially more effective BMD system that has been suggested to fill the gap until a better ABM system can be developed is the "High Frontier" system proposed by Gen. Daniel O. Graham, Ret. The space based component of this system would consist of space planes, 432 defensive satellites employing kinetic kill weapons similar to the infrared-guided Miniature Vehicle ASAT weapon being developed by the Air Force, and a sizeable space station. This system would supposedly destroy enemy ballistic missiles while they were in their boost phase, when they are most vulnerable to interception. While Graham estimates that the total cost of this part of the system would be only 10 to 15 billion dollars, the DOD figured that acquisition costs of this system alone might run between 200 and 300 billion dollars(Office of Technology Assessment, Strategic Defenses, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, pg. 294). For this 200 billion or so dollars we would get a system that according to Ashton Carter of Harvard University would be "...a defensive system of extremely limited capability for boost phase intercept of present Soviet ICBMs and with no capability against future MX like Soviet boosters, even with no Soviet effort to overcome the defense." (Office of Technology Assessment, Strategic Defenses, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, pg. 295) Moreover, the OTA found very little of the "High Frontier's" off-the- shelf technologies on anyone's shelves. 0 The cost of Star Wars are certain to be staggering. Regardless of the outcome the SDI research, the U.S. will spend over 60 billion dollars over the next ten years. Even if the D.O.D. decides to deploy only a relatively inexpensive low tech BMD system such as LoADS, by the the year 2000 we will spend the $60 billion for the SDI research plus a minimum of $30 billion for a thin LoADS defense (only capable of destroying about 10% of incoming warheads) or as much as $300 to $600 billion for a thick LoADS (potentially capable of intercepting 10,000 warheads) defense with a single space based layer like the "High Frontier" system with a marginal capability to intercept ICBMs during their boost phases (only with luck will it be able to intercept SLBMs). Considering the estimated costs of these relatively primitive and inexpensive systems, the seemingly outrageous figure of a trillion dollars for the full blown high tech three or four layer Star Wars system no longer seems outrageous. In fact, maybe the estimate of a trillion dollars, rather than being a very high estimate of the costs of a BMD system with the capabilities envisioned by President Reagan, is actually a low estimate of the costs involved with such a program. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Feb 87 23:01:22 EST From: John_Boies@ub.cc.umich.edu Subject: Economics of SDI (and other military expenditures) There are four adverse economic effects of high levels of defense spending that I will discuss here. These are: 1) Shifts in government spending; 2) Distortions in the labor market; 3) Redistribution of income from the working class and poor to the well off; and 4) Reduction in economic growth. The most well known and obvious economic repurcussions of military expenditures is the reduction in domestic spending required once military expenditures reach a high enough level that available federal moneys can not pay for both domestic expenditures and military expenditures. While deficit spending can (and has) provide additional revenue to support spending on both the military and social programs, at some point even that source of revenue must run dry. The magnitude of the shifts in the federal budget priorities that SDI would make necessary are staggering. Just the basic research program would pay for the entire food stamp program for ten years, the school lunch program for 15 years, or medical research programs for 15 years.(B.J. Page, Who Gets What From Government, U.C. Press, Berkeley, pg. 64) The expenditures that would be necessary for a full scale SDI system as envisioned by President Reagan were to be deployed the costs would support 100 years of funding federal education programs at the 1980 level, 50 years of funding federal transportation programs, 20 years of healthcare expenditures, and 10 years of social security outlays (A. Hacker, Edit., US A Statistical Portrait of the American People, Viking Press, N.Y., pg 167- 194). The basic question that these comparisons bring to mind is: What are we as a society, as a nation, willing to do without so we can have SDI? Do we want to let Social Security go bankrupt? Do we want to cut out health care spending, or food stamps, school lunches? A second consequence of SDI spending is that investment in technically complex weapons systems such as BMD creates fewer jobs than most any other type of investment a government or business can make. For example, a billion dollars (in 1981 dollars) invested in educational services results in the creation of 72,000 jobs, in shipbuilding and repair it would create 33,000 jobs, rapid transit 48,000 jobs, and in military procurement 28,000 jobs. If we just rebated a billion dollars worth of tax monies 60,000 jobs would be created (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Economic Report to the President, Feb. 1983, U.S. GPO, Wa., D.C. pg. 166-67). The stimulus to the economy resulting from military expenditures is far lower than most every other kind of investment except investment in petroleum refining. Moreover, the kind of jobs created by high tech investment like SDI creates a small number of high paying jobs for well educated middle class professional (e.g. engineers, managers) and a larger number of very low paying jobs in the service industries to provide food, health, and entertainment services to these people. SDI is just one more step down the road towards a nation of middle class professionals and lower class burger- flippers. Expenditures of the type and magnitude of required by SDI are also likely to severely disrupt the existing labor markets for technical professionals. For example, SDI will require as much as 81,000 person-years of programming to develop and install the software to run the SDI computers (Lin, Scientific American, Dec. 1985). In 1982 over 50% of civilian firms reported shortages of personnel in fields of computer science and electronic engineering (U.S. National Science Foundation, "Labor Markets for New Science and Engineer Graduates", Science Resources Highlights, June 9, 1982, Chart 2). The large increase in demand resulting from the SDI program will likely boost the price of labor in these as well as other technical fields dramatically, especially considering that the military has historically paid significantly above average market rates for technical personnel (J.S. Gansler, The Defense Industry, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. pg. 51). Since many businesses are dependent on computers in the U.S. the price of doing business in our high tech society could go up considerably while the price of doing business in other nations will remain the same. In other industrial sectors such as communications and chemicals the story is quite similar to what will happen in the computer software and hardware industries. One of the most frightening economic consequences of SDI is that it will undoubtedly redistribute income in our society from the poor and working class to the well off. Some of the ways SDI will bring this about include: 1) Less money will be spent on social welfare and other domestic programs that serve to redistribute money from the better off to the less well off. 2) There will be fewer jobs created then if the money were spent elsewhere, and most the of jobs created will be the lowest paying jobs in American society (with the exception of farm labor), retail service and similar jobs. 3) The vast majority (85-90%) of the money spent on SDI will go directly to some of the largest defense contractors in the U.S.--Boeing, TRW, AVCO, Lockheed, North American Rockwell, Hughes Aerospace, Aerojet General. Not only are these contractors guaranteed a rather large profit from these contracts, but they are among the firms in this country that pay the least amount of taxes to federal, state, or local governments. Ultimately, the profits from these contracts will flow to the wealthy and powerful that own these firms, people that already own much of the wealth in our nation. The last consequence of SDI that I want to address here is that it is likely to reduce the United States ability to compete economically with other nations. This problem stems from the reduction in resources put towards civilian R & D, e.g. product development basic research, production innovation, resulting from high levels of military R & D expenditures. In 1983 the U.S. government spent $52 billion on R & D, $35 billion of that was for military R & D(R. W. DeGrasse, Jr., Military Expansion Economic Decline, M.E. Sharpe, Inc., Armonk, N.Y. pg. 102) . In addition to the fact that the civilian economy could certainly have used some of that research money, military research requires large amounts of trained personnel, experimental equipment, and expensive research facilities that are certainly not in unlimited supply. Military research creates a sort of brain drain away form the civilian economy resulting in higher prices for research and lower quality research. Moreover, since the research programs are centrally controlled by the federal government, the kinds of research that can be undertaken is considerably more narrow (and much less widely disseminated because of security precautions) than if the research money could be spent on research subjects determined independently by thousands of universities, business, and thinktanks. The end result of spending large amounts of money on the military, especially on military research and development is to reduce the ability of a nation to economically compete with other nations by reducing the amount of resources committed to basic building blocks of a capitalist economy, product and production innovation. Without the development of new products or new production techniques a nation's economy will sooner or later fail to keep pace with those economies that are devoting resources to these areas. A 1983 study of 17 industrialized nations by the Council on Economic Priorities found that there is a "...negative relationship between the share of GDP [Gross Domestic Product] spent on military R & D and the rate of productivity growth among major industrial nations." (pg. 157) Additionally, the Council concluded: If the economic benefits of military research and procurement outweighed the costs, we would expect that American firms in industries closely allied with the military would have maintained or expanded their overall market shares. But the contrary is true in the electronics and machine too industries. The Japanese have significantly penetrated markets for electronic memory chips and computer controlled machine tools. America's dominance in the commercial airline market is being challenged by Airbus Industrie, a European consortium. (pg. 157) ------------------------------ End of Arms-Discussion Digest *****************************