ARMS-D-Request@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (Moderator) (02/03/86)
Arms-Discussion Digest Sunday, February 2, 1986 5:15PM
Volume 6, Issue 40
Today's Topics:
Censorship on ARMS-D
SDI
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat 1 Feb 1986 17:31:19 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Censorship on ARMS-D
Herb Lin's gave the following justification for censoring a message
concerning techniques for making nerve gas:
> The main point is that his note was ENTIRELY technical and procedural
> in nature -- it described exactly how to make certain toxic compounds.
> This was not relevant to *any* policy question that I could discern,
> nor to the resolution of any ARMS-D related question that had
> previously appeared on the digest. Indeed, it is not clear to me how
> this message would have fit with the stated purpose of ARMS-D, which
> is to provide a forum for the discussion of policy issues related to
> war, peace, national security, the arms race and so on. In
> particular, ARMS-D is *NOT* a forum for the discussion of weapons
> technology PER SE, except insofar as that is relevant to some policy
> question.
I sent some comments on nerve gases of various kinds to Arms-d several
years ago, and the moderator censored them (until I pointed out the
formulas were from a Scientific American article). Those first
submissions were to point out that concern over nuclear terrorism
may be misplaced, since chemical weapons may be easier to make
in small quantities.
Imagine my suprise when a few months later the ingredients for nerve
gas were printed on the front page of the New York Times! Iraq was
reported to be making the stuff for use against Iran, and the US
government had embargoed certain chemicals. Given that nerve gas
is now being used in the mid-east, it is vitally important to
understand how hard nerve gas is to make (for example, the US
government's terrorist policy could be affected if they begin using
nerve gas against US cities).
Knowledge of nerve gas chemistry is also important if one is to have an
informed opinion about the desirability of certain weapons systems. For
example, is binary nerve gas safe? Should you live near a plant that
makes a component of the gas? An actual controversy that revolves
around nerve gas chemistry is the safety of a certain airdropped binary
nerve gas munition (Bigeye, I think). The problem occurs if dropping
the bomb is delayed; apparently the nerve gas chemicals continue to
react after being mixed and the bomb can rupture while still attached
to the plane.
I have yet to see an arms-control issue in which detailed knowledge of
the workings of the weapons in question is not helpful or even vital
(for example: SDI).
[See next message for Moderator's response.]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 86 20:14:56 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Censorship on ARMS-D
I think that I would have omitted the nerve gas information too if I
believed that they were not available in an easily accessible forum
such as Sci Am or the NYT.
it is vitally important to
understand how hard nerve gas is to make..
I agree. But specific amounts (as opposed to orders of magnitude) and
proper proportions and such don't appear relevant to the policy
debate. (I am willing to be convinced otherwise.)
Knowledge of nerve gas chemistry is also important if one is to have an
informed opinion about the desirability of certain weapons systems...
The problem occurs if dropping
the bomb is delayed; apparently the nerve gas chemicals continue to
react..
Then the appropriate information has to do with the time constant of
the reactions involved. These can be provided without displaying
specific recipies and procedures.
I have yet to see an arms-control issue in which detailed knowledge of
the workings of the weapons in question is not helpful or even vital
(for example: SDI).
Detailed knowledge is -- as far as I can tell -- essentially never
required, though basic understaning certainly is. Counterexamples
invited.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 86 12:06:57 PST
From: prandt!mikes@AMES-NAS.ARPA (Peter O. Mikes)
re: SDI
OK boys,
you had your fun dreaming up and discussing all these
R/C operated Light Sabers which we can put into orbit and
this National SDI Simulator will surely be the Ultimate Videogame and
I surely would like to have my turn playing it and do not want to spoil
the fun nor endanger the flow of funds which our valiant Congress and IRS
are going to provide to all here assembled techno-freaks, nerds,
proposal writers, aerospace contractors and structured programmers
BUT
there are some questions of safety which any responsible
designer must consider and it seems to me that those were not addressed at all.
This board seems to be the appropriate forum for raising these questions:
The question of LOW in SDI environment for example. The classical LOW, as
discussed exhaustively here, assumes that they are two REGIONS, with well
defined boundaries, which are sort of 'watching each other' like two cobras
waiting for a strike. I am no expert on space and the following statements are
to be taken as assumptions or questions - points which seems to me should be
addressed. It seems to me that the current reality of space is not well descri-
bed by the picture of two REGIONS. It seems that we have satelites interspaced
randomly in GEO and LEO orbits and it takes few hours for a satelite to circle the Earth. Historically that in itself is interesting as I remember Eisenhower's proposal of the Open Skies, which was naturally rejected by Sovs and then sort
of implemented by default (as - so it seems - soviets would never admit that
they had no way then of enforcing the ban on spy satelites. I would actually
guess that soviet Satelite-Killer program dates from those times). Anyway.
Now, we have National Air-Spaces (?) up to the height Rn in which the nations
claim the right to shoot down anything not cleared with the traffic control,
and we have space above Rc into which anybody can send any orbiting and
autonomous SENSOR. That's the essential point, boys. There is sort of under-
standing that opponent will not shoot down the other guys SENSORS as long as
they are above Rc (Radius where Common starts), sort of open sky - just as Ike
wanted it. Now the question: Why should we limit ourselves to this rigid
scenario of a Peace Shield when we can place one of our Lasers in GEO directly above Kremlin? If they have a Communication Satelite there (I heard it is
quite crowded there) lets place ours just next to it - with a side nozzle.
When the Button is pushed (and optionally the instigator executed) the
laser will fire a side shot to destroy sovs satelite in GEO and main shot
down to destroy Kremlin. The advantage here is that there is no boost phase
so the SSDI (soviet version of SDI) has nothing to aim at. They will be
completely impotent (hee hee) unless of course those scoundrels come with
idea of putting one of their ugly Satelite Killers directly above our Laser
@GEO.Kremlin. Now we have a problem: We can have a summit and negotiate a
treaty that no killer satelite (as opposed to sensor) can be closer to a
sensor ( or another killer satelite) then Ds or Dk respectively. But of
course we both disbelieve and ignore international treaties and so we would
have to base the whole concept on verification and telemetry. Like this:
We would have our killer satelite in location Xus and there would be a sovs
killer satelite in location Xsu at distance D > Dtreaty. Then, when one
of theirs would move closer, or send anything in our direction, we will
start defending ourselves. It would be like a game we used to play as boys:
"Just dare to touch me" - but here - here we are talking microseconds.
O boy!
Disclaimer: Nothing in this posting is intended to discriminate on the
basis of sex - even though I must admit that I have only seen girls to
play this "Dare to touch me" game in a different sense . By the way, there
seems to be total absence of feminine names on this net. It is hard to
say from the net-addresses but if it is indeed so, lets hope that NOW
will not find out about that. Resulting law suit could well wipe out
half of funds for out Light Sabers -- and who knows what THEY would use
the money for. I am sure not going to tell them - after all - I am one
of the boys - right??
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************