ARMS-D-Request@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU.UUCP (07/01/86)
Arms-Discussion Digest Tuesday, July 1, 1986 3:03PM
Volume 6, Issue 116
Today's Topics:
Administrivia
Effect of counterforce strike
Life in the Soviet Union
Harlan Mills' view of US technology
Treaty Compliance
Eliminating the ICBM threat
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1986 15:02 EDT
From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: Unable to reach people
I received a message from MULLEN@NRL-CSR saying that their mail
problems are gone. My mailer still cannot reach NRL-CSS or NRL-CSR.
ARMS-D@NRL-CSS remains off the Arms-d master mailing list. Someone
pls forward this message to the appropriate parties.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 86 09:22:46 PDT
From: Clifford Johnson <GA.CJJ@SU-Forsythe.ARPA>
Subject: Effect of counterforce strike
Because launch on warning is a counterforce strike, I've read-up on
the damages expected in a counterforce campaign. I recommend the
Adelphi paper by Desmond Ball, Can Nuclear War Be Controlled?
Adelphi Paper #169 at p.27: "In the case of a Soviet attack against
the 1,054 US ICBM silos, estimates of collateral (immediate)
fatalities range from 800,000 to 50 million." A bunch more
statistics follow. The 50 million figure was from a study by the US
Arms Control Agency. But note that "A comprehensive Soviet
counterforce attack on the US would also involve strikes against SAC
bomber bases, FBM submarine support facilities and perhaps command
and control centers in addition to the 1,054 ICBM silos." A 1975
DOD study concluded there would be 18.3 million immediate fatalities
from a counter-ICBM attack, 21.7 from a comprehensive counterforce
action. A 1979 OTA survey of such analyses found estimates ranging
from 1 to 20 million, but noted that studies finding below 10
million deaths were based on optimistic assumptions.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 86 12:06:26 MDT
From: b-davis@utah-cs.arpa (Brad Davis)
Subject: Re: Re: Life in the Soviet Union
Sorry about the length of this, it really doesn't have anything to do with
arms (except the short remark about SDI and guns) unless you construe this
to be support for a strong defense. I was just a little bit burned.
>I shall extrapolate from the current situation in the USSR as reported
>in the midea and the first hand knowledge I have (I've left in 78).
I shall extrapolate from the current situation in the USA as I know it.
> You are not allowed to own reproducing equipment.
So much for the companies that I have started, the church that I
belong to, and the university I work for.
>However, I am pretty sure that there hhave not been a purge
>of the disc-drive owners.
What, Soviet disc-driver owners? There wouldn't be a purge here but
a lot of drives would be confiscated, after all if I have floppies I
can duplicate information. Why do you think copiers are restricted?
>The networks of this type can't exist because automatic switching
>equipment is not installed.
So much for personal freedoms and the free flow of information. Even
politians and political activists use networks now.
>At present Computer Scientists are rather in demand in the USSR (from
>what I hear).Teaching positions on the order of assistant/associate
>professor do not require a communist affiliation.
As long as you don't question the people in power, especially if you
do so across the Government supported networks (i.e. Arpanet). Has SDI
ever been attacked in this news group? How about Ronald Reagan or Caspar
Weinberger.
>That is just plain silly.
>Travel is allowed within the USSR.You need your internal passport,
>a bit more planning has to go into it (shortages of accomodaions and
>such), but it is certanly within the means of any average engineere
>(or the equivalent).
I don't have an internal passport, I don't need an internal
passport, and some of my friends and family who aren't average
engineers and don't make anything near what an average engineer is
paid can still travel in relative comfort without worrying about
shortages of accomodations, except for special cases. They can also
leave for a weekend trip to anywhere in the U.S. at a moments notice,
go to Canada with just two weeks notice (for their preparations, not
because of any approval they have to get), and to most of the rest of
the world in the time it takes to get a visa. I don't have to belong
to a backpacking club to buy equipment, my non-American friends can
visit me where ever I live (there are no closed cities), and I can
live where I choose (I know a doctor that lives outside of Logan, Utah
and practices medicine in San Jose, California.). I can hunt, fish,
and just plain shoot. I own a gun, my father owns a gun, my brothers
own guns, my grandfathers owned guns, the rest of my progenitors owned
guns since they came over from Europe. Some much for NCC, Comdex, and
all the other trade shows ever created.
>Computers are very expensive in the USSR, so they naturally go to
>the high-payed
Computers are not expensive in the U.S. because individuals and
companies have been free to create and build what they want, when they
want, and so the computers go to anyone that wants to buy them,
including right wings, left wings, bird haters, and anyone else that
can dig up a few hundred dollers. If we had expensive computers the
maybe we wouldn't need NCC, Comdex and all the other trade shows.
>USSR writers have produced a goodly amount of hard science fiction.
>I have not come accross any fantasy (but that is probab;y a cultural
>thing).
A few years ago I read all the USSR science fiction I could lay my
hands (no I don't read Russian, I read translations). There was a
goodly amount of Soviet science fiction, but not any amount of goodly
Soviet science fiction (I wonder if there is anything like either the
old or the new Twilight Zone TV program). I don't think that fantasy
is a cultural thing. Fantasy has existed as long a humans have had an
imagination. I know of Chinese fantasy that is over a thousand years
old. European fantasy is a least 700 years old. Fantasy comes from
imagination, current Soviet policies don't encourage imagination or
free thought, just technique.
>Besides, hardship & repression are catalists for producing great
>works of art. 1/2 * ;^) .
Unless your art is not approved by the Powers in Charge. Then you
either are thrown in the Gulag, sent to a closed city, or you don't
exhibit. Take your pick. No more hard rock music, new-wave music,
pop music; modern dance, square dance, folk dance, belly dance;
musical films, dance films, war films, peace films, pro-American
films, anti-American films, Star Wars films, pro-Soviet films,
anti-Soviet films, Pee Wee Harris films; DisneyLand, Six Flags,
Lagoon; Indy 500, Daytona 500, moto-cross, BMX; Dallas, Dynasty,
As the World Turns, Spenser, Magnum P.I., WKRP in Cincinati,
Twilight Zone, Star Trek, Amazing Stories, Alfred Hickock Presents,
Sesame Street; New York Philharmonic, Utah Symphony, Boston Pops;
Andy Warhol, Frank Lloyd Wright, Cynthia Davis (no relation);
and all the other forms of art that exist in the U.S.. Such diversity
doesn't exist and can't exist in the Soviet Union.
>People practice their religion. It is not made easy for them,
>but they do.
You don't know what practicing a religion might include in the U.S.
Some religions expect you to renounce all forms of man-made
governments, some expect you to not work on the Sabbath (Saturday or
Sunday), some expect you to hold private meetings, and some expect you
to prosylytize your neighbors. Religious freedom in America depends
on free flow of information, the ability for people to create new
forms of worship, and the freedom for people to change.
I could go on forever on this issue. I am from Utah, my ancestors came
from Europe for religious and economic freedom. I am also a westerner.
This means I don't like government, politicians, large cities, flat lands,
short mountains, and easterners :-). I like the Rockies, small cities,
dirt roads, being alone, and westerners :-). Though I wouldn't say
'Better dead then Red.', I would fight any take over of this country until
I was dead. While there is life there is still hope.
Brad Davis
------------------------------
Date: Mon 30 Jun 86 15:25:49-EDT
From: Richard A. Cowan <COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Harlan Mills' view of US technology
Perhaps Harlan Mills, of IBM, would be interested in hearing the views
of the head of IBM. They were related by Lester Thurow (see the
transcript of the SDI economic debate in mit-xx:<cowan>economics.sdi).
As Thurow told it:
"And I want to back up what was also just said. Not too long ago I
was having lunch with the head of IBM. And he said you know, we very
carefully keep all of our military activities completely separated
from our civilian activities. For two reasons. First of all, the
cost-performance requirements in the military are so different.
They're willing to pay anything for very high performance
characteristics for short periods of time. Yank the old computer out
of the airplane and put a new one in -- junk it and start over. And
we just find that if we let those two activities touch each other at
all, the military things so corrupt our civilian activities that we
can't effectively compete in civilian markets, so we split our company
into two companies, and if you then wonder why there isn't a lot of
transfer, it's because companies that seem to be doing this well
aren't even letting the civilian people see what in fact the military
people are doing because they think a whole set of attitudes will
occur which are very counterproductive when you get into a civilian
economy."
By contrast, Mr. Mills says, "I personally do not know enough to be
for or against SDI. But I do know enough to want our country to be
strong in technology." Does he really think that SDI research has
anything to do with making our country strong in technology? Is he
able to fairly judge while being "carefully separated" from IBM's
civilian activities? I would appreciate it if someone in IBM would
forward this to Harlan Mills for a comment.
-rich
------------------------------
Date: Monday, 30 June 1986 16:36-EDT
From: DonSmith.PA at Xerox.COM
To: ARMS-D
Re: Treaty Compliance
Nibbling around the edges: The other side has to be confronted with the
evidence of the violations; if they refuse to comply, even when
threatened with abrogation, then the treaty is no good. Now, I am no
expert in the subtleties of international negotiation, and it appears to
be a very complex art. I am convinced of one thing, however: if we
continue to rely on arms matching to maintain stability rather than
committing ourselves to the negotiating process, we will ultimately
destroy ourselves. When you prepare for war, war is what you will get.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 86 01:42 EDT
From: Paul Schauble <Schauble@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA>
Subject: Eliminating the ICBM threat
Herb Lin writes:
The latter statement is a position with which all TECHNICAL analysts
agree: a perfect system is impossible. But the POLITICAL debate has
been cast in terms of "Do you want to defend yourself or not?",
"eliminating (NOT reducing) the threat of nuclear ballistic missiles"
and "the immorality of threats to kill innocent civilians".
I'd like to suggest that these two positions are not incompatable.
Consider battleships, for example. Modern air power provides a good
defense against battleships. Not perfect. If a fleet were to sail up the
Atlantic coast shelling cities, they would be sunk, but not before
inflicting considerable damage.
So, do the residents of Atlantic City, NJ, need to live in fear of
Russian battleships? NO, because while the available defenses are not
perfect, they are good enough to make other types of attacks superior.
Air power has eliminated the threats of battleship attack by persuading
potential enemys to build other kinds of weapons.
I don't know what weapons will replace ICBM's, but 6000 years of history
convinces me there will be one. For most of history, the advantages have
been with the defender. I don't believe current for foreseeable
technology has changed this permanantly.
SDI is nothing more than the next step in a very old arms race. It is
not the solution to the real problems, nor will stopping it solve any of
the real problems.
As to building an SDI this good, I used to believe that it was clearly
possible. I still believe that all of the technical problems, including
software (my field) are solvable with only engineering effort and no new
theory required. I no longer believe that this system is buildable.
To date, I have only seen pieces of the Challenger Commission report. It
provoked a strong sense of deja vu: Three Mile Island. In both cases,
the technical problem was small, and not only could have been foreseen,
but WAS. In each case, the failure was in the organization. I believe
that in order to have a successful project on the scale required for
SDI, significant advances are required in the theory of organizations
and their management. I do not believe that this problem will be
seriously addressed.
Paul
Schauble at MIT-Multics
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************