ARMS-D-Request@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU.UUCP (12/09/86)
Arms-Discussion Digest Monday, December 8, 1986 5:47PM
Volume 7, Issue 79
Today's Topics:
LOW IS tedious!!
LOW (final message)
Antimatter rockets?
Do our people actually favor brinkmanship to gain military superiority?
Asteroids as weapons
SDI (and arms race) desirability
Reykjavic mystery (and the Power of the Mass Media)
[ckk#: Contra-versy]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1986 16:16 EST
From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: Antimatter rockets?
I wonder about this antimatter propulsion stuff. According to my
rough order of magnitude calculation, I estimate that weight for
weight, antimatter is about 10^12 times better than chemical fuels.
Thus, to get the equivalent of about 10 tons of fuel = 10^7 grams, you
need 10^-5 grams of anti-protons, or about 10^22 protons. Let's say
we put these into a holding tank by using electrostatic repulsion to
keep the anti-protons away from the walls. My estimate of the
pressure that would be on the walls is on the order of 10^8
atmospheres for a tank of about 5 meter scale, caused by the
electrostatic repulsion of the protons.
If we make the stuff into anti-hydrogen, then we avoid the
electrostatic repulsion, but then we have no way of keeping the
anti-matter away from the walls.
Am I missing something in this?
------------------------------
Date: 1986 December 07 12:39:22 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject:Do our people actually favor brinkmanship to gain military superiority?
<C> Date: Tue 2 Dec 86 20:13:23-EST
<C> From: Calton Pu <CALTON@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>
<C> Subject: SDI (and arms race) desirability
...
<C> Is there a chance that a good percentage of the American public
<C> actually support SDI and Reagan because they want American supremacy?
<C> ... Maybe the concept of domination, winning, and being
<C> Number One is deeply rooted in the American culture, so people tend
<C> naturally to support American efforts to achieve victory in any kind
<C> of contest.
<C> If this hypothesis is valid, then the arms race will continue not
<C> because of public ignorance or greed, but to keep the American pride,
<C> to satisfy the need for victory after victory. This hypothesis
<C> implies that a better informed public will continue to support arms
<C> race. ...
If true, this means indeed that educating the populace in the facts
won't change their support of Reagan, but educating them in the
probable consequences of their desires could change them into
moderating their views to be more practical (if we all die it wasn't
pratical). It's like growing up. As a child you want candy for
breakfast lunch and dinner, but you learn that isn't healthy and
you'll be happier overall if you moderate your particular desire for
candy. The citizen of the USA needs to understand that winning battles
for breakfast lunch and dinner isn't a way to keep the world alive for
much longer.
(I could be wrong. Perhaps we are truly doomed and nothing we do can
save us? It may be the nature of technological civilizations
throughtout the Universe to destroy themselves within 100 years of
achieving thermonuclear weaponry. Or perhaps calling the bluff of the
USSR is the way to beat them and inherit the world. Maybe a massive
game of "chicken" is the only way, despite my tremendous personal
dislike for it. Perhaps the Reaganites are correct and we are wrong??)
Assuming we're right, how do we enlighten the public? Simulations of
non zero-sum games? Simulations of actual thermonuclear wars including
SDI? Covert brainwashing? -- Any ideas??
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1986 18:30 EST
From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: LOW IS tedious!!
The readership has spoken loudly and clearly!! All further
discussions on LOW between Cliff and me will be conducted in private,
at least until we can generate a consensus document.
This discussion on LOW has raised a bunch of questions about the
digest that I want to share with the readership.
1. I had not realized the depth of sentiment that the LOW discussion
was being carried out at an inappropriate level and to excruciating
detail. Moral: COMPLAIN WHEN YOU DON'T LIKE SOMETHING!!
2. Early on, I made a decision to include the LOW discussion at a
time when contributions to the digest were going slowly. I wondered
about whether or not to cut the discussion out, but that would have
resulted in digests on a much more infrequent basis. I will not make
that mistake again; in the future, I will simply delay digests in
favor of quality. "Maintaining momentum" does not appear to be a
legitimate reason for all those messages on LOW.
3. On my last interchange with Cliff, I inserted my comments in-line
in the interests of conserving space. I had cleared this with Cliff,
but neglected to inform the readership. At least one person said my
actions were an abuse of the moderator's position, and while no
wrongful intent was present, I goofed, and I will refrain from doing
similiar things in the future.
Cliff and I have essentially finished this second go-around. If
anyone out there wants to be included in the LOW discussion in the
future, please send a note, and you will be included on any subsequent
discussion. However, I have included the next message at Cliff's
request, and have added a few comments concluding the discussion.
------------------------------
To: Arms-d
From: ga.cjj@forsythe.stanford.edu
cc: Lin@xx.lcs.mit.edu
re: LOW (final comments)
[Cliff's comments]
I suggest you [Moderator] do include the LOW is tedious message and
this response, and leave it at that for now. But LOW is a very
important issue, and if it's to be managed or gotten rid of, such
intellectual gyrations may be necessary. Accounting is tedious too,
but we couldn't get on without it. I conclude with one response and
an update on the lawsuit, which I know some are interested in.
> From: Don Chiasson <CHIASSON at DREA-XX.ARPA>
> One example is the term LOWC(apability). I find the term almost
> meaningless. If you have a sensor to detect launch of hostile
> missiles, capability to launch your own missiles in less than
> the flight time, and communication then you have LOWC. Or am I
> missing something? It might help to speak of procedures.
This is the exact approach I adopt (see definition of a LOWC in
most recent posting). Regarding a LOWC arising unplanned from
sensors, communication links, and ready missiles; yes, that is
a LOWC, which I call a *happenstance* LOWC, as opposed to a
LOWC that is specially provided for. Conceptually, the matter
becomes very complex, because, as you say, a LOWC may have
different characteristics and degrees of implementation
depending on alert-levels, et alia. That's why Herb and I have
gone on so long! If you want a copy of my set of definitions,
send me a note - it's about five pages long.
Re the lawsuit, a hearing is set for December 19, 1986, on a
motion to dismiss. There are two issues. The first is whether
the complaint is the "substantially identical" to the old complaint.
By this "res judicata" argument, Weinberger eliminates seven of the
eight counts. But he's up against the old judge's ruling that the
new case, as a matter of law, "is not related to" the old case. And
the old case was dismissed specifically because I didn't allege
that a LOWC was being operated, merely that it had not been
renounced and was being developed. That I've corrected.
The second is more interesting. In the remaining count, I allege
that the LOWC illegally subdelegates to the military the decision
to release nuclear weapons: "Defendant's LOWC perforce executes
so briefly that the retaliatory launch decision, under prescribed
and expected attack scenarios, will be taken by military
commanders and without presidential order." The Atomic Energy
Act, I allege, requires that only the President can order the
release of nuclear weapons, and that in the event of presidential
incapacity, the civilian line of succession must be followed. To
my surprise, Weinberger denies that the military needs
presidential authorization prior to releasing nuclear weapons.
He argues: "While it is true that the President can direct the
delivery of atomic weapons to the Department of Defense for such
use as he deems necessary in the interests of national security
under the Atomic Energy Act, Plaintiff is wrong to infer that the
act prohibits any other use of atomic weapons... The Plaintiff
has failed to show that there is any statutory provision that
limits the President's authority to direct the application of
atomic weapons in defense of the national security as well as
that only the President is vested by law with authority to launch
such weapons." This question will be resolved at the hearing,
if the court is prepared to bite the bullet on this unprecedented
legal question.
[Lin's comments]
Some people have complained that the LOW interchange has been too
arcane and specialized, others that we have just been arguing about
semantics. While I am sorry if this interchange should have been
carried on in private, it does illustrate the fact that the debate
is couched largely in semantic definitions, and only by precise
expression it is possible to understand just what it is that any
Administration is saying about its policy or options. In addition,
the fact that we have been picking nits reflects the relative
obscurity of the subject. In other words, it is inherent in the
subject, or at least in its public manifestations.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 86 09:30:40 PST
From: Steve Walton <ametek!jaguar!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Subject: Asteroids as weapons
From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: Orbiting Gravel
From: Dave Berry <mcvax!itspna.ed.ac.uk!db at seismo.CSS.GOV>
All we have to do is
to fetch an asteroid back to Earth orbit, blow it up, and make
sure all the rubble goes where we want it to.
If we can fetch an asteroid, we can dump it on the SU. I don't
think the Soviets would react positively to that possibility.
65 Million years ago, the world had this experience. It definitely did
NOT react positively. In fact, more than half the species then in
existence perished entirely. An asteroid which was large enough to
be economically worthwhile to bring to Earth orbit would not be something
you'd want to drop on anyone.
------------------------------
Subject: SDI (and arms race) desirability
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 86 12:51:42 -0800
From: foy@aerospace.ARPA
Calton Pu suggests that the Arms race, the Grenada Invasion etc may be
a result of the concept of domination, winning, and being Number One
being deeply rooted in the American Culture. He asks for comments and
suggestions to test this hypothesis.
Comments. I believe that there are a number of factors that maintain the
arms race and that Macho Number One is one significant factor. I believe
that other factors are fear, economic considerations, and unclear thinking.
One suggestion for testing his hypothesis is:
Develope a questionaire that amonst a lot of unrelated questions asks
questions that develops a scale of Macho Number One and other questions
that develops a scale of attitudes towards the arms race. Then test for
a correlation among the two scales. Not perfect but better than nothing.
One suggestion for countering the effect ( asumming the hypothesis is
correct) is:
Spread information on the real international contest that is going on
the economic contest; the Japenese are currently winning it. The Chinese
are moving so rapidly that within 10 to 20 years they have a good chance
of becoming the economic leaders.
Richard Foy, Redondo Beach, CA
The opinions I have expressed are the result of many years in the school of
hard knocks. Thus they are my own.
------------------------------
Date: Mon 8 Dec 86 17:03:57-EST
From: Richard A. Cowan <COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Reykjavic mystery (and the Power of the Mass Media)
Why did 65% of the public think Reagan did the right thing at
Reykjavic, you ask? I think you have covered only half of the
reasons. You say --
[Calton Pu]
> Is there a chance that a good percentage of the American
> public actually support SDI and Reagan because they want
> American supremacy? This question occurred to me after the
> Grenada invasion, er, liberation. Maybe the concept of
> domination, winning, and being Number One is deeply rooted in
> the American culture, so people tend naturally to support
> American efforts to achieve victory in any kind of contest.
and you are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. But I'd bet that "jingoistic Rambos"
comprise a small (though not insignificant) portion of the population.
It's important to note that their traits are rooted particularly in
the American MALE culture. (Though there are women who like winning
too.)
Therefore, I would be more optimistic than you were, when you said "If
this hypothesis is valid ... a better informed public will continue to
support [the] arms race." Fortunately, only a minority of the
population (I would roughly guess 30% of the men, 5% of the women) is
driven by the "thrill of victory" to support continued development of
nuclear weapons.
THE OTHER REASONS:
So there must be other reasons. You mention a few. (1) "Love of
Reagan" probably is more prevalent among women who may regard him as a
father figure -- anyone want to guess how many do this? (2) "Personal
gains" are important, but only about 6 million people have a
first-order interest in the arms race.
The third reason you mention for the 65% approval rating, the
"uninformed public," is most significant, in my view. This makes them
susceptible (and is partly due) to THE INFLUENCE OF THE MASS MEDIA.
MODEL OF OPINION MAKING:
Now, I don't think at all that the media deliberately tells the public
what to think. Rather, the media reports the interpretations of
CRITICS and proponents of the Reagan administration, and the public
selects from these. Any free-thinking individual CAN come up with his
or her own interpretation, but most people don't have the time or
interest to do this, nor are they exposed to ideas or education that
would permit them to come up with an alternate analysis.
Perhaps the best evidence I've seen for this model of how public
opinion is formed was the interviews of 3 New Yorkers on the Today
Show right after the Libyan bombing. Each gave a complex,
intelligent-sounding justification for the raid. But all of them said
almost EXACTLY THE SAME THING. When you think about this for a while,
you realize that the media is truly remarkable, to be able to produce
such a uniform reaction overnight, only only 14 hours after a major
event.
24 hours afterward, newspapers expressed a far broader range of views
on the bombing. But by then it was too late. The initial imprint on
the American consciousness about the Libyan bombing was that it was
Qadaffi and his terrorists interfering with the legitimate interests
of the United States that justified the bombing (even though these
interests are access to waters right off the Libyan coast, and even
though Syria probably plays a much greater role in terrorism).
A UNIFIED FRONT:
That support was greatest immediately after the bombing is no fluke.
During a crisis, even the strongest well-known critics of US policy
show complete solidarity with executive decisions. Just after the
Libya bombing, Senator Ted Kennedy justified his support with a
statement "When our boys are being shot at, you have to rally behind
the flag." Also in the Reykjavic case, the critics deferred to the
belief that foreign policy is the President's prerogative, and at U.S.
leaders must present a unified front.
What unified front did critics present after the Reykjavic summit?
The media did say the "summit collapsed," but most critics didn't say
it was Reagan's fault. The fact that the Soviets didn't really ask
Reagan to kill SDI, but only postpone it for 10 years (and permit lab
research to occur meanwhile) was barely mentioned by critics, and the
media reflected this lapse.
The points you and I mention about SDI could have been brought out
immediately, but if no one in government is willing to firmly attack
the government, and put it bluntly, reporters don't report it, since
they prefer quotes that grab, or entertain. This is partly due to the
media's interpretation of "objective reporting" to mean that reporters
can't think for themselves about the historical context of an event
they are covering; they must find critics within government (who are
always being extra careful about what they say) to do this for them.
And finally, when the media takes the initial opinion polls right
after an event happens, the initial patterns of public opinion are
reinforced. So, why did 65% of the public approve of what the
President did at Rejkavic? Because they heard firm assurances that
what he did was right. Because they heard passing, cautious, and
tentative suggestions that "the President really screwed up." Thus
the former position was presented by the media as more comfortable.
-rich
P.S. It's interesting to contrast past events with the present
"irangate-contragate" furor. The media is really sticking it to
Reagan this time, in part because there are Republican AND Democratic
critics who are willing to raise tough questions, because they know
the President screwed up and are truly worried about his capacity to
effectively represent US interests.
------------------------------
Date: Monday, 8 December 1986 15:56-EST
From: ckk at andrew.cmu.edu (Chris Koenigsberg)
To: ARMS-D
Re: Contra-versy
To change the subject, what do you all have to say about "Contra-versy", the
recent uncovering of the deal involving arms sales to Iran and the diversion
of profits to the Nicaraguan rebels?
Chris Koenigsberg
ckk@andrew.cmu.edu
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************