ARMS-D-Request@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (Moderator) (01/09/87)
Arms-Discussion Digest Friday, January 9, 1987 3:31PM
Volume 7, Issue 92
Today's Topics:
Offensive uses of SDI
Re: SDI "pilot plant" test
Soviet Reality, International Stability and ethics
utility of arms control
FBMs on station
Soviet schools & the Great Patriotic War
Censorship (and an example: P-3s)
German/Soviet non-aggression pact of 1939
Re: Offensive uses of SDI
just who wants SDI, anyway?
Israel & Iran/Iraq
Soviet VS American forign policy
nuclear armed P-3 Orions
Offensive uses of SDI
Economic Motivations for SDI
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: hplabs!pyramid!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 87 16:53:22 pst
Subject: Offensive uses of SDI
> >Why should flying over the USSR imply offensive access? ...
>
> Just because a weapon can't penetrate the atmosphere doesn't mean it can't
> be used for offensive purposes. Such a weapon obviously could be used to
> disable surveillance satellites...
Sigh, we are going around in circles: earlier in this discussion (I think)
I explicitly acknowledged antisatellite attack as a *minor* offensive use
of most any antimissile system. My point was that it's not what most people
think of when they hear the word "offensive", and hence it is misleading
advertising and propaganda rather than rational argument.
Also, flying over the USSR is *entirely* irrelevant to attacking surveillance
satellites, since Soviet surveillance satellites are not located over the
USSR!
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
------------------------------
From: hplabs!pyramid!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 87 16:52:43 pst
Subject: Re: SDI "pilot plant" test
(Sorry if this seems a bit dated, catching up after a month's absence.)
Jeff Mogul writes:
> I think this is poor idea, and it illustrates the danger of decoupling
> the technical question of SDI feasibility from the political question
> of SDI desirability, and the political implications of testing SDI.
>
> If I were a Soviet defense planner, I would be most scared of an
> SDI "pilot plant" test, whether or not it succeeded according to Henry's
> criteria. For, once it has shown partial success, my opponent would
> have a great deal more confidence in its ability...
I am not proposing a pilot plant test as a step in research, but as a
precondition for *proceeding with* (not initiating) *deployment*. In other
words, we're talking about a situation where the big, dangerous decisions
have already been made, presumably with confidence that they are correct.
The idea of the pilot plant test is to check that the already-existing
confidence is justified.
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
------------------------------
From: hplabs!pyramid!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 87 21:03:28 pst
Subject: Soviet Reality, International Stability and ethics
> In your model of the world there is something called "Soviets",
> and you have some ideas about what they may do... In my model...
> there is also word 'soviets' and it means what it indeed means to
> inhabitants of the Soviet Union. 'Soviets' are councils...
I won't comment on the rest of the discussion, some of which I agree with
and some of which I don't, but I do want to briefly address the issue of
terminology.
Just what *are* we supposed to call inhabitants of the Soviet Union (more
properly, the USSR)? "Russians" is even more inaccurate. "USSRians" is
unfamiliar and ridiculously pedantic, not to mention irrational unless we
also insist on calling you a USAnian. After all, some of us non-USAnians
mildly resent a certain nation -- comprising rather less than half of the
northern part of America -- using that word to refer only to itself. Please
don't get nit-picky about the meaning of "Soviets" unless you are prepared
for us to nit-pick right back.
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 87 09:22:00 EST
From: campbell%maynard.UUCP@talcott.HARVARD.EDU
Subject: utility of arms control
Reply-To: campbell%maynard.UUCP@talcott.HARVARD.EDU (Larry Campbell)
>From: pom@along.s1.gov
>
>>I disagree with the premise. In my judgment, arms control has had
>>successes sufficient to warrant continuing those efforts. On balance,
>>I believe we are now better off for having pursued arms control than
>>we would have been had we not done so.
>
> That belief is hard to test. Before the last war (WWII) the talks went on
> until the Germany left the League of Nation and started the war. The
> disarmament talks which do not deal with the issues, but with symptoms
> only, are either smoke-screens, placebo or an empty ritual. You are wrong
> to call it 'arms control'. The arms race is 'out of control'. What is going
> on are 'dis-armaments talks' which belong on talk.politics at most.
I agree that it would be nice if the US and SU were working to resolve
their fundamental political differences, but you are wrong to say that
we are not better off for having signed the arms control treaties we have.
In particular, the atmospheric test ban treaty has been a benefit to ALL
inhabitants of the world -- I shudder to think what background radiation
levels would be now if the US and SU had continued atmospheric weapons
testing at the level of the early 1950's. Cancer, anyone?
> You said " I do not care what soviet people think " . What soviet people?
> SU IS THE JAIL OF NATIONS. Once you discard all those ethnic groups, you are
> left with jailers only, the apparatchicks , the members of all those soviets.
> And whom do they represent? Did the Poles elected them? Did the Ukranieans
> selected Mr. Gorbachev to speak for them? You do not care, you are a practical
> man and ask: "who holds the keys, who has the Button?"
Assuming that the Soviet political apparatus rules entirely by force
and terror, and that if only we could vaporize all CP members the
Soviet people would come crawling to the US for some Western-style
democracy, is a dangerously wishful thinking. I believe the vast
majority of the Soviet people support their government. They *want*
a strong police force. They *want* stability, and see Western style
freedom as dangerous, decadent, and destabilizing. I was quite surprised
recently to learn that many middle aged Soviets are nostalgic for Stalin!
You see, during their childhoods, portraits and busts of him were everywhere,
and his name was spoken only with great respect and reverence. Then
Khruschev denounced Stalin and overnight all the portraits and busts
disappeared. Despite what they will call Stalin's "excesses", to many
Soviets he represents a "golden age" of stability and national unity.
For good or bad (and I certainly don't admire Soviet politics), the Soviet
government is one of the most stable in the world. It is *not* going to
go away. It is *not* going to be overthrown -- at least not during our
lifetimes. And it, by and large, has the support of its people.
--
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: Wed, 7 Jan 87 10:32:11 EST
From: John Allred <jallred@labs-b.bbn.com>
Subject: FBMs on station
While at MIT, I took a course entitled "Determinants of Strategic
Nuclear Forces", taught by William Kaufman (rumor had it that he was
an advisor of Carter.) In the course's final paper, he gave us
several assumptions about the weapons involved. One of these was
"assume that 60% of the Fleet Balistic Missile boats were either on
station or in transit." Since the other assumptions he gave us were
correct (for instance, we really did have 1054 land based missiles in
1981), I tend to believe the 60% number.
Also, while serving in attack submarines, we routinely spend 60% of
our time underway, with one crew. An FBM boat with two crews should
be able to keep this kind of pace up.
Regarding the B-52 as an "old and dangerous" weapon - absolutely.
Considering how long (2 and a half hours?) that the Korean Air Lines
jet wandered around Soviet airspace before being found, just think how
many B-52s could get through flying low and using countermeasures.
John Allred
BBN Laboratories, Inc.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 87 09:42:18 PST
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Soviet schools & the Great Patriotic War
The modified history of WWII the Soviets teach is one of the most well
of their editing efforts. They also modify their own history to edit
out unwanted political references, and even the history of their space
program.
Their educational system is meant to make the greatest impact on young
minds before they learn differently from their parents and others who have
gathered information from independent sources. In the PBS series "Comrades",
it seems that most of the students later begin to realize that the real world
doesn't exactly match what they have been taught, and they become skeptical
of anything the government says. They also have a great love for their
country and generally accept things like compulsory military service
(although I suppose they don't really have a choice in the matter). So the
early propaganda seems to have a limited effectiveness in the USSR.
Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 87 10:18:49 pst
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Censorship (and an example: P-3s)
I think I should make a comment to Herb's stated policy on
Censorship, since he brought it up. My comments about
Washington DC were not with regard to Herb being there. They
were more along the lines of the people who read this newsgroup.
First, [it's obvious by the jokes] the agencies who read this
group include members of various security groups. Second, because of
Usenet redistribution, some of this material goes overseas (people in
point 1 know this). Third, the technical competence of some of the
posters is quite high, it's also quite low (suppose for example a reader
from one security group). How this comes together: a person makes a
reference to something they know (not for wide distribution), or even
phrases comments based on such information (like how new forms of radar
works, or the goings on of P-3s at Moffett Field), and they get BURNED.
I know this has happened to others as well as myself. No, I don't think
we have free speech on this net.
My question: is arms-d a place for the exposition of Woodward and Bernstein
type journalism? We joke about Aviation Leak and Space Technocracy.
Are we arms-leak? {Correction, this sounds too strong.}
I know all the the people posting (including myself) have large egos.
{Some one know fact A, another knows speculation A', a third knows
fact B which contradicts A', this causes someone else to note speculation
C, someone else happens to know a tiny bit more, and so forth.}
But I wonder where we draw the limit. There is lots of speculation
about whether P-3s carry nuclear weapons. There are several network hosts
concern with delivery to weapons, but I don't think it is appropriate
for me to comment about 1) something I don't know for a fact, and 2) if
I did know, I might not post publically since my butt would be on the
line for knowing something (this net has ears). This is the reference
to Washington DC I made.
Wonder when we (arms-d) make the National Enquirer?
[Henry Spencer tells all....;-)
--eugene miya
p.s. I doubt that megatons are circling over Sunnyvale, but probably
low kilotons {now see what you have me doing!}
------------------------------
From: D L Lulue <nosc!lulue@cod.nosc.arpa>
Date: 7 Jan 87 21:38:01 GMT
Path: cod!lulue
From: lulue@cod.UUCP (D L Lulue)
Newsgroups: mod.politics.arms-d
Subject: German/Soviet non-aggression pact of 1939
Message-ID: <458@cod.UUCP>
Date: 7 Jan 87 21:38:01 GMT
Organization: CSC
Lines: 14
From Article 138 of mod.politics.arms-d:
>The Soviet Union was Hitler's *ally*, and fellow land-grabber, until
>Hitler let his anti-Communist paranoia run away with him and stabbed his
>buddies in the back.
The way I remember the history I was taught is that the non-aggression
pact between the SU and Nazi Germany was a temporary treaty of
convenience only, and both sides knew it. Hitler wanted a stable
eastern front so he could devote his energies to the west. The Soviets
want to buy time to prepare for the expected German invasion. Far from
being buddies, they deeply mistrusted and hated each other. Hitler had
planned to invade the SU for quite some time before the actual event.
------------------------------
Date: Wednesday, 7 Jan 1987 14:04:23-PST
From: jong%derep.DEC@decwrl.DEC.COM (Steve Jong/NaC Pubs)
Subject: Re: Offensive uses of SDI
I thought I'd clarify some of the points I mentioned, in light of
Henry Spencer's response.
>> ... Any boost-phase intercept method would have to
>> reach down into the atmosphere over the Soviet Union and destroy ICBM's
>> on their way up. If boost-phase intercept can do that, it could destroy
>> civilian targets on the ground...
> Mmm, "boost phase" normally extends beyond the effective limits of the
> atmosphere, as I recall. Furthermore, the ability to reach down some
> distance into the atmosphere does not imply the ability to reach to the
> ground. Most of the mass and optical density of the atmosphere is very
> close to the ground.
The experiment with the Space Shuttle involved sending a coherent
beam of laser light from the ground (actually a Hawaii mountain
top) to the Shuttle. It's far from a weapon. The ability to
focus energy all the way to the ground is really pushing reality,
in my (almost worthless) judgement. But IF it could be done, THEN
it could be used as a weapon.
>> Either boost-phase or mid-phase weapons would also work well against
>> Soviet satellites...
> Yes, although it is important not to scream "SDI is an offensive weapon!"
> just because of this; it is technically true but misleading, since attacks
> on satellites are not what most people think of when "offensive" is used
> without further qualification.
If either side attacked the other's satellites, I fear it would
lead to war (even if it were not in fact the "opening salvo" of a
general attack).
>> Nuclear-powered X-ray laser battle stations in orbit might be viewed as
>> orbiting nuclear weapons by an unsympathetic foe :^)
> Probably, although my recollection is that at least some of the treaties
> on such matters refer to "weapons of mass destruction" rather than "nuclear
> weapons"; it is not clear that a pulsed beam weapon which can't penetrate
> atmosphere would qualify under the strict definition.
I am thinking of pulsed X-ray lasers (more Buck Rogers?) powered
by thermonuclear explosions. If I'm not mistaken, the
conception is an orbiting battle platform that would track a
number of targets, detonate the device, and shoot a number of
X-ray pulses at them as the platform vaporizes. Now, once such a
platform is constructed and in orbit, how will the other side know
just how big that H-bomb inside is? I haven't done the
calculations, but a few hundred megatons detonated over the US or
the Soviet Union would likely do plenty of damage, with or without
the X-ray pulses.
------------------------------
Subject: just who wants SDI, anyway?
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 87 15:03:09 -0800
From: Dave Suess (CSL) <zeus@aero2.aero.org>
When I spent Christmas in North Dakota, I had occasion to drive past several
Minuteman silos. Despite proximity to such targets, my friends and family
argue SDI pretty much the way the rest of the country does, some pro-, some
anti-, most having an opinion on one or another facet of the SDI paradigm.
But, I asked them, don't you wonder who wants SDI enough to spend lots of
tax dollars on it? None of them admitted to having asked the government to
erect a "peace shield", even though they were in a prime strategic area. They
admitted to having asked for economic relief (this is farm and oil country,
both hit hard by recent times). Apparently, they felt safe from the Russian
menace, or they would have left the area in search of safer places with better
economics. They liked the area, and the threats they felt were economic, not
strategic (with a little Mother Nature threat thrown in, though).
Assuming that people feel safe around the country... just who wants SDI,
anyway? Or are people stupid and ignorant of the real threat from Russia?
And, if the latter is the case, whose fault is that?
Dave Suess (not a spokesperson for my employer) @aero2.aero.org
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 87 18:34:37 PST
From: lieman@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Dan Lieman)
Subject: Israel & Iran/Iraq
A recent posting asserted many untruths about Israel's sales of "billions"
of dollars of weapons to Iran. Further, this article stated as fact
claims concerning Israel's motivations for its actions with respect to
arms sales in the region, claims which are in fact not true.
The author of the posting displays a shocking lack of mideast political
sophistication. Iraq is a blood enemy of Israel. Iraq has *never even
signed a truce* with Israel in the 1948 war. Iraq and Israel are still
*at war*. When Iran attempted to bomb the then-in-construction Iraqi
reactor, Iraq printed a newspaper editorial in which it claimed that the
reactor would be used to produce weapons to be used solely against
Zionists. It is not necessarily in Israel's best interests to bleed
Iran and Iraq as much as possible in the conflict, but keeping Iraqi
strength down is.
Further, the article implied that Israel had dealt with Iran during times
when the U.S. would have condemned such dealings (for example, the
hostage crisis). Israel would not risk the U.S. aid it receives for
the amount of the Iran deals. It's not worth it to Israel. I do not deny
that such deals took place at the times claimed, only that the U.S. had
knowledge of the transactions, and granted at least tacit approval.
Further, Iran and Iraq have received materiel from South Africa, France,
and several other European countries, as well as Israel; in fact, Israel's
contribution is minor (see a recent "usiness Week" for detailss).
I would worry more about Syria than either Iran or Iraq. A country with
serious military might which is caught in an internal power struggle is
always a major threat.
Daniel Lieman
lieman@brahms.berkeley.edu
------------------------------
Date: Wednesday, 7 January 1987 09:01-EST
From: "When pasta comes into contact with antipasta, does it explode and turn into energy?" <"NGSTL1::SHERZER%ti-eg.csnet" at RELAY.CS.NET>
To: arms-d
Re: Soviet VS American forign policy
> ... On the other hand the Russians
> keep 15% or less of their fleet ballistic missile submarines at sea at any
> given time...
If you goal is to defend, then you need to deploy as many assets as possible
because you don't know when the attack will come. On the other hand, if your
goal is attack you can maintain a much lower state of rediness because you
get to pick the time when you will attack.
Allen Sherzer
------------------------------
From: hplabs!pyramid!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 87 12:59:15 pst
Subject: nuclear armed P-3 Orions
> ... Another point of interest he related was that
> the Orion is not a sub hunter. They at all times know were soviet subs
> and that their job is to see that those subs never even get a chance
> to launch their missles in case of war.
Then the US Navy is paying an awful lot of money for an awful lot of
useless sensors and such on Orions and Vikings, not to mention surface
ships and attack submarines. I think that crew member was misinformed
or exaggerating. The SOSUS network and its friends are expected to
produce frequent "sightings" of submarines, rather than continuous
tracking. The Orion's specific job is to follow up on such sightings
relatively quickly, so that the search area is modest enough for the
Orion to hunt down the sub. Note the word "relatively": the Orion
isn't even a jet, so there is a limit to how quickly it can respond to
a mid-ocean sighting. The yardstick is not preventing missile firing,
which would require that the Orion be essentially overhead at all times,
but getting out there quickly enough to minimize the chance of the sub
getting lost. (The Orion's predecessors were even slower, which is why
the USN maintained specialized ASW carrier task forces in the Atlantic
until the Orion was widely deployed -- the older aircraft couldn't reach
the central Atlantic quickly enough.)
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
------------------------------
Date: Thu 8 Jan 87 22:35:36-EST
From: Marc Vilain <MVILAIN@G.BBN.COM>
Subject: Offensive uses of SDI
According to two different studies published in 1985, lasers powerful
enough to permit boost-phase intercept would also be capable of reaching
into the atmosphere and setting fire to cities.
The first study, which I've only seen quoted, is by Albert Latter
and Ernest Martinelli at the defense think tank R & D Associates. They
concluded: "In a matter of hours, a laser defense system powerful
enough to cope with the ballistic missile threat can also destroy the
ennemy's major cities by fire [...] The attack would proceed city by
city, the attack time for each city being only a matter of minutes. Not
nuclear destruction, but Armageddon all the same."
The second study, which I have seen, is by Caroline Herzenberg at
Argonne National Labs. According to her study, the atmosphere is
virtually transparent to many visible laser frequencies. She showed
that boost-phase intercept lasers need only dwell a matter of 15
milliseconds on a target of typical city materials to ignite these
materials. The strength of the attack comes from setting numerous fires
all over a city and creating a firestorm. Her study goes on to compare
the atmospheric effects (soot and smoke) that would be created by this
kind of attack to the atmospheric effects that were used in the various
nuclear witner studies. I'm hardly a physicist, but the assumptions and
the math in her paper seemed OK to me.
From the weapons engineering standpoint, these kinds of attacks are
probably much easier to implement than boost-phase intercept. Cities
don't move; the pointing accuracy of the lasers is not as critical; and
any premeditated attack can be carefully orchestrated.
marc.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 87 14:16:58 cst
From: sun!convex!wickey@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Faron Wickey)
Subject: Economic Motivations for SDI
In all the discussions so far no one has mentioned ultimate reason for the
continued arms race ... it's good business. The sale of arms (of various
flavors) is a world wide mega-billion dollar business. The entire purpose
of the governments of the world seems simply to perpetuate discord and
hostility so that the weapon makers and brokers can continue to increase
their fortunes. The fact that most governments (ours is no exception) are
so willing to sacrifice the common person and her environment for business
interests makes one wonder who the governments are in fact serving. I find
it easy to believe that there is a giant scam going on and we (John & Jane Q.
Public) are the marks.
With the reports now published concerning the global consequences of a
unilateral nuclear strike, not to mention all the scenarios now considered
possible, it is dangerous and foolish to even consider the use of nuclear
weapons under *any* circumstances.
Faron Wickey {allegra, ihnp4, uiucdcs, ctvax}!convex!wickey
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************