ARMS-D-Request@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (Moderator) (03/19/86)
Arms-Discussion Digest Tuesday, March 18, 1986 4:45PM
Volume 6, Issue 62
Today's Topics:
L-O-W called a "dramatic change in the ICBM mission requirements"
to resign or not to resign an untenable position?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 86 12:13:32 PST
From: Clifford Johnson <GA.CJJ@SU-Forsythe.ARPA>
Subject: L-O-W called a "dramatic change in the ICBM mission requirements"
FYI: A "dramatic" change in the ICBM mission?
In the exhaustive discussions about launch on warning last December,
the latest testimony proving its existence was from 1981. I've
since discovered more recent testimony, most importantly from last
Sept. 26 (House Gov't Operations Committee hearing). For example,
Bruce Blair concluded his prepared statement with the comment:
"In summary, I restress the fact that the United States relies
heavily on L-O-W for positive control. Fortunately, our tactical
warning system on which L-O-W depends is fairly fault tolerant. But
it is NOT as tolerant as it should be to justify U.S. reliance on
it." (Emphasis in original.)
What emerges over the years are predictions that U.S. Minuteman (and
now MX) missiles would become vulnerable in about 1985, but that
reliable L-O-W would also become operational about the same time.
Now that time is here, L-O-W is being cited as a reason why the MX
are not "sitting ducks", a change which Senator Exon called
"dramatic":
"Sen. EXON: General, what you are saying is that you are not
persuaded by the argument that has generally been conceded by the
Air Force that the 20, 50, or 100 MXs in current Minuteman silos are
sitting ducks ... and that without question they would be taken out
early by a first-strike from the Soviet Union? That is still true,
is it not?
Gen. GABRIEL: I would not use the term 'sitting duck', no. In a
ride-out scenario we would lose quite a few of them ... There are
options I won't go into. Obviously, if he is going for our missile
silos, there will be a period of time when we can see his missiles
coming. We have sensors that will tell us that. There are options
that obviously don't make them sitting ducks.
Sen. EXON: What I am suggesting is that there has been a dramatic
change in the ICBM mission requirement and the need for the MX."
(Senate Armed Services Committee, FY 1986 hearings p.1164.)
In House testimony FY 1986 (pt.1 p.105) Gen. Vessey likewise stated
(after arguing that MXs based in parking lots would be warranted)
"vulnerability is compensated for by a warning system".
To: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA
------------------------------
Date: 1986 March 18 07:31:02 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject:to resign or not to resign an untenable position?
K> Date: Sat, 15 Mar 86 14:07:07 EST
K> From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
K> Subject: Resignations
K> Cc: ... Space@s1-b.arpa
(Topic was resignations of engineers who belived Challenger would
explode if launched in cold weather; In the quoted passage and in my
reply the topic has shifted to morality of building weapons systems so
I have rerouted my reply to ARMS-D.)
K> It is ethical to work for a company or a client whether or not one
K> agrees with the position of the company or the client. For instance
K> the company I work for does a lot of SDI ("Star Wars") research.
K> Most of the senior scientists and engineers I have talked to about it
K> believe that SDI is not feasible. But they feel that refusing to use
K> one's talents as best one can on this project is usurping the
K> authority of the elected officials. They decide what is to be done.
K> We do it if it is humanly do-able. If we didn't do it, someone else
K> would. Probably someone who wouldn't be able to do it as well as we
K> would.
If someone truly believes a task is undoable, that person would not be
very good at doing it, better to get some other job and let somebody
who thinks it possible try it instead. If you stick with a job that
you believe impossible, you are more a saboteur than a workman.
If someone feels strongly that a task is immoral and outright
dangerous to the survival of the human species, I strongly urge that
person to resign from the task. "What if they gave a war and nobody came?"
K> Disclaimer: ... Any opinions expressed are mine
K> alone and not necessarily those of my employer or its clients.
I should think that would obvious without stating!
(Or are you trying to protect the copyright of your messages, from
your employer who like Stanford may be trying to obtain copyrights to
all inventions and writings of its employees using company-owned
word-processing equipment/systems even when on the employee's own time
and unrelated to the paid work?)
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************