ARMS-D-Request@MIT-XX.ARPA (Moderator) (01/23/86)
Arms-Discussion Digest Wednesday, January 22, 1986 6:45PM
Volume 6, Issue 30
Today's Topics:
Re: Orbiting lasers > ground targets
historical space weapons
carving up Poland
reportage and perceptions
Why argue about SDI
A duplicate Issue #28 will be following for those of you who did not
get it; it will follow in two parts due to MC mailer troubles.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 86 12:38:13 CST
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Orbiting lasers > ground targets
Hi!
I guess I'm blinded by technology... I want the *capability* to do
anything and everything (both myself, personally, and for the
organizations of which I am a part). This does not mean that I
*will* do all of those things, or that I want the {organization/
government/whatever} to do everything it can possibly do. But having
the most options always seemed to be the best approach to any problem.
Will
------------------------------
From: vax135!ariel!solar!news@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 86 12:00:22 est
Subject: Moderated newsgroup
This newsgroup is moderated, and cannot be posted to directly.
Please mail your article to the moderator for posting.
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site solar.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: solar!orion!mtunf!mtuni!mtunh!ariel!vax135!houxm!mhuxt!mhuxr!ulysses!ucbvax!arms-d
From: ARMS-D-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA (Moderator)
Newsgroups: mod.politics.arms-d
Subject: Arms-Discussion Digest V6 #17.1
Message-ID: <8601110139.AA06667@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
Date: Fri, 10-Jan-86 20:06:00 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8601110139.AA06667
Posted: Fri Jan 10 20:06:00 1986
Sender: kayvan@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: ARMS-D%MIT-MC.ARPA@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 201
Approved: arms-d@mit-mc.arpa
Arms-Discussion Digest Friday, January 10, 1986 8:06PM
Volume 6, Issue 17.1
Today's Topics:
Beyond War, Communications, & Law
50% effective means what?
Re: Goals Worth Persuing
Re: International Order
Re: Deep Strike
Re: International Order
Re: SDI Testing
Re: SDI Testing
Aegis reliability
Complexity measures
Summing up on SDI
Deep Strike
Ammunition
Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V6 #12.1
SDI Testing
Citizens Summit
"war is obsolete" vs. "S&M is obsolete"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Beyond War, Communications, & Law
Date: 09 Jan 86 14:20:15 PST (Thu)
From: foy@aero
Bruce Neven discusses the Beyond War slogan, "War Is Obsolete." excellently
and in detail. My summary is that the actual and potential costs of war are
to high for it to be a reasonable approach to settling conflicts.
Karl Dahlke says that of course go can't be used ot settle international
conflicts, but that international law with the power to enforce the law
can be so used. Shortly after WWII I read an excellent book, "The
Anantomy of Peace." by Emery Reeves which make an excellent case for this
idea. Unfortunately we missed the opportunity for for avoiding the costs
which we have encurred since then in the name of defense.
Paul Dietz states that Bruce can't talk about nations and communications
as though nations are people.
My response to all of this is that the whole point of the Beyond War
movement is:
1. There is a significant probability that a small war will lead to a too
costly nuclear war.
2. All of th peoples of the world are caught up in the same basic dilemma
wether they recognize it or not.
3. Communicating these thoughts can change things.
4. They don't try to say any particular changes are the right or the wrong
changes to solve the dilemma.
Perhaps the international law that Karl mentions is the solution. Perhaps
something else. Neither we nor the Soviet Union is immutabley fixed in our
current relationship. Communications between the nations is I believe the
most effective way of improving the relationship for mutual benefit.
Communicatications means to me communications between the leaders
(the Summit), between the people, (citizens summit, cultural exchanges,
tourist travel, computer net(( I note one connection to Yugoslavia), etc).
richard foy
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 86 08:12:34 EST
From: Michael_Joseph_Edelman%Wayne-MTS%UMich-MTS.Mailnet@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
Reply to Cowen:
---(Forwarded from: Michael_Joseph_Edelman@Wayne-MTS, Dated: Sun, 19 Jan 86 19:50:14 EST
Thanks for the note. I should have picked a better phrase
than "the anti-SDI group"; perhaps "the anti-SDI community"
would have been a better choice.
I think we're in agreement on the difficulty of igniting
ground targets, though Herb Lin is a little more optimistic
in this regard. I find even more difficulty in buying the
laser-induced winter argument; various climatologists have
objected to the Sagan et al paper on methodological and
theoretical grounds. This is way outside my technical competence
to evaluate (my training is in computer science and
psycholinguistics) but I think enough doubt has been raised
to question the entire nuclear winter concept. To go a step
further and assume space-based lasers could kick up enough
dust to create climatic change is a little too far fetched
for my tastes.
Given that the source of this notion was a think tank, I
would guess that it's probably the product of a "what if"
sort of study; impossible within present technology (or tha
of the near future) but a possibility worth following up.
That, or an idea to get a little SDI funding for a feasibility
study.
Mike
------------------------------
Date: 22 Jan 1986 00:53-EST
From: Nicholas.Spies@H.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: historical space weapons
Do any of you remember a LIFE magazine article about projected
space weapons of the Germans? I recall that a giant space
mirror was under consideration that would focus the run's rays
onto any city. Was this so much Allied hype or was it really
being considered? (I no longer have LIFE from the first issue.)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1986 01:48 EST
From: Rob Austein <SRA@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: carving up Poland
Date: Monday, 20 January 1986 22:01-EST
From: Lynn Gazis <SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
But, if war with Germany was inevitable, couldn't Stalin have fought
just as much of it on Polish soil by sending troops to Poland when
Germany attacked it? Why should he let someone he knows he will be
going to war with gain more territory?
I don't have any hard data here (anybody who does, speak up), but by
waiting Stalin let Germany and the West hurt each other before having
to take an active role. Nobody (except Hitler) expected France to be
the pushover it was. The treaty also bought Stalin time to mobilize
for a serious war, although not as much as he expected, I think.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 86 10:19:53 EST
From: Bruce Nevin <bnevin@bbncch.ARPA>
Subject: reportage and perceptions
NYU's new Center for the Study of War, Peace, and the News Media chose
as the subject of its first field study the recent saturation-reported
Reagan-Gorbachev `summit'.
Of all the things that might have been covered by the American
press, three got the most attention: 1) the `atmospherics' between
the two leaders; 2) the position of the two governments--particularly
the Soviet Union--on the Strategic Defense Initiative; and 3)
human rights, particularly relating to Soviet Jews.
The foreign press, on the other hand, showed much less interest
in the human rights question and specifically in Jewish rights
as distinct from the plight of other ethnic and religious
groups in the Soviet Union.
Second, the European countries gave more space to collateral arms
control questions--specifically, the intermediate nuclear force (INF):
whether the two sides will reach some agreement on Euromissiles. The
fact that Europe may end up being a nuclear theater--or _the_
nuclear theater--seems of less interest to Americans.
There was comment in the South American press . . . that the summit
was in a sense irrelevant to Third World countries: there was no
Third World agenda and no real effort to come to grips with what
the superpower rivalry means to debtor nations.
On Afghanistan,
. . . the Soviets volunteered that they might be seeking a way out,
and might entertain withdrawal of their troops in exchange for
border guarantees and curtailing of the flow of American weaponry
through Pakistan. While this got detailed coverage outside the
U.S.--the main newspaper in Madrid, _El_Pais, had an early story
--for the most part it got less attention here.
There was some personality coverage in the foreign press, but less
than here, and definitely less on the First Ladies' [sic!--concept
of course does not apply to Mmme Gorbachev] `style war'. This may
be partly a function of the difference in news holes. Not many
foreign publications have the luxury of going on for pages, as
our major ones do.
[From an interview with Director of the Center, David M. Rubin, in
_World_Press_Review, January 1986, p. 10. From an interview with
the editor of _Politiken of Copenhagen, on p. 32 of the same issue,
the following seems especially relevant:]
What worries Danes most about the U.S.?
Too little understanding of what people in other parts of the
world really feel--and need. This goes for Europe as well as for
Latin America and almost all other areas. But let me add that
the Soviets are just as unable to understand--and you cannot argue
with them. With the US we maintain an open and free debate and
we can together hope for the best. I also think we have
to be grateful for the burdens the U.S. has carried
through the years.
------------------------------
Subject: Why argue about SDI
Date: 22 Jan 86 12:45:17 PST (Wed)
From: foy@aero
Someone posted the question, if the Soviets want to reduce the number of
nuclear weapons to 0 why are they insisting on no SDI?
A similiar question is; if the Soviets are willing to negotiate to 0
nuclear weapons why are we insisting on SDI?
I suggest that the answer to both questions is the same.
Richard Foy, Redondo Beach, CA
The opinions I have expressed are the result of many years in the school of
hard knocks. Thus they are my own.
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************