ARMS-D-Request@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU.UUCP (12/11/86)
Arms-Discussion Digest Wednesday, December 10, 1986 6:14PM
Volume 7, Issue 81
Today's Topics:
LOW (not from Lin or Johnson)
Antimatter rockets
Re: Acceptable Bounds for Debate
Re: Acceptable Bounds for Debate
popular support for arms race
SDI "pilot plant" test
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 86 15:53:55 PST
From: hanafee%cory.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU (Brian James Hanafee)
Subject: LOW (not from Lin or Johnson)
A point that occurred to me over the weekend, and that I'd
like to see addressed if a 'concensus' paper is ever put out on LOW.
There was discussion on building a destruct capability into
our ICBM's so that we could recall/abort a launch. Assuming this can
be implemented in a way that we consider secure from abort signals
sent by the SU, WHAT DO WE DO IF THEY INSTALL OR ANNOUNCE THAT THEY
HAVE INSTALLED SUCH A SYSTEM? If we have a warning (define warning on
your own terms), but we know that the SU can still abort their launch,
how does this affect our decision to launch or not to launch? Since
this would demand very high level (and swift) negotiations, the
decision would have to become more centralized, but the dangers of
this have already been pointed out. In short, an abort ability could
add a whole new *destabilizing* variable to the balance. Remember, of
course, that the SU would be worried about the same type of
game-playing from us, and would develop their own policy to deal with
their 'warnings'.
Brian Hanafee
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 86 18:15:16 PST
From: Jordan Kare <jtk@mordor.s1.gov>
RE: Antimatter rockets
[Standard disclaimers regarding my views vs. my employers views
naturally apply]
RE Antimatter rockets
Very briefly, Forward's proposals for antimatter propulsion involve
producing antiprotons via large particle accelerators not different in
principle from those used for physics. They would differ in being
optimized for efficiency in producing and collecting antiprotons,
rather than for high energy and high resolution. Forward estimates
that it is possible to produce antiprotons with energy efficiencies of
>10^-4. Antiprotons would be cooled and decelerated in storage rings,
then combined with positrons to make antihydrogen, which would be
stored in various kinds of field-gradient or laser traps (which work
on neutral atoms, by interaction with dipole and higher moments); the
traps would be deep enough (in energy terms) so that heating from
annihilation of background gas would be tolerable. All of the various
stages in the creation, storage, and use of antimatter have been at
least plausibly sketched in his report to the Air Force [AFRPL
TR-85-034, University of Dayton Research Institute UDR-TR-85-55],
which is unclassified.
Of course, there are enormous technical problems, and I for one would
be dubious about any storage system which would destroy itself
instantly and spectacularly if any component failed (and which could
not ever be shut down for maintenance). Still, as a long-term
prospect, antimatter propulsion is not physically impossible, and may
be easier to achieve than, say, SDI battle management software.
Jordin Kare jtk@s1-c.ARPA jtk@mordor.UUCP
------------------------------
Date: Tue 9 Dec 86 21:49:09-EST
From: Richard A. Cowan <COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Acceptable Bounds for Debate
Herb Lin and I agreed that our discussion (from last week) got down to
5 basic questions. The first of these was:
[Cowan@XX]
1) If you do research for SDI, are you necessarily supporting the
goals of SDI?
In a later message I will comment on all the rest, but my rebuttal on
the first question is long, so here it is, separately:
Herb and I differed on what it means to "support" the goals of
the DOD. This is just a semantic point, but it is an important one.
I meant the definition of "support" which is NOT the same thing as
approval: the ACT of doing the research (independent of results)
supports the goals of the funding agency, whether or not the
researcher is conscious of this effect.
I understand that it is not obvious how simply working on the project
translates into support, so I will try to explain. I said,
through the very subtle, cumulative effect of enlarging
the constituency of individuals that is dependent on the existence of
the SDI office.
Now Herb objected, claiming that this statement suggests the
researchers are part of the constituency which consciously supports
SDI. I disagree, since the researchers can remain ignorant while the
funding decisions are made by university administrators who are more
likely to testify in Congress in support of SDI research and less
likely to criticize the Pentagon as a result of the dependence.
And even if the university constituency is politically inactive,
Pentagon officials still can use it to justify continued or increased
funding. (And have done so in the case of SDI -- see Science, 4/26/85)
More importantly, I left out opportunity costs: by working for SDI,
you prevent your talent from being used to work on some other
scientific (or in this case political) question. Academic resources
(like the space available to a department) are not infinite; by
accepting DOD funds a researcher reduces the number of department
members who examine questions in which the DOD has no interest.
In technical fields, it is naive to assume that the Defense Department
is a disinterested, benevolent patron of "pure" research. The DOD
funds research to satisfy military objectives. Establishing good
relations with the academic community, even if this means funding
projects that are not directly relevant to a military mission (or
"basic research"), is itself a military objective.
------------------------------
Date: Tue 9 Dec 86 22:19:09-EST
From: Richard A. Cowan <COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Acceptable Bounds for Debate
Here are my responses on the four other questions. I apologize if
this gets into lots of political philosophy, but I don't get into this
type of discussion frequently, in which the philosophy is actually
relevant to the differences Herb and I had last week! It's most
important on the last question, which Herb posed to me: "What is the
definition of political?"
********3) When a research contract is signed, does the institution give
political support to the agency or program funding the research?
I would argue yes, Herb partly agrees... The institution, according
to Herb, only takes a position that the project doesn't stray beyond
accepted norms. By this he means that it won't have a directly
harmful effect on human life, or that it doesn't violate some other
proper limit on academic freedom that the institution has adopted.
I would endorse this description of my position. [LIN@XX]
Here's my view: there is already a "political test" for the conduct of
research -- the allocation of money. All research involves making a
proper and unavoidable implicit political statement that you accept
externally imposed funding priorities.
Profound disagreement here... is someone
who accepts research money from the Department of Health and Human
Services also accepting the low priorities imposed on HHS activities?
In my view, priorities are not the issue. The issue is whether or not
you see the activity itself as objectionable, or worthy of approval.
Exactly right! By accepting the priorities, I meant, though did not
exactly say, that you accept that the research determined by the
funding for your project is a worthy activity. I would add that this
IS a political statement, (see question 6 below for definition of
political) especially when you consider the argument above, that you
are "using up" part of the resources of the academic/scientific
community so that fewer people can be devoted to other pursuits.
********4) Is a public service defined by anything that "the nation decides to
expend national resources on? [HL]" such as MIT running Lincoln Lab?
Herb would say yes. I would say no. There is a fundamental
assumption which is necessary to sustain Herb Lin's argument: that
government policies really reflect the will of an informed,
independent electorate.
I agree that the assumption you assert is necessary sustain my
argument. I am not entirely comfortable with it, but I can't work on
the basis of any other assumption...
I work on the basis of the assumption you describe, because I cannot
forumlate a better definition of "the public interest". I think the
challenge is to you to formulate a better one.
This is an entirely reasonable objection! The reason is that the
public interest cannot be defined in concrete terms. The concept of
satisfying the public interest (like "freedom?") is at best an
ill-defined ideal that policymakers constantly claim they are striving
for. But it may serve to mystify or obscure what politicians actually
try to do. (I would argue that it can never be "met." If it is ever
met, then would society still need the concept?)
Whose welfare (pre-1930 concept of welfare) do you study to determine
how well government serves the public interest? The welfare of Median
wage-earners? That of the upper middle class? The underclass? Is
their interest measured using the magnitude of their bank balances?
Their long-term financial security? The number of digits of PI they
have memorized? Whether they achieve the goal of "human fulfillment"?
It seems that determining whether the "public interest" is served is an
entirely subjective judgement (again revealing the fallacy that policy
decisions can be "objectively" made). But since this subjective
judgement has enormous political significance, it still is a political
decision.
Wow. Here comes the deep philosophical stuff.
I guess that the problem is that we have to define "public interest."
As an ideal that we can never reach, but can only strive for, I don't
think it SHOULD EVER be defined in a particular fashion. To adopt a
very specific definition like "whatever the nation spends money on"
really restricts the debate to arguing within the status quo!
I have to agree with Herb that "public interest" HAS BEEN defined this
way. And I must say, Orwell would be proud! Perhaps this reflects
the trend in advanced industrial society (a major point in the
introduction to Herbert Marcuse's famous work from 1964,
"One-Dimensional Man") to use OPERATIONAL definitions of concepts --
to define some abstract concept by giving a concrete way of measuring
it; in this case, by looking at whom the existing government serves.
Hmm... now I understand what Marcuse was talking about when he
referred to "The Closing of the Political Universe." In his book, he
talks about how technology, philosophy, and even language are
perverted to reinforce the political system. I will get some comments
from an MIT linguist/philosopher on this if you like. They could tell
you whether the concept of "public interest" is different in other
languages and cultures.
********5) When is it important to have a very specific answer to political
questions? (I had criticized HL for trying to pin me down.)
... there are political questions for which really well
defined answers are of far greater importance FOR THOSE IN POWER than for
those who are not in power.. THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS which often ask "what
should the government do" about a specific political issue.
Agreed.
... there are political questions
whose answers are far more important for those who ARE NOT IN POWER.
Examples of these are, "What are the corporate connections of all
researchers and administrators receiving SDI funds?"
I don't regard this type of question as an inherently political
political question. Rather, it is a question of fact. It becomes
political when one tries to make inferences based on the factual
answers to these questions.
Well, I don't think the two (gathering facts, inferring from facts)
are independent. Surely, if on a particular policy question, 90% of
the relevant facts gathered by the combined efforts of all U.S.
researchers support conclusion 'A', and only 10% of these facts
support another conclusion ('B'), policymakers are likely to choose
conclusion 'A.'
My point is that the distribution of facts is influenced by money.
Since researchers do not all look at the whole problem, but instead
are funded to look into specialized, questions, it is entirely
reasonable to assume that the facts are not "objectively" gathered,
EVEN IF all researchers looking at the specialized questions are
completely "objective" in their research methods.
****6) Herb's Question: "What is a political act?" My working
definition is that an act is political when its purpose is to
influence public policy. "Purpose" is important, because all acts
influence public policy, and I don't find very useful the statement
that "All acts are political."
This is ** THE CRUCIAL QUESTION **, since all other points I made
hinged on this. Well, now I can answer this. I would define a
political act as any act which has an influence on other members of
some societal structure one is a part of. This, I admit, is a
human-centered definition.
If you don't find this definition "very useful," I ask in all
seriousness, why not?
By my definition, to be completely apolitical, or "politically
neutral," with respect to any societal structure, you must not
interact with that structure. Or, to be political neutral in society
as a whole, you must stop interacting with society.
Therefore, I include talking to people, buying products, writing
messages on the net, working in a job, and even teaching as political
activities (in addition to voting and political debate). Of course,
many of these actions are pretty politically insignificant, and can be
ignored. From the perspective of policy-makers in Washington, they
ARE ignored. But from the perspective of individuals who want to
change things that affect their lives, they cannot be.
(This is because writing to legislators or getting involved in
electoral politics is not an individual's best chance to influence the
national political debate. Electoral politics constitute a very small
portion of the political process. For example, for someone in a
fairly exclusive position like the MIT AI lab, the political effects
of one's research -- in legitimizing the uses of AI techniques within
the technical community -- are far greater than the effects of that
person's vote.)
In closing, I will apply the same criticism to your definition of
"political" that I have applied to the definition of "public
interest." In fact, I can just modify what I said before:
I guess that the problem is that we have to define "political" in a
concrete way. As an concept that only has meaning with reference to
whatever societal structures currently exist, I don't think it SHOULD
EVER be defined in such a particular fashion. To adopt a very
specific definition like "of or pertaining to the current way in which
public policy is influenced [in the US?]" really restricts the debate
to arguing within the status quo!
I agree with Herb that "political" HAS BEEN defined as he states. And I
must say, Orwell would be proud! This reflects a trend in advanced
industrial society to use OPERATIONAL definitions of concepts -- to
define some abstract concept by giving a concrete way of measuring it;
in this case, by looking at the existing government.
Now, when fewer societal structures existed and people were more
self-dependent (say in 1789 when the Constitution was ratified),
Herb's definition of political may have been more "suitable" to
reality, though anthropologically unfortunate, since it cannot
withstand the test of time. Society has changed since 1789 (and is
now changing faster than language?) and in my opinion, we have adopted
a definition of "political" that is now obsolete. Because of the
increasing degree of organization and coordination of society, there
are new societal structures -- economic interests -- which are not
covered by the this operational definition of "political," but would
be covered by a broader and older notion of "political" that would
withstand the test of time.
I've heard similiar arguments about the term "progress" -- it's too
often defined operationally as "the new things our society is
creating." ("we bring good things to life?")
Well, this is longer than I expected, and I apologize, but perhaps it
shed light on our differences? In any case, bring on the reaction.
-rich
------------------------------
Date: Tue 9 Dec 86 22:32:16-EST
From: Calton Pu <CALTON@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject: popular support for arms race
There are several answers to my question on SDI and arms race
desirability, specifically on cultural roots for competition.
REM thinks that a process of "maturity" may take the public to
a more moderate, less agressive position. This maturity may be
disadvantageous for natural selection purposes, since competition
and domination (to certain extent) favor survival of the group.
A successful tribe will want to keep things that way.
RC points out that only a minority support nuclear weapons.
Unfortunately, SDI is seen as an opposition to nuclear weapons.
I have friends who dislike nuclear weapons but believe that SDI
is benign, since it is designed for "defense". Therefore, RC's
arguments are actually parallel to my conclusion, which was that
a better informed public will continue to support the arms race.
LIN mentioned the use of smaller conflicts as surrogates of too
horrible all-out wars. This school of thinking may be construed
as supporting my hypothesis. The conflicts must exist (because
of our competitive nature/culture), and all-out wars are too
dangerous, therefore we have stylized, "safe" wars.
FOY has restricted my hypothesis to Macho Number One, which is
only a small part of it. I am concerned with the possibility
that competition and conflicts are inherent in the natural
selection process. Moreover, the question is: how can we
maintain a healthy, competitive environment without
endangering the whole species and globe?
The economic contest with the Japanese seems to be a good and
positive alternative. The Russians, on the other hand, are
concerned with arms as much as Americans. My favorite theory
about American concern with defense is related to the famous
"American interests". Americans are rich, living in a poor
world (except for small European countries). Every rich house
in a poor neighborhood needs good defense. Since the
difference between the rich countries and the poor ones has
been increasing, the "richman's paranoia" seems inevitable.
As long as the U.S. continue to be the rich among poor, strong
defense (stronger than everybody else) seems to make sense.
Therefore, Russians, or somebody else, would feel compelled to
match the American might, thus the arms race, and in particular,
SDI. In other words, it is not just the Rambo warmongers, but
also the middle-class trying to maintain the status quo.
-Calton-
------------------------------
From: hplabs!pyramid!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 86 21:45:31 pst
Subject: SDI "pilot plant" test
Herb comments:
> Any suggestion about how the Soviets will react to the simultaneous
> launch of several missiles (probably SLBMs)? How should we convince
> them that it's not part of an attack?
A valid point, and a real issue. Clearly they should be kept in the
picture about what's going on. If it can be done without the information
getting to SDIO, perhaps they could be informed of the exact planned time
of the test. Another possibility would be to put tracking transponders on
the boosters, if precautions are taken so SDIO can't exploit this, to make
it easier for the Soviets to watch the situation. More thought is needed
on this one.
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************