ARMS-D-Request@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (Moderator) (08/09/86)
Arms-Discussion Digest Saturday, August 9, 1986 2:36PM
Volume 6, Issue 136
Today's Topics:
Administrivia
replies
KAL007 and the muddied sky
Radiation and health, bias in "Science"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1986 22:31 EDT
From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: Administrivia
The following person is now off the list, since I have been having
trouble getting mail through. Someone please tell him.
sguthery%slb-doll.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
The following person wanted to be put onto the list, but did not give
me a good address that my mailer can process. Someone please inform
him of that fact.
"greyzck terry%e.mfenet"@LLL-MFE.ARPA.#Internet: 550 "e.mfenet"" is
not a local site designation.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 86 15:47:09 EDT
From: wolit%mhuxd.UUCP@harvard.HARVARD.EDU
Subject: replies
>> The news media have meekly parrotted the Administration's line on the
>> proposal, claiming that the new proposal amounts to a *STRENGTHENING*
>> of the ABM Treaty...
>
> Do you have a reference on a claim that this is "strengthening"? I
> haven't seen such a claim anywhere.
The reports I heard on CBS radio news were phrased to stress that, whereas
under the 1972 ABM Treaty either party could withdraw with only six months'
notice, under the Reagan proposal nothing could be done for five to seven
years. Since, as I understand it, the Reagan proposal simply imposes
a five to seven year moratorium on deployment, rather than increasing the
notification period preceding withdrawal from the treaty, juxtaposing these
two periods is a misleading apples-to-oranges comparison.
----------
> correct me if i'm wrong, but the usg does not need to certify anything to
> the congress in order to implement a provision of a ratified treaty.
> it's like the confirmation of cabinet officers. we settled in 1868 that
> the requirement of confirmation is limited to appointment, not termination.
Article XV of the 1972 ABM Treaty states, in its entirety:
1. This Treaty shall be of unlimited duration.
2. Each Party shall, in excercising its national sovereignty, have
the right to withdraw from this Treaty if it decides that
extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this Treaty
have jeopardized it supreme interests. It shall give notice of its
decision to the other Party six minths prior to withdrawal from the
Treaty. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary
events the notifying Party regards as having jeopardized its supreme
interests.
Thus, the President would have to spell out to the Soviets the extraordinary
events that jeopardized our supreme interests. Since the Executive branch
is charged with enforcing compliance with Treaties ratified by the Congress,
the Congress would be within its rights to demand such certification itself
before permitting such a violation.
----------
> And are there any allegations that we have violated Salt I or II
> comparable to the allegations of violations by the Soviets?
Besides the BMEWS radar Herb Lin mentioned, the "Midgetman" Small ICBM
now under development will, once it flies, directly violate the SALT II
limit on two new missiles (after Trident II and MX).
----------
Jan Wolitzky, AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ; 201 582-2998; mhuxd!wolit
(Affiliation given for identification purposes only)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 86 11:03:03 PDT
From: Clifford Johnson <GA.CJJ@Forsythe.Stanford.Edu>
Subject: Re: KAL007 and the muddied sky
> "...it is certainly true that tracer bullets lose their brilliance
> after travelling around 9000 feet - but Major Kasim's SU-15 was
> about two kilometers behind 007 when the tracers were fired, and
> two kilometers is 6562 feet." (R.W.Johnson, p.246.)
>
> I notice, though, that the tapes don't support the sequence of event
> Clifford Johnson describes. It appears that the Soviet pilot fired
> his guns, THEN closed to two kilometers, not the other way around.
Maybe I got the two-kilometer logic wrong, but the argument holds.
It was stated that the range of tracers was *far* too short for them
to have been credibly used, but there's no doubt they *could* have
been used, and the tape indicates they *were* used. I don't know at
what distance they were used, but Major Kasim, the pilot, did such a
professional job of shooting down KAL007 (overiding advice from the
ground, though not instructions) that it is unlikely that he'd have
fired them stupidly. In his later, therefore less credible, words,
he fired them right across the nose of the plane, and this is
possible. (At the time of firing, KAL007 had descended.) And
tracers, though they lose their brilliance after traveling 9000
feet, can be *seen* for miles and miles.
To: ARMS-D@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
------------------------------
Date: Thu 7 Aug 86 13:32:50-EDT
From: Richard A. Cowan <COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Radiation and health, bias in "Science" journ.
Steve Walton's comments about Science got me thinking...
; [From Jan Steinman:]
; >Luckily, things are a bit different today. When the prestigious, but
; >biased, journal cited by Steve in his arguments (Science magazine)...
;
; I have never detected a pro-government or pro-industry (nuclear or other)
; in Science magazine, and I have read it faithfully for nearly 10 years.
With regard to bias in the journal Science, I would ask, "Biased with
respect to what?" (of course, everything is biased; there is no
absolute objective standard.) If asked whether Science is biased in the
way it presents news, from the perspective of the average scientist, I
would judge that it is not, since it is produced for and by
scientists. But if you apply Jan Steinman's criterion, which I assume
is to expect news from the perspective of how it effects the average
citizen, Science, in addition to most media, is definitely biased.
Science criticizes things that hurt "science," but does not criticize
things that help "science" yet fail to benefit the average person.
There is an implicit, but suspect assumption that what is good for
science is good for the country. The journal Science does not need to
be "pro-business" to exhibit such bias; a failure to be critical when
non-scientists are affected constitutes bias, with respect to the
standard mentioned above. A pro-science bias is still a bias.
; Science is a peer-reviewed research journal, which means that papers
; submitted for publication there are first sent to a referee, someone
; else working in the same field who evaluates the contents of the paper
; and recommends for or against its publication, justifying this decision
; with reference to other research in the field. This process is the
; fundamental one by which new knowledge is added to science today, and
; I think I can safely (!) say that no important new scientific discovery
; has failed to find publication in peer-reviewed journals (along with
; much which turned out to be wrong).
How could you possibly know (or have evidence) that there is no valuable
scientific discovery that has ever been dismissed? Actually, Evelyn Fox
Geller, in New Scientist a few weeks ago, talks about a female biologist
whose theories where dismissed, but are now gaining acceptance. And, of
course, what constitutes an "important" discovery is a value judgment
decided mainly by peer review, therefore your statement is circular and
meaningless.
-rich
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************