ARMS-D-Request@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (Moderator) (01/28/86)
Arms-Discussion Digest Tuesday, January 28, 1986 12:03AM
Volume 6, Issue 36
Today's Topics:
a place in the sun vs. a bullet in the head
Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V6 #35
Re: shoot the instigator
Soviet Defense
space mirror
#31, #33 did not exist ( -- if someone got them, pls forward to
moderator)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 86 15:44:56 EST
From: Jim Hofmann - RAMD-D <hofmann@AMSAA.ARPA>
Subject: a place in the sun vs. a bullet in the head
While a bullet in the head may be cruel and inhuman to the person starting
nuclear war, may I suggest instead that those "top" people be denied any
form of protection/shelter against the holocaust. Instead, they should
be thrown out the door to fend for themselves like the rest of us. The
vice-president would assume powers and special chosen Generals and Admirals
would take over the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Perhaps, these people would be
picked secretly by the JCoS prior to assumption of nuclear war.
Perhaps, then they decision makers would think twice before pressing the
button and ask themselves if it is really worth it.
-----
hofmann
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 86 16:01:29 EST
From: Jim Hofmann - RAMD-D <hofmann@AMSAA.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V6 #35
> From: michael%ucbiris at BERKELEY.EDU (Tom Slone [(415)486-5954])
> Re: A Scenario on the Attack Capabilities of SDI
> Consider this Star Wars Scenario:
> So, the power which launches the first complete SDI under these
> presumptions would have a good start on being able to rule the world with the
> "minor" exceptions of cruise missiles and backpack-A-Bombs.
On Sunday (super-bowl Sunday), ABC aired a program hosted by Koppel and the news
anchor (forgot his name, sorry) in which the point was made that the US was
the first world power that never wanted to be a world power, that in fact if
world domination was our plan, we could have accomplished it after WWII.
Instead (as pointed out by Ronald Reagan) we instituted the Marshall Plan.
If SDI ever shows signs of being viable and we actually launched such a
system (that works and was testable) would we really care about being able
to rule the world? Or would we be interested in maintaining the status quo
or to paraphrase Reagan, "live and let live" philosophy?
I guess the scenario become scary (to me at least) if other powers would
launch such a system before us or those "minor" exceptions become a reality.
Incidentally, this broadcast pointed out our complete lack of defense from
terrorist attacks due to our polarization and fixation of one ideology being
our only enemy. If we're going to spend money on SDI, then we ought to
research ways to better combat terrorism or at least have people assigned
to "second thinking" terrorists. This is as much a defense issue as SDI
in my mind.
"If I ruled the world/ I'd love all the girls" - Kurtis Blow (an American
philosophy?)
hofmann
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 86 15:26:24 CST
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA>
Subject: Re: shoot the instigator
By the way, let me add to the chorus against the put-down of the
original message regarding the man who pushes the button getting
killed as a result -- this is not the first time this concept has
been mentioned on ARPANET and other networks mailing lists. I recall
seeing mention of this idea, and a related one, some years ago. Probably
on Poli-Sci; maybe on Arms-D. (You hang around the internet long enough,
you find out that nothing is new...)
The other, related, idea was that the secret codes needed to "push the
button" be surgically implanted in the body of a volunteer, and the
president gets a knife and has to personally kill and butcher the man
in order to retrieve the codes to launch the attack. The purpose of this,
of course, was to "bring home" the deadly seriousness of the action and
remove any detachment or technical distance from the act -- to do it,
the leader must personally bloody his own hands.
Like I said, not my idea(s) -- these are ones that were bandied about
the net(s) some time ago. I'm sure there are/were others, equally
distasteful to the fastidious. May I suggest that someone who seems
so shocked by the very concept of violent death has no business reading
or participating in a mailing list / discussion group dedicated to
weaponry and warfare? Even if one's interest is the abolition of these,
the capability of dispassionate discussion is necessary.
Will
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 86 18:15:22 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Soviet Defense
From: Jeff Miller AMSTE-TEI 4675 <jmiller at apg-1.ARPA>
If you're are going to
question why they are never factored in, you can only be honest by asking
why
they are never factored for both sides.
That is precisely what I am asking.
So the higher dollar figure for NATO
expenditure does NOT indicate the acquisition of more war materiel
for NATO.
I agree. The question is why.
------------------------------
Date: 27 Jan 1986 21:40-EST
From: Nicholas.Spies@H.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: space mirror
(I posted this originally in lost issue #25...)
In an old LIFE magazine I remember reading of a Nazi plan to
build a huge mirror to burn cities, but this effort was
discredited as being impossible because of atmospheric
effects. Was this so much ~1946 hype or WAS there a Nazi
long-term play to try to do this? I've not run across any
mention of this elsewhere, but nor have I looked.
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************