ARMS-D-Request@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU.UUCP (11/23/86)
Arms-Discussion Digest Sunday, November 23, 1986 11:30AM
Volume 7, Issue 67
Today's Topics:
Re: Response to "Hawaii"
why not nuclear airplane?
RFP: Star Wars game
SDI is research
Acceptable bounds for debate
Acceptable bounds for debate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: hplabs!pyramid!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 86 21:28:16 pst
Subject: Re: Response to "Hawaii"
> > The
> >way I would phrase the offensive-uses comment is that it is *possible*
> >to build an SDI system which has no *major* offensive uses.
>
> But do you still leave open the possibility--and not just an extreme
> rhetorical "possibility"--of a system that has major offensive uses? I
> have a hard time imagining that no one will look during the long time it
> will take to develop SDI, nor that the Soviets are willing to trust us
> on that point.
The other side of my statement is that yes, it is *possible* to build an
SDI system which *would* have major offensive uses. But this is not an
argument against SDI as a whole; it is an argument against certain types
of SDI systems. It would be possible to base the Midgetman ICBM on open-air
unprotected pads at fixed locations, which would make it pretty obviously
a first-strike system; nobody suggests this as a major reason not to build
Midgetman. Clearly, if we deploy SDI (build Midgetman), we must deploy
the right type of SDI (the right basing scheme for Midgetman). The existence
of undesirable types of SDI system (unwise basing schemes for Midgetman)
does not imply that SDI (Midgetman) as a whole is undesirable, unless it
becomes clear that the undesirable systems are in fact the ones being
pursued seriously.
> ... Perhaps I should have amended the state-
> ment to "stopping arms control agreements". Twice now we've seen talks
> crash on just that point. Does anyone want to make bets on the next
> round of talks?
My understanding -- I have not followed this issue in detail -- is that the
crash of the latest talks was because the Soviets insisted that SDI work be
strictly confined to the laboratory, and would not budge even when it was
pointed out that this would go far beyond our ability to verify compliance.
My impression is that nobody who has studied the issue thinks this a viable
idea. Even if the US had been willing, there was little chance of a solid
arms-control agreement coming out of that. If the Soviets will scale down
their non-negotiable demands to the level of, say, strict compliance with
a restrictive interpretation of the ABM Treaty, the next round might have
a chance.
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 86 21:33:11 -0800
From: robert%jimi.cs.unlv.edu@RELAY.CS.NET
Subject: why not nuclear airplane?
>From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@SU-AI.ARPA>
>Subject:why not nuclear airplane?
>
><PFD> Date: Fri, 7 Nov 86 21:11 EDT
><PFD> From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET>
><PFD> Subject: 24 hour waiting period?
>
><PFD> There *is* one strategic weapons system that could still be flying
><PFD> three days after an attack: the nuclear airplane! Too bad we
><PFD> didn't build it... (:-)).
>
>Hmmm, that would be cheaper than SDI. Anybody know why it wasn't built?
>It'd cost more than a billion dollars per plane? Nowadays that may be
>"cheap" compared to alternatives. Debate on this topic please??
A while ago I went on a tour of the Nevada Test Site, they had several
models of "Nuclear Rockets" that were built there I think in the late
50's. None were ever launched because of the atmospheric affects. In
case anyone is interested, anyone can schedule a tour of the NTS by
sending a letter with your name, SS, etc. and what date you want to go
to the DOE.
--robert
--
Robert Cray
CSNET: robert%jimi.cs.unlv.edu@relay.cs.net
UUCP: {sdcrdcf,ihnp4}!otto!jimi!robert
seismo!unrvax!tahoe!jimi!robert
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 86 10:25:59 pst
From: king@kestrel.ARPA (Dick King)
Subject: RFP: Star Wars game
Date: Thursday, 20 Nov 1986 12:01:27-PST
From: jong%delni.DEC@decwrl.DEC.COM (Steve Jong/NaC Pubs)
Subject: RFP: Star Wars game
The excellent Macintosh computer game "Balance of Power" is a
political game, in that it promotes a particular view of
superpower politics, well coated by excellent graphics, stuffed
databases, realistic scenarios, etc.
Recent ARMS-D submissions have imagined extending arcade skills to
SDI, invoking the image of champion video-game players watching
monitors of Soviet ICBMs rising from their silos and trying to zap
them with orbital battle platforms controlled by the operators'
joysticks.
No rebuttal so far. My idea might not be a winner, but I don't think
the idea is rediculous enough not to even merit rebuttal.
How much computer power do you think would be required to make a
plausible boxer (using only human strength and ruggedness -- a
lumbering invulnerable robot that can kill with one punch is not what
I have in mind)? Do you think we can program a boxer with current
technology? I doubt it. Can we train a human to be a boxer? Seems
possible...
We even trust AVERAGE humans at the wheel of a car, a life-critical
position, where we would trust no computer system that now exists nor
any that will plausibly exist in the next 5 years or so.
I think that by arguing about the software for SDI we're trying to
program a boxer rather than hire one.
It seems to me that someone could (should!) write the "Star Wars
Game," making the player just such a video Defender of the
American Homeland. The view could be from a network of orbital
sensors (under constant Soviet attack, of course), and the players
would have to watch moving targets (hundreds during boost phase,
more after MIRV separation) and discriminate warheads from decoys.
Then players would have to zap the launchers and warheads. The
game could even have layers, just like SDI; missiles getting past
boost-phase defenses would have to be destroyed via other means.
Afterward, there could be a nifty (grim!) aerial view of blackened
cities, with captions such as, "Here was New York" (or, for the
realists, counts of surviving Minuteman silos :-)
Aside from the game being highly playable (like Missile Command,
but covering the entire trajectory of ICBMs), its political and
technological message would be worth imparting: that Star Wars is
damn hard. (Just how hard would depend on the viewpoint of the
programmer, and the adjustments of the players.)
The ten controllers of the SDI network would have to learn to play as
a team. (The advantage of humans over computers in teamwork may even
exceed the advantage in single "play".) To my knowledge there is no
team game in the arcades, nor would one be likely because the culture
is that it (arcade play) is an asocial activity.
Somebody recently pointed out that an air traffic controller would
laugh at the thought that two minutes was too short a time to make a
decision. (How long is a "round" for a boxer -- 3 minutes?) A
missile command attack last approximately 30 seconds.
To research my proposal would probably require about a million
dollars, most of which would be spent to build and program a plausible
game, similar to yours, that is a three-seater. Do be aware that each
console would have a few displays, some possibly in 3D.
This is not a frivolous proposal. I think such a game would sell,
and I think it would communicate something worth communicating.
If I could do it myself, I would. I'll settle for an
acknowledgement.
Maybe the government could make a profit after the research is done
:-)
(Would the game have to be programmed in ADA :-( ?)
Mine was not a frivolous proposal either.
The two weaknesses I can see easily are the need to introduce the
notion of team play (not a major problem, in my opinion), and a more
subtle one - it gives people whose ethic and family background do not
include a perception of a need for education yet another way they can
plausibly think they can succeed. The SDI Force, like professional
sports teams, send out recruiters to look for people who seem to have
a particular talent, and it will become common knowledge that 40-50
people each year will make big bucks until they burn out. A likely
earlier age of burnout and the fact that the performances will not be
public might mitigate the harmful sociological effects, and we as a
society have learned how to deal with professional sports, so this
shouldn't be too much of a problem...
-dick
------------------------------
Date: Saturday, 22 November 1986 02:41-EST
From: cfccs at HAWAII-EMH
To: ARMS-D
Re: SDI is research
Let me hear, one more time, all the worthy projects that could be
funded with the SDI money. Now detail to me how the problem will be
solved...TODAY! If the solution is so worthy AND readily available,
why hasn't some university dedicated some of its annual budget there?
If it is so feasible, why hasn't it been brought out and outlined for
the public to see and rally behind?
SDI is in research mode! The president never said "SDI will be
perfect from its inception", he told the people he had a goal and that
he had reason to believe it could be accomplished with enough effort.
SDI is in research mode! For those of you who have forgotton,
research is the phase where you make theories and try to prove them.
If you cannot, you try a different one. This continues until you run
out of theories. When you find a path that seems feasible, you follow
it and build on it until you get to the testing of something physical.
SDI is in research mode! President Reagan never said how the goal
would be accomplished or which theory would prevail. He left that up
to the experts. His was a call to the scientific community to find a
way. Take it as a challenge if you like. Every time a theory is
decided not feasible, that is not a reason to scrap the whole RESEARCH
project.
SDI is in research mode! Not too long ago, fiber optic technology was
just such a RESEARCH project. As was the space program, television,
and radio. I'm sure some of the more learned readers can come up with
a much more complete list. The point is, they all began as research.
If that research had been open to public criticism and the pressure
had crumbled the project, we would not be as technologically advanced
as we are today.
SDI is in research mode! The problem with research is that when the
public pressure gets heavy and wants results, the researchers are
required to waste valuable time and money on useless demonstrations.
So the very people criticizing the project, force the waste they so
adamantly oppose. It seems that the waste of this kind is what they
should be trying to prevent!
SDI is in research mode! I keep saying this to remind you that you
are arguing against something that is in the same stages that any of
the other 'worthy' projects are in. First you ask the questions, then
you look for the answers. No one will find anything if he isn't
looking for it!
CFCCS @ HAWAII-EMH
read
------------------------------
Date: Friday, 21 November 1986 22:06-EST
From: Richard A. Cowan <COWAN>
To: lin, arms-d
Re: Acceptable bounds for debate
I think my discussion with Herb Lin (from last week) got down to these
basic questions, which I will try to address:
1) If you do research for SDI, are you necessarily supporting the
goals of SDI?
2) Is $100,000 per year too much for a history of SDI?
3) When a research contract is signed, does the institution give
political support to the agency or program funding the research?
4) Is a public service defined by anything that "the nation decides to
expend national resources on? [HL]" such as MIT running Lincoln Lab?
5) When is it important to have a very specific answer to political
questions?
Question 1) Herb has said no, regarding a project to do a history of SDI.
[Herb Lin:] To whom would it make a difference? Congress? How?
The MIT CIS has studied the history of the Polaris weapon system too.
Was that support for the Polaris?
I still maintain that the answer is yes. But I want to make an
important distinction. I think there is a difference between
SUPPORTING the goals of the DOD (by working for them) and APPROVING of
those goals. It's perfectly possible, and, in fact common, to work
for someone whose goals you do not approve of. The motivations of the
employer are rarely the same as the motivations of the employee.
I never said that CIS researchers working on SDI-funded work
APPROVED of the goals of SDI. Yet, they might support those goals
nonetheless, through the very subtle, cumulative effect of enlarging
the constituency of individuals that is dependent on the existence of
the SDI office.
2) Is $100,000 per year too much for a history of SDI?
Herb said no, I'd say yes. Now, given what the federal government
spends for other research projects, this figure is perhaps "in line"
with others. But given the amount of journalistic attention given to
SDI, much of the history is already researched and two researchers are
probably unnecessary. Also, in formulating my viewpoint I was
thinking that the cost structure of MIT and other presigious
universities makes all research cost too much. (This high price for
research is also part of what makes MIT "prestigious.")
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.
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. Quoting from a column I wrote on
February 6, 1986 in the MIT Tech, "...the conduct of research is a
political act. In its conduct of research, MIT takes de facto political
positions, whether it states them or not." If you don't agree with these
priorities, sometimes you just live with the contradiction. But other
times you fight to change the priorities.
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 with the statement of Noam Chomsky in
1969 that "This is a caricature, and a dangerous one. We must
emphasize that .. public policy is a reflection, to a very
significant extent, of economic power that is entirely removed from
the political process." (MIT Review Panel on Special Laboratories,
Final Report). Voting does make a difference, but money influences who
gets on the ballot and the positions politicians are able to advance
once they are elected.
MIT is running Lincoln as a service to the government, but to say that
this is the same as "a service to the public" or to the nation is to give
political support to a particular view of the role of government (the
assumption mentioned in the last paragraph).
5) When is it important to have a very specific answer to political
questions? (I had criticized HL for trying to pin me down.)
I meant to say that 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. (Because only those in power can implement
the well-defined answers.) THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS which often ask "what
should the government do" about a specific political issue.
Now, on the other side of the coin, 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 want to question the objectivity of mainstream social science. In
general, researchers ask the first set of questions far more often than
they ask the latter set (because they are funded to do so!). I believe
people should question this imbalance, and actively seek out materials
written from the latter perspective. David Noble's excellent books on
the development of corporate capitalism (America by Design, 1978) and
factory automation (Forces of Production, 1984) are good examples,
well-written and fastidiously researched.
-rich
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1986 15:00 EST
From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: Acceptable bounds for debate
From: Richard A. Cowan <COWAN>
I think my discussion with Herb Lin (from last week) got down to these
basic questions..
I agree that these questions are bascially at the heart of our
discussion, with one additional question that I will mention at the
ened of this note.
1) If you do research for SDI, are you necessarily supporting the
goals of SDI?
Herb has said no, regarding a project to do a history of SDI.
I still maintain that the answer is yes. But I want to make an
important distinction. I think there is a difference between
SUPPORTING the goals of the DOD (by working for them) and APPROVING of
those goals. It's perfectly possible, and, in fact common, to work
for someone whose goals you do not approve of.
But the DoD is just one agency of government, and government has
multiple and often contradictory goals, or at least goals that drive
in opposite directions. For example, learning how such an
ill-conceived program made it to the top of the public policy
military/defense agenda would be a very useful thing for people in the
Office of Management and Budget and other government decision-makers.
However, given that money is being sought from the SDIO, there *is* in
principle a danger that the conclusions would be altered to suit the
particular preferences of the funding agency, in this case the SDIO.
On that issue, you have to take a stand on the individual reputation
and character of the individual who would actually do the work. I
believe that the particular individual who would be involved is savvy
enough that his work would not be compromised.
I never said that CIS researchers working on SDI-funded work
APPROVED of the goals of SDI. Yet, they might support those goals
nonetheless, through the very subtle, cumulative effect of enlarging
the constituency of individuals that is dependent on the existence of
the SDI office.
If I have interpreted you correctly, I think you are not making a
meaningful distinction between approval and support. I support those
things that I approve of. However, there is a different sense in
which the distinction does hold, and maybe that is what you mean. In
particular, by my payment of federal taxes, I support "the U.S.
Government". Some of the things it does with that support are things
of which I approve, and other are things of which I disapprove; but in
any case, I am "supporting" all these things.
If this is the interpretation you mean, I stand corrected, but then I
think a distinction must be made between "Through my actions, I
support..." and "By my actions, I am supporting...". The former
intrepretation connotes witting and intentional support (i.e.,
approval), while the latter connotes the existence of a (perhaps
unfortunate) relationship. Thus, I would agree with the truth of a
modified statement which said that:
By their actions, they are supporting those goals
nonetheless. (HL modification)
I have a bit of trouble with your constituency statement, for it
suggests more strongly the former interpretation.
2) Is $100,000 per year too much for a history of SDI?
Herb said no, I'd say yes.
I respond in two parts:
... given the amount of journalistic attention given to
SDI, much of the history is already researched and two researchers are
probably unnecessary.
I think not. The advantage of having an official project historian is
that s/he has all sorts of access that would be denied others.
Moreover, even if that were not true, I can't see how having fewer
people document the history of a project would lead to more insights.
The only reason that I can see for not having more people working on
the subject is if you think that they come with inappropriate strings
attached; since I don't think that they would in this case, I don't
have that fear. On the other hand, maybe you are complaining about
the money:
... given what the federal government
spends for other research projects, this figure is perhaps "in line"
with others... Also, .. the cost structure of MIT and other presigious
universities makes all research cost too much. (This high price for
research is also part of what makes MIT "prestigious.")
I'm not prepared to argue whether or not university overhead rates are
too high. At MIT as at all other major research universities, about
half the overall grant goes into "overhead". But let's say there was
NO overhead. What would you say about $50,000 per year for a history
of SDI? (That would pay for two full-time equivalent researchers and
nothing else, or one FTE researcher, a half-time secretary, travel,
incidentals cush as phone calls and xeroxing, and summer salary for a
professor.) Would your argument change?
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.
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. Having a scheme of priorities means that
you think that some things are worth spending more money on than other
things. I think you would not argue that the current Administration
in DC values the military more than it values human services. I would
draw such a conclusion from the many cuts it has made in the latter
budget and increases it has made in the former budget. But 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.
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.
First, I'm not sure that I would know how to identify an electorate as
"informed and independent" if I saw it. I can certainly propose
tinkering at the margins to improve the electoral process, but I don't
think those would fundamentally change the situation. Second, I'm not
sure that an informed electorate would not have views even more
hard-line and opposed to values that I hold.
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.
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.
This brings me to the last question that I think has come up in our
discussion. The question is "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."
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************