ARMS-D-Request@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU.UUCP (05/29/86)
Arms-Discussion Digest Wednesday, May 28, 1986 10:48PM
Volume 6, Issue 96
Today's Topics:
WWI arms race
Meteorites
Re: A proposed Welcoming message
finalized welcome message to ARMS-D
Major Warden's talk on SDI
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 86 22:30:38 pdt
From: Dave Benson <benson%wsu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
To: Arms-d@xx.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: WWI arms race
I'll add a bit of fact/opinion to the WWI arms race question raised
and mangled by S. Mccracken. A clear analysis of the growth in expenditures
in arms in the years immediately preceeding WWI may be found in a book
published by Boxwood Press and written by Lewis Fry Richardson. This
book was the first attempt to apply mathematics to the processes which
lead to war. It is a companion volume to
Lewis Fry Richardson
The Statistics of Deadly Quarrels
Boxwood Press, approx. 1960
(Incidently, Lewis Fry Richardson's work on statistics is (1) highly
relevant to ARMS-D (2) has been continued by SPRI---Stockholm Peace
Reasearech Institute)
WWI was indeed preceeded by an exponential growth in expenditures
for arms by Britian, France, Germany, and possibly other European
countries as well. Lewis Fry Richardson makes a good case that WWI
was a "pure arms race war", in which the growth in each sides armaments
was determined by the level of the other sides armaments. Thus a pure
exponetial growth.
To be explicit: S. McCracken is incorrect in stating that all
the growth in armaments was on the part of the Germans. There are
some historians writting of this period who attempt to blaim the
German Kaiser's ambitions for the war. More recent writings
suggest that WWI was an accidental war, which the Kaiser did not
want. My person opinion is that ignorance is a major determiner
of human affairs: WWI was the result of the ignorance on all
sides on the effects of industrialization, the telegraph, mobilization
plans, etc. on international affairs.
This work was expanded and modified in papers written for a
journal on arms control. The conclusion of these papers
was that Lewis Fry Richardson was not exactly right, but close enough.
The question of the USE of the British naval forces in WWI
is completely irrelevant. The Allies won in the end because Britain
could, with its fleet in being, maintain a blockade which brought
Germany to its knees.
Admiral Jellicoe was the only man who "could have lost the war in
a day" in the Battle of Jutland. The result of the battle was a
tactical draw but a
strategic victory for the Allies. In the status quo the
British were able to continue their blockade. All else
is unimportant.
There are many books which one might read on this period
of history, the Battle of Jutland, Admirals Jellicoe and Beatty, and
related topics.
"Those who are ignorant of history are condemmed to repeat it."
--- and I'm likely condemmed as well, since I cannot read it all.
On another topic, I disagree with Herb Lin's style of debate on
ARMS-D. In general, there are so many issues, facets, facts, sources,
opinions that it is impossible for anyone to know everything
relevant to particular issues. Therefore many people intested in
the subjects discussed on ARMS-D are going to misrepresnt themselves,
the issues, the facts, etc. Indeed, I believe the nature of e-mail
make this particularly easy to do. So I prefer a style which
attempts to point out sources on subjects, and trys to be gentler
with all contributors. Almost everyone on ARMS-D is concerned: Each
brings a unique perspective. I read with interest all contributions
although I disagree with most, and accept nothing I read here as
TRUTH (Not even from Herb Lin).
------------------------------
Date: Thursday, 22 May 1986 02:09-EDT
From: west at nprdc.arpa (Larry West)
To: ARMS-D@xx.lcs.mit.edu
Re: Meteorites
[Forwarded to ARMS-D by Moderator]
An article on page 11 of the Wed 21 May New York Times raises an issue I
haven't quite seen raised here before. It's only partly related to
automation, but that relation is a threatening one.
The article is titled ``Consequences Weighed of Meteorite Explosion'' and
reports on the semi-annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in
Baltimore. The article is by Walter Sullivan and is too well-written to
condense satisfactorily, but I'll try:
:::::
Meteoric explosions on the scale of the 1908 event in Siberia (12 Megatons)
are expected about once per century, and somewhat smaller (but still in the
range of nuclear explosions) events should happen more frequently.
Although the US, USSR and Europe could ``probably'' detect that the
explosion was non-nuclear, and thus avoid an inappropriate reaction, this
would be less true in, say, the Middle (Near) East or India & Pakistan.
``Also, [specialists] said, the response of highly automated systems, such
as the proposed Strategic Defense Initiative, could not be predicted.''
Even without a military response, the after-effects could be devastating:
filling the atmosphere with sun-blocking particles and curbing food
production. Currently, there is roughly a 70-day supply of food on hand in
the world [which surprises me -- LW] but a very large meteor could reduce
sunlight for two years.
Further, the most energetic explosions will come from those meteors
travelling the fastest (and sometimes coming from outside the solar system),
and thus the most difficult to predict.
``The discussion took place at a session on natural hazards ... Presiding
was Dr. Joseph V. Smith of the University of Chicago, who has been calling
for an Internation Decade for Hazard Reduction that would begin in 1990.
That effort would be aimed at reducing loss of life, particularly from
catastrophes that are on a very large scale but sufficiently rare to have
been largely ignored. The plan was first suggested in 1984 by Dr. Frank
Press, now president of the National Academy of Sciences.''
``Dr. Smith .... also urged the initiation of an International Decade on
Stockpiling for Survival, including development of new techniques for
effective, economical storage of ... foods''
Various methods of dealing with a meteor were mentioned, including nuking it
and firmly pushing it aside. The main problem is being prepared and being
able to reach the meteor in time.
:::::
Hope this hasn't gone too far afield from the focus of this mailing list...
Larry West USA+619-452-6771
Institute for Cognitive Science non-business hrs: 452-2256
UC San Diego (mailcode C-015)
La Jolla, CA 92093 USA
ARPA: <west@nprdc.ARPA> or <west@ucsd.ARPA>
DOMAIN: <west@nprdc.mil> or <west@csl.ucsd.edu>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 May 1986 11:59 EDT
From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: finalized welcome message to ARMS-D
Here is the final version of the welcome message. Thanks to all for
their comments on it. Essentially everyone said I spent too much time
on censorship policy. This version incorporates essentially all
suggestions. I have taken the liberty of deleting the messages on the
subject that were sent to ARMS-D. I hope I have not offended those
contributors.
WLECOMING MESSAGE TO ARMS-D
Welcome to ARMS-D. This digest is for various and sundry comments and
questions on policy issues related to peace, war, national security,
weapons, the arms race, and the like. The digest is currently
moderated by LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU, but all administrative requests
(e.g., additions to the list) should go to
ARMS-D-REQUEST@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Complaints, praise and suggestions can be directed to either ARMS-D or
ARMS-D-REQUEST.
All substantive contributions (i.e., those actually related to peace,
war, etc) should be directed to
ARMS-D@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
They should NOT be sent to ARMS-D-REQUEST, as people sometimes do when
they reply to a message.
Recent archives live in the file XX:<ARMS-D>ARCHIVE.CURRENT. MIT-XX
supports the ANONYMOUS FTP login protocol: Connect to XX, login as
ANONYMOUS, use the password GUEST, and transfer the file.
The digest currently goes to about 100 individuals, and 30
redistribution points; it also goes over USENET. To maximize the
utility of the discussion group to the ARMS-D community, I ask that
you follow the following ground rules.
1. No personal attacks on contributors or outsiders to the list for
ANY reason. Contributions with these attacks will be returned for
self-censorship. This doesn't mean that you can't say that "Joe Blow
is wrong" but please don't call people names.
2. PLEASE put some thought into your responses to other people's
comments. Obviously, this can't be enforced or verified, but it would
be nice anyway.
3. USE HEADERS such as "Subject: ABM Treaty" and the like. Life
is much simpler for both moderator and reader when you do.
4. For your own protection, you should keep a copy of any
submissions you make to ARMS-D, and delete them only when they have
appeared in the digest. That way, if I accidentally lose a
message, you can resubmit it.
5. When you use quotations from other people's messages, don't just
insert the whole thing. While line-by-line commentary can be useful,
please exercise some care in deciding just what of the original
message to include. When possible, use a simple reference, such as "Re:
the ongoing xyz discussion". Also, while it is sometimes
useful to have quotations going back and forth for a few iterations,
at some point they become too much. At that point, you should no
longer include the back and forth. If you like, you can summarize
what the substance of what he said. You can also put the material
from his message at the END of your message; this saves readers the
trouble of reading the whole thing again, but maintains the advantage
of allowing the reader to not hunt down an old message that he has
probably deleted. MEA CULPA: I have been guilty of excessive
quotation perhaps more than anyone else, and I apologize.
I try to let this list be self-maintaining; in particular, I want
discussion to continue free of censorship. But there are limits, and
not absolutely everything will be posted. I reserve the right to
reject submissions which in my judgment are inappropriate. In
practice, this rarely occurs, and never happens without a note from me
to you concerning my reasons. Submissions that never appear and
without warning to the poster are due to screw-ups on this end in the
process of composing the digest (mailer bugs, accidental deletions,
and the like), and never because I have have chosen to censor it
without explanation. I will always discuss complaints about
censorship individually.
If you want further details on my working policy towards censorship,
please let me know.
Once again, welcome. Your contributions are solicited, and I hope you
find ARMS-D useful, stimulating, provocative, and interesting.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 May 1986 07:03 EDT
From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: Major Warden's talk on SDI
This is a reply to an old message.
Since you sent this message regarding what Pete Warden said about SDI
in a talk last fall, you might be interested to know that in his talk
at MIT (in March), he insisted on claiming that the number of laser
satellites needed increased with the square root of the number of
missiles on the ground. He neglected to mention that this scaling law
applies only for satellites at zero altitude and a flat earth. The
true scaling law is much closer to linear.
You noted that he supported the Nitze criteria that any SDI system had
to be cheaper at the margin, robust, and survivable. You should know
that the SDIO is now asserting that cost-effectiveness should no
longer be the standard; rather, the term now is "affordable".
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************