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measures Summing up on SDI Deep Strike Ammunition Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V6 #12.1 SDI Testing Citizens Summit "war is obsolete" vs. "S&M is obsolete" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Beyond War, Communications, & Law Date: 09 Jan 86 14:20:15 PST (Thu) From: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 *****************************