ARMS-D-Request@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (Moderator) (02/06/86)
Arms-Discussion Digest Wednesday, February 5, 1986 9:48PM
Volume 6, Issue 44
Today's Topics:
Reply to Bruce Nevin's Query
Why the Soviets are afraid of SDI
The Nuclear Freeze and The Confidence of the Attacker
Binary Nerve Poisons
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 5 Feb 86 10:58:27 PST (Wednesday)
From: Plowman.PA@Xerox.COM
Subject: Reply to Bruce Nevin's Query
Bruce, I'm another one!
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 86 16:52 EST
From: Mills@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject: Why the Soviets are afraid of SDI
A few digests back someone asked, "if the Soviets are committed to arms
control and eliminating nuclear weapons, what are they afraid of SDI?"
Somewhere, maybe here, I heard a very good pair of answers.
First, even if SDI can't realy protect us from even ICBM's, it will
probably be a great anti-satelite system.
The second reason is bit more esoteric. Due to the shear scale of the
project, working in space will become rather routine. Not only that, we
would have to develop a flexible space transportation system all the way
out to at least geo-sync orbit. This would put the west in a good
position to dominate the development of the solar system.
John Mills
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 86 15:43 EST
From: Jong@HIS-BILLERICA-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject: The Nuclear Freeze and The Confidence of the Attacker
In the past I've brought up the subject of the nuclear-freeze
movement in this digest. Another aspect of a freeze has occurred
to me, and I thought I'd put it out for comment.
If the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. agreed to a permanent freeze on
production of new nuclear warheads, even without building down or
destroying existing warheads, I claim the threat of war would
gradually diminish. Why? Because the slowly eroding confidence
of each side in its nuclear arsenal would tend to favor the
defender.
In order to launch a counterforce or first strike, the attacker
must have high confidence in its arsenal, the idea being to
eliminate or minimize retaliatory damage. However, as the
nuclear arsenal aged, the confidence level would decline.
The defender (or the retaliator, if you prefer) benefits from
this uncertainty, as it reduces the odds of a first strike.
However, if attacked, the retaliator simply wants to do the most
damage possible. Not all the retaliator's warheads would survive
a first strike anyway; some others would probably not work, due
to their age; but if even a few (of the initial thousands) do
work, the retaliation is complete.
Of course, if the U.S. arsenal ages at a different rate or in
some different manner than the Soviet arsenal, there may be some
inequality...
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 86 16:31:58 PST
From: prandt!mikes@AMES-NAS.ARPA (Peter O. Mikes)
There are different ways to rule the world, and just because we didn't take
it by military force doesn't mean that we don't want have a desire to rule
(i.e. control) the world.
William Swan {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!sigma!bill
Thats true. I just want to add that quite a few people would be perfectly
happy if US would finally face up to its responsibilities (whether aquired by
intent or by accident) and indeed do some ruling -- some inducement of the law
and order -- in that part of the world which they de facto control.
No one (?) will argue that US 'respect for sovereignty of Philipines'
is serving interest of folks who live there or of US in the long run.
Disclaimer: This is not saying that US should engage in many Granada type
operations (except as emergency interim measure). It merely says
that US inability to create supra-national democratic institutions
in the western hemisphere makes US the most incompetent empire
builders ever and that this incompetence is a major impediment to
progress to the new world order which would be based on rule of law
rather then on wars.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 86 09:27:24 pst
From: bellcore!decvax!decwrl!amdcad!cae780!weitek!mmm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Mark Thorson)
Subject: Binary Nerve Poisons
I certainly regret sending that nerve gas recipe. I was hoping it wouldn't
get published, but it now appears it has (in some kind of censored form).
I only know this indirectly because it hasn't reached Usenet yet, if it ever
will. I thought my request to cancel it would reach you in time, but I can
understand if you thought the information was to interesting to let slide.
I agree with those who say:
1. Nuclear terrorism is a far fetched possibility compared to binary nerve
poisons of comparable lethality.
2. Specific knowledge of the mechanisms of weapons is important to under-
standing their social effects.
3. A recipe with correct proportions and procedures should be altered.
Although I don't know whether the names of the precursor molecules were
deleted, I think there is a good reason to know what they are. They are
small organic molecules easily synthesized from common feedstocks (sulfuric
acid, methanol, phosphorus trichloride, etc.). Unlike the synthesis of for
example methamphetamine, no essential precursor exists which can be controlled
(phenyl-2-propanone in the case of methamphetamine).
My comment about "tip of the iceberg" refers to the possibility that an even
easier synthesis path exists. Many pesticides are made from organophosphono-
thiolates to which appropriate side groups have been added to reduce their
toxicity to man while maintaining their toxicity to insects. Ortho sells a
solution of 50% xylene (inert solvent) and 50% malathion (nerve poison) that
you can find in most hardware stores. The side groups are attached by ester
bonds easily broken by boiling in strong alkali (e.g. lye). This time I'll
omit the details.
I think the important lesson to be learned is that these compounds are easy to
make, easy to handle, cheap, and uncontrollable. Their toxicity is awesome.
The particular compounds in the recipe I sent are lethal in fractional parts
per million concentration, a lethality only exceeded by the microbial toxins
(small proteins manufactured by bacteria like tetanus and botulinum). Unlike
the microbial toxins, they are readily absorbed through the skin.
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************