ARMS-D-Request@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (Moderator) (11/20/86)
Arms-Discussion Digest Wednesday, November 19, 1986 4:38PM
Volume 7, Issue 64
Today's Topics:
Re: Response to "Hawaii"
More response to CFCCS
AI and the Arms Race (from AILIST)
SDI:: boost phase or bust
What value SDI?
Re: Question about Computer War Games
Military funding in mathematics
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 86 20:55:12 PST
From: weemba@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Matthew P Wiener)
Subject: Re: Response to "Hawaii"
>>[concerning the SDI offensive uses double standard]
>
>Now, now, don't put words in the mouths of SDI proponents, even if you
>don't like them. That isn't my view, and I suppose I count as an SDI
>proponent (although my actual position on it is not that simple).
I am aware that SDI proponents are spread rather wide. Let's just say
that I am unhappy with some SDI proponents who hide behind technology.
In particular, some have claimed--and this gets attached to the sales
pitch--that a new arms race spurred on by SDI is an impossibility.
> 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.
>"*possible*" means that it requires attention to that specific goal in
>order to achieve it. "*major*" means, in particular, use against
>cities and ICBM silos.
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.
> Most any SDI technology will be able to shoot
>down satellites, and some of them would be useful on the battlefield
>as well, but that is not what most people think of when the word
>"offensive" is used without qualification.
My concern is that a new kind of sub-nuclear lethality will be developed
that the Soviets can't retaliate with in kind. Sort of like the status
of neutron bombs. And I am particularly bothered by ASAT. "Space--the
Final Front."
>> o SDI, while it may not do much for stopping arms, does wonders for
>> stopping arms discussions...
>
>Hmm. [Before SDI-Soviets balked, after SDI-Soviets returned.]
Yes, it is a famous joke. But it's not clear how to rule out shake ups/
shake downs in Soviet power, as Gorbachev is finding his place, and wheth-
er or not the Soviet reaction to SDI is partly out of concerns of a new
arms race that they will lose. 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?
>Name one program we bank our security on that *isn't* vulnerable to
>[American politics], and that *doesn't* have somebody jumping up and
>down demanding it be stopped.
I think SDI is far more vulnerable to American politics, considering its
extreme lead time, than any other proposed security.
And disarmament and test/research suspension is rather hard to reverse
once it sinks in. Not that I am gung ho pro-disarmament, just strongly
anti-SDI.
>> If R&D are so wonderful, why doesn't Reagan throw some gigabucks at the
>> Universities, no strings attached? ...
>
>Because Reagan either doesn't give SDI a high enough priority, or ...
OK. My question was more rhetorical since I know the answer. My point
is that pro-SDI spinoff arguments are vacuous.
> Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
> {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 86 02:48:54 PST
From: weemba@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Matthew P Wiener)
Subject: More response to CFCCS
> o SDI is sold to the masses and Congress via spectacular exaggeration
> about what it will accomplish.
>
>I haven't seen any spectacular exaggerations. Any examples?
There is the claim that SDI will provide some sort of nuclear umbrella
to "protect" us "all". When pressed, SDI proponents back off from that
claim, but it keeps coming up when it's time for the hard sell.
>Can you prove that the proposed accomplishments will never be possible? I
>know of one instance, that is if we don't try!
Of course I can't make such a "proof". At a cost of multigigabucks, the
burden of proof is on the spenders.
> o SDI is encroaching on our Universities and academic freedom. Just as
> bad, in my eyes, is that it is making all University/DoD connections
> look untenable.
>
>I disagree.
You can disagree all you want, but there is that matter of a U of Illi-
nois(?) researcher who was temporarily denied access to the supercompu-
ter their because he had signed an anti-SDI petition. That's unambigu-
ously encroachment.
More subtle is the twisting of research goals. Why should astronomers
interested in method A of improving their telescopes get lots of funding,
while those interested in method B or C have to go begging? I think it
extremely unhealthy for astronomy if the coincidence that method A has
SDI applications changes the direction of research. It would be horrify-
ing if at some point that details re method A were suddenly classified.
I am not making this example up out of the blue, either. The infamous
upside down shuttle/laser experiment was, if I remember correctly, origi-
nally such a method A.
> DoD has given money for specific research projects from its
>very inception. Why is it now considered encroachment and a loss of
>freedom?
Because of the massive SIZE of the new monies, with their heavy strings
attached. SDI is a definite attempt to draw Universities into classified
research on a massive scale.
> Why do you feel all University/DoD connections are being looked
>upon as untenable (unreasonable, undefensible, not capable of being main-
>tained)?
In the past, you could have DoD funding for your work and only a few of
your colleagues would criticize you for such, and they were generally
viewed as the oddball leftist/pacifists with a chip on their shoulders.
Now it's *much* more widespread.
I feel this way because I see it around me.
> Your argument sounds too emotional.
Perhaps it is. I'm reporting what I see.
> o SDI will be permanently untestable.
>
>By untestable I assume you mean we cannot be sure it can be proven effective
>to the Nth degree.
No, I mean to the 0th degree. As in roll out the hardware and see what
would happen for practice.
> That may be true, but what can? We can model its
>effectiveness like we do with most new technology, and we can benchmark it in
>small scale and calculate the full potential using the benchmark as a base
>measure.
And this form of "testing" has a an extremely dismal track record.
> No defense can ever be tested fully unless under actual battle
>conditions,
But you can generally run pretty good simulations (meaning real live mock
ups, not computer games). With SDI we can't.
> so why target SDI for that argument?
This is, as I've pointed out, a specious comparison. But anyway, SDI
gets targeted because it stands out, as in massive $$ and massive pro-SDI
propaganda.
I'm deeply suspicious when the successful development tests of nascent
SDI hardware is trumpeted, but the failures are kept classified. Why?
> o SDI will [have] offensive uses...
>[...]
>Again, why use this argument here? It is not unique to SDI.
But this just shoots down your point later that SDI is meant defensively
in the first place.
>They say the atmosphere will prevent SDI from ever being able to hit an
>Earth target. They do not discount offensive uses in space itself. I
>believe that if the effort were put in, any limits now 'obvious' would
>be overcome. However, this is not the point.
I think it is.
> o SDI, while it may not do much for stopping arms, does wonders for
> stopping arms discussions. Considering Reagan's stated antipathy
> towards arms agreements in the past, and the fact that SDI is his
> own brainchild, I seriously question his motives.
>
>There are only two ways to end a nuclear threat. You have to make nuclear
>weapons impotent, or you have to do away with them all together.
And the former is highly unclear and extremely expensive.
> The
>President has decided the latter is not possible considering all the
>distrust that has built up between the US and SU, and that ultimately, they
>are not the only two players.
I am unhappy with the mutual mistrust, but there's only one way to break
it. But you have to be carefully. Gorbachev has struck me as being
much more willing to comprimise than I would have believed possible.
> The whole world is involved. Many of whom
>would do much to gain the power the SU and US now have.
What does this have to do with SDI? I mentioned that if anyone wants to
attack us they can smuggle nuclear arms in. Much cheaper than building
missiles, guiding systems, testing them, etc., and very difficult to pin
down.
The world's problems are manifold, and SDI isn't going to solve them. So
why bring them up? I don't see what your point is in the first place.
>Why should money be thrown to the universities without a specific goal
>in mind?
Because it's one of the best R&D investments possible for your dollar in
the entire world! Where do you think so much of our wonderful technol-
ogy comes from in the first place? Did anyone order it? No!
If you want to see the effects of centralized planning, visit the Soviet
Union and laugh and/or weep. "Discover" magazine had an article a few
months ago about the state of Soviet science, run under the goal-oriented
style. It's a shame.
Actually, the above comparison is too extreme. I have nothing against
goals, but they should be spread around a little better.
> Why fund a more vigorous space program when the technology requir-
>ed to protect any advances in space is not being developed?
Huh? Just how paranoid is this? We haven't had any defensive technology
up there in space for the past nearly three decades. And how do you
think the Russians will react when they see our "defensive-only" ASAT
put up there to "protect" our space program? Perhaps by putting up their
own "defensive-only" ASAT?
> Sounds like putting
>your money into a bank that doesn't have a vault!
And if there hasn't been a bank robbery in thirty years, why not?
> If it can be proven that
>no advances will be made by persuing SDI technology, then let's see proof.
I never made that claim. Indeed I believe it's false. But it's complete-
ly irrelevant as an argument in *favor* of SDI, since if the point is to
get spinoffs, there are far more efficient ways.
>All we have is different people trying to see into the future without even
>trying the water.
Except that the water to be tried is damned expensive, and suffers from
the many defects I listed above, none of which I think you adequately
responded.
> An analogy for both sides of the issue is trying to walk
>on water. One side declares it cannot be done because it is impossible. The
>other declares it can be done, we just haven't figured out how yet! Is that
>a good reason to quit trying?
No. And it was not among the reasons I listed.
ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
------------------------------
Date: Tuesday, 18 November 1986 12:19-EST
From: B. Lindsay Patten <shen5%watdcsu.waterloo.edu at RELAY.CS.NET>
Reply-To: "B. Lindsay Patten" at RELAY.CS.NET
To: AIList, arms-d
Subject: Re: AI and the Arms Race
>From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry at ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
>Re: Professionals and Social Responsibility for the Arms Race
[some valid objections to arguments made by Dr. Weizenbaum on problems with AI]
>> 8) every researcher should assess the possible end use of
>> their own research, and if they are not morally comfortable
>> with this end use, they should stop their research...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> He specifically referred to research in machine vision, which he
>> felt would be used directly and immediately by the military for
>> improving their killing machines...
>
>I'm afraid this is muddy thinking again. *All* technology has military
>applications.
[examples of good things that came out of military research]
>It's hard
>to conceive of a field of research which doesn't have some kind of military
>application.
>
> Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
> {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
This is by far the most common objection I've heard since Dr. Weizenbaum's
lecture and one which I think avoids the point. Read the first three lines
of point 8 above. The real point Dr. Weizenbaum was trying to make (in my
opinion) was that we should weigh the good and bad applications of our work
and decide which outweighs the other. The examples that he gave were just
areas in which he personally believed the bad applications outweighed the
good. He was very explicit that he was just presenting HIS personal opinions
on the merits of these applications. Basically he said that if you feel
your work will do more harm than good you should find another area to work in.
My objection to his talk is that he seemed to want to weigh entire applications
against one another. It seems to me that we should be examining the relative
impact of our research in the applications which we approve of and in those we
object to.
Lindsay Patten
|Cognitive Engineering Group (519) 746-1299|
|Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence Lab lindsay@watsup|
|University of Waterloo {decvax|ihnp4}!watmath!watvlsi!watsup!lindsay|
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 86 09:16:00 PST
From: pom@s1-along.arpa
Subject: SDI:: boost phase or bust
<POM> At this point in time (just based on common sense) it seems to me
<POM> that the boost phase would be the least suitable one..
<LIN> From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
<LIN> The general argument is that if you don't get them in boost, you will
<LIN> have too big a load to handle when the boosters deploy all their decoys.
>I agree with both of you, you can't use boost phase interception
>because it's immoral (forward basing) and threatening (the capability
>can be used offensively) as well as requiring too-fast decision (about
>2 minutes) which would preclude human intervention and make accidental
>war likely, and you can't make SDI work without it. Thus SDI is a
>total losing idea.
POM: It's nice that you agree with both, but we do not agree with each
other. Lin's 'general argument' is just an unproven conjecture.
Subject: bombs , memes, courage and morals
<DB> 6) courage is infectious, and while it may not seem to be
<DB> a possibility to some, the arms race could be stopped cold
<DB> if an entire group of professions, (ie computer scientists),
<DB> refused to participate.
POM: In a way, this may be true. If US would indeed unilaterally disarm
and would be 'taken over' - there would be no arms race any more.
The issue which you need to address is whether such state of
affairs is preferable to the present state. Or are you thinking
about the situation in which professions in both US and SU would
withdraw? If so, than for starters, you may try to communicate your
great idea to SU scientists. Let us know how far you got.
------------------------------
Date: 19 Nov 86 09:21:00 PST
From: "ESTELL ROBERT G" <estell@nwc-143b.ARPA>
Subject: What value SDI?
Reply-To: "ESTELL ROBERT G" <estell@nwc-143b.ARPA>
Calton Pu asked why 65% of the USA population thinks the President
was right to take the hard SDI position at the talks in Iceland?
And, what value is SDI if there are no missiles to knock down?
1. Americans are notoriously non-critical. Look at the models we admire.
That term [models] is deliberately vague. It includes the actors and
actresses we pay to see, at the movies, on TV, on magazine covers, at
rock concerts. I includes the cars we buy; the sports we follow -
either as participants, or spectators. It includes the food we eat,
the clothes we wear, the books we read, and our worship habits.
And it specifically includes the platforms we endorse, the causes we
champion, and the politicians we elect.
2. We were "told" that Mr. Reagan was right. Anybody who wants a press
pass to the White House sure as heck wasn't going to say publicly that
he was wrong. [There are a few with that combination of courage and
candor: Walter Cronkite, Eric Sevareid, John Chancellor, David Brinkley,
Robin McNeil, and Jim Lehrer - and probably some others; but darn few.
I'm speaking now of newspeople; TIME carried some opinions by former
Secretaries of Defense, and State, former Nat'l Security folks, etc.
It was a mixed bag of critique: some praise, some questions, some other.]
Besides, WHAT IF history later records that Mr. Reagan WAS right?
3. As Freeman Dyson explains in "WEAPONS AND HOPE" our differences of
understanding with the Russians are rooted in our cultures. To them,
our term "deterrence" has connotations of making them say "Uncle."
[No pun intended.] To us, their term "survivability" has connotations
of their winning WWIII.
In fact, by deterrence we MEAN to say just that we don't want them to
start the war. Maybe one of the confusing factors is that they already
don't want the war, either.
And, according to Dyson, in fact by "survivability" they mean only that
no matter how bad it gets, a few Russians will survive; and eventually,
they will rebuild the motherland. [Looking at the history of Russia,
from the invasions of the Mongols centuries ago, to those of Hitler
in WWII, and condidering the vast loss of life and property they suffered,
it is easy for me to believe that Dyson is right.]
4. I'm NOT privy to classified knowledge on SDI. But I do have some country
boy common sense. The only reasons to launch SDI platforms into space
that make any sense to me are:
a. Fantasty. George Lucas did it; we should do it too.
b. Costs. The price of that technology has to go up at least one order
of magnitude; maybe two? maybe three? That's a lot of bucks to get,
give, and control. Very tempting, no matter which side of the DOD-
industry fence you're on; or whether you're doing R&D, or building
hardware, or managing some parts of something. Money talks.
c. Attack. From terra firma, a high energy beam weapon is not going to
hit any targets in Russia, or anywhere else in Europe or Asia; in fact
we could hit very few in North America. [Line of sight problems.]
But from space, we can shoot straight down to anything beneath.
d. Peace. If neither the owls nor the doves can persuade the hawks to
step back from the brink of nuclear war, then maybe they can use the
tactics developed by Judo masters: Break the opponent's hold not by
force, but by moving with him faster than he expects. Don't ask the
hawks to disarm; instead, propose the "death star" to them; and then
realize that if they [hawks] stay busy for a decade [or two or three]
doing that, maybe they won't take time to pull the trigger on less
exotic weapons.
e. Technology & curiosity. What if "SDI R&D" turns out to be the boon
in the 90's that "moon shot R&D" was in the 60's?
Lots of folks discount this entirely, because of the "suspected motives"
surrounding weaponry. But the technical problems are ethically neutral.
WWII gave us medical advances that are a [mixed] blessing. [They're
mixed because we haven't yet faced up to the problems of having 4.5
billion people on earth at once; without some of those miracle drugs,
we would not.] But, autos, computers, electricity, gas, etc.
have similar negatives; maybe their absolute values are lower; and
maybe their deficit/benefit ratios are lower too. But progress isn't
free. Never has been. May never be.
5. Finally, a quotation from a late British Prime Minister. It is relevant
to the problems encountered by Presidents [and others in high places],
who depend on advice from others; and are handicapped significantly by
the reluctance of their advisors to "tell them unpleasant truths."
That is why ARMS-D is so important; it is why you and I must write our
Congressmen, and otherwise keep the discussion as open and rational as
we can.
"All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is
for enough good men to do nothing."
Edmund Burke
Bob
Caveat: All opinions expressed are personal.
And for the record, I'm NOT working on SDI; do think the R&D is a good idea,
PROVIDED we can afford it; and don't think the "death star" will ever work
reliably, and cost effectively, at the margin; i.e., whatever you can put
in orbit, it can be easily "shot down" by it's earth based counterpart.
RGE
------------------------------
Date: Wednesday, 19 Nov 1986 09:25:20-PST
From: jong%derep.DEC@decwrl.DEC.COM (Steve Jong/NaC Pubs)
Subject: Re: Question about Computer War Games
Concerning the recent question about the realism of the premise of
"Wargames:" One of the memorable "false alarms" at (I believe)
NORAD was caused by a computer operator loading the wrong tape
onto a WWMCCS (World-Wide Military Command and Control System)
computer. The tape contained sensor inputs of a Soviet attack
(for training or simulation).
Such is my recollection, as a former employee of the company that
manufactured the computer. (Hey! It wasn't a machine failure :-)
We were all embarrassed by the mention of it. But I can't say how
long or how thoroughly the people seeing the "data" coming in
were fooled, and that's not a trivial point.
In the movie, I recall, NORAD called the SAC base in Maine and
asked the officer on duty to stand there and let them know if he
wasn't vaporized. Recent submissions to this digest mention
Robert MacNamara telling LBJ he'd check out reported nuclear
detonations personally; scrambled B-52 bomber crews looking to see
if their bases were blasted; and Trident submarines sailing home
to see if their ports had been dredged the high-tech way. It
seems like everyone prefers the human touch.
(I also recall a science-fiction story about the one person who
was responsible for pressing, literally, The Button. When the
report of mass destruction came, he agonized, then refrained.
Turned out the destruction was meteoric, not nuclear. His
superiors told him he'd been selected precisely because he
WOULDN'T press The Button. Whew!)
------------------------------
Date: Wednesday, 19 November 1986 11:46-EST
From: Hoffman.es at Xerox.COM
To: arms-d
Re: Military funding in mathematics
This fall, a group of mathematicians met to discuss their concern with
military funding in mathematics. This group includes Lipman Bers, Lucy
Garnett, Linda Keen, Irwin Kra, Lee Mosher, Barbara Simons, Mike Shub,
Jean Taylor and Bill Thurston. They have written two resolutions and plan
to introduce them at the American Mathematical Society Council and
Business Meeting in San Antonio in January. They also hope to have them
published in the January issue of the AMS Notices. They seek additional
co-sponsors as well. For more information, contact DPSBB@CUNYVM.BITNET
(Lucy Garnett, 180 Park Row, Apt.24b, New York,NY 10038).
MOTION1
Many scientists consider SDI (commonly referred to as Star Wars)
incapable of achieving its stated goals and dangerously destabilizing.
Participation by universities and professional organizations lends a
spurious scientific legitimacy to it. Therefore the AMS will lend no
support to the Star Wars program. In particular, no one acting as a
representative of the AMS shall participate in efforts to obtain
funding for Star Wars research or to mediate between agencies
granting Star Wars research and those seeking to apply for it.
MOTION 2
The AMS is concerned about the increasing militarization of support for
mathematics research. There is a tendency to distribute this support
through narrowly focussed (mission oriented) programs which circumvent
normal peer review procedures. This tendency, unless checked, may skew
and ultimately injure mathematics in the United States. Therefore those
representing the AMS are requested to direct their efforts towards
increasing the fraction of non-military funding for mathematics research,
as well as towards increasing total research support.
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************