ARMS-D-Request@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (Moderator) (02/28/86)
Arms-Discussion Digest Thursday, February 27, 1986 5:11PM
Volume 6, Issue 56
Today's Topics:
cooperative verification
depressed-trajectory weapons
Supermarket Terrorism
Supermarket terrorism
Pulsed neutron source?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 86 10:12:25 EST
From: Bruce Nevin <bnevin@bbncch.ARPA>
Subject: cooperative verification
As you note in your excellent draft paper, cooperative verification
techniques make sense only in a political context of cooperation with
respect to shared goals, goals such as treaty compliance or negotiated
reduction.
Your discussion focusses on techniques for emplacing feedback
mechanisms. I suggest that you couple this discussion of communication
of verification information with a broader account of the kinds of
feedback loop structures that foster homeostasis (arms freeze or
reduction) rather than runaway (arms escalation).
I suggest again that the `I cut you choose' structure provides an
appropriate and viable context.
Bruce
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 86 12:29 EST
From: Jong@HIS-BILLERICA-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject: depressed-trajectory weapons
I've been making the point that Star Wars at best protects us
from just a few strategic delivery systems. Perhaps it's an
overly pessimistic view, but I don't think it's worth it.
We have, in fact, a defense against strategic bombers, and
another one against submarines; but we haven't bothered to go
all-out, because of the cost involved, but also because of the
futility. If you add a defense against strategic missiles, the
best you can hope for is a three-part strategic defense race.
More likely, the pressures of natural selection will shape
strategic arsenals towards "stealth" bombers, cruise missiles,
suitcase bombs, or whatever the weapons designers come up with.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 86 16:36:00 EST
From: Charley Wingate <mangoe@mimsy.umd.edu>
Subject: Supermarket Terrorism
>From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@MIT-MC.ARPA>
With regard to "terrorism" through the adulteration of drugs and foodstuffs
(e.g., the Tylenol poisonings), he says:
> The funny thing is the public response to a single fishhook
>in a single cupcake in southern California causes a greater public
>response than 40,000 thermonuclear weapons on launch vehicles in silos
>do, despite the incredibly small public risk of the fishhook compared
>to the thermonuclear weapons.
It all hinges upon what you mean by this word "risk". If you mean "the
worst thing that can happen," well, maybe nuclear weapons are more of a
risk. But when you take the likelyhood of occurance into account, as is
the standard usage, the numbers change radically. People also forget that
before the Pure Food and Drug Act, adulteration was a serious problem.
It's much easier to adulterate food and drugs, and thus kill people, than it
is to obtain a critical mass and set it off. If you want to rate the risk
based on past experience, then product adulteration is almost certainly a
greater risk than nuclear war.
C. Wingate
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 86 13:42:21 est
From: Nigel Goddard <goddard@rochester.arpa>
Subject: Supermarket terrorism
Recently I switched to C-SPAN at some unearthly hour of the morning (y'know,
when they show all the really intereseting stuff), and found myself in
the middle of a seminar on terrorism and multinationals. Unfortunately
I can't remember the name of the speaker, but he was from some major
Washington institution (Georgetown pops into my head). He made some quite
astounding remarks. Apparently most U.S. multinational corporations (MLC's)
are reviewing and increasing security for their operations "at the
periphery" (i.e. in political hot-spots). The MLC's have withdrawn many
U.S. personnel because of the cost of providing personal security (bullet-
proof cars, guards, etc), and have been "hardening" their facilities.
They have been conducting the same kind of reviews of their operations
here in the U.S., and hardening critical facilities (ie decision making
areas like headquarters and communication lines). He talked at length
of the increasing amount of money being spent by MLC's to avoid attacks by
paying up to blackmailing terrorists, and of some of the attacks abroad.
When asked if any such attacks had taken place here in the U.S. his reply
was one of those I'm-not-allowed-to-tell-you statements that strongly
suggested such attacks had taken place here. Interestingly the attacks
abroad are basically used to bankroll the terrorists and harass the MLC's,
whereas the attacks here are mainly of psychological value. The terrorists
aim to make it clear that they can strike in the U.S., thus creating a
"chilling effect" (his words), which is more important than the damage
caused by the attack itself. The recent Tylenol case illustrates just
how damaging that "chilling effect" can be, although I suspect that no
terrorist organisation was responsible since none have claimed
responsibility (just think what the feeling would be if, say,Islamic Jihad had
claimed responsibility). The tone of the seminar was that "chilling" attacks
will undoubtedly increase here, especially as the deteriorating world
financial situation restricts the ability of the MLC's to finance their
intelligence gathering operations at the same time as that intelligence
becomes more critical. However those attacks will not necessarily take
the form of supermarket product tampering. An example would be the
recent successful attack on North West Orient's Paris computer system,
which was quoted in the seminar (anyone else heard about it? was it
technical or just bombs?).
Nigel Goddard
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 86 12:33:52 PST
From: rimey@dali.berkeley.edu (Ken Rimey)
Subject: Pulsed neutron source?
In the draft paper posted by Herb Lin, the use of pulses of neutrons was
suggested for the sensing of fissionable material. Can anyone explain
how a pulsed neutron source might be made?
Ken Rimey
rimey@dali.berkeley.edu
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************