ARMS-D-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA (Moderator) (01/15/86)
Arms-Discussion Digest Tuesday, January 14, 1986 6:14PM
Volume 6, Issue 22
Today's Topics:
Paranoia
SDI vs. missile flight test ban (latter preferable it seems)
Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V6 #17.2
Space Invaders
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 86 17:09:26 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Paranoia
I certainly would not argue that your suggestions for more
communication are not good. They are, and we should increase
communication between the US and the SU in all areas.
But I don't see why you insist that it constitutes a solution to
Soviet paranoia. To take one example, why should either RR or MG
learn to trust each other after many meetings? Rather, why should not
each assume that the other is presenting a false front to mislead him?
------------------------------
Date: 1986 January 13 11:46:44 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@IMSSS> (this host known locally only)
Subject:SDI vs. missile flight test ban (latter preferable it seems)
Reply-to: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA (MF for IMSSS.STANFORD.EDU)
LIN> Date: Sat 11 Jan 86 12:55:14-EST
LIN> From: Herb Lin <LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
LIN> ... Most military planners would not want to rely on a weapon
LIN> that has been operationally untested for even a few years. However,
LIN> even if it took ten years, it would still achieve the desired result
LIN> before operational weapons resulting from the SDI could be fielded.
LIN> ... Moreover, the cost of implementing a
LIN> flight test ban is very small compared to that of the SDI;
So far, so good, flight test ban seems equivalent to SDI, and much cheaper.
LIN> More importantly, it would have little effect on our capabilities
LIN> for retaliation, since only a fraction of our nuclear arsenal would
LIN> be necessary to cause unacceptable damage to the Soviet Union. Thus,
LIN> Soviet leaders could not be assured that our missiles could not
LIN> carry out a retaliatory strike, and they could not act with impunity.
Now it sounds like flight test ban is even better than SDI because SDI
could render retaliatory strike impotent with high probability wheras
flight test ban wouldn't. I think ftb is the way to go, not SDI.
Thanks for passing along the idea. Let's go with it.
LIN> ... prime topic for discussion at the upcoming summit.
That's the hard part, disgorging Reagan from SDI.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 86 09:39:32 est
From: ihnp4!clyde!watmath!bnr-vpa!pdbain@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V6 #17.2
A lot of the postings have as their list of subjects "see digets
such and such". If it is not too much trouble, it would be helpful
if you could actually put in the list of subjects.
[That will happen shortly; a lot of the trouble has been the MC
mailer, and those problems should vanish when ARMS-D moves to XX.]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 86 08:37:40 EST
From: Michael_Joseph_Edelman%Wayne-MTS%UMich-MTS.Mailnet@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject: Space Invaders
From: "Dave Caulkins; Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility; 415-322-3778" <cdp!caulkins@glacier>
Subject: Offensive Star Wars lasers
... 'in a matter of hours, a laser defense
system powerful enough to cope with the ballistic missile threat
can also destroy the enemy's major cities by fire. ... the
attack time for each city beung only a matter of minutes. ...'
... 'Such mass fires might be
expected to generate smoke in amounts comparable to the amounts
generated in some major nuclear exchange scenarios.' ... That
could cause 'a climatic disaster similar to nuclear winter,' ...
This seems a little doubtful to me; there's a great deal of difference
between destroying a warhead- which requires a lot of energy- and
setting cities afire. As others have pointed out, New York isn't
quite as flammable as Tokyo was in 1943.
And that still leaves the somewhat thorny problem for the
attacker of retaliation from ICBMs in their rather laser-resistant
concrete and earth silos. Seems like another attempted end-run by
the anti-SDI group.
-Mike
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************