ARMS-D-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA (Moderator) (01/12/86)
Arms-Discussion Digest Sunday, January 12, 1986 11:29AM
Volume 6, Issue 19
Today's Topics:
SDI and missile flight test ban
SDI goals
Beyond War
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat 11 Jan 86 12:55:14-EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: SDI and missile flight test ban
In light of the recent comments on SDI, I thought I'd share the
following letter that appeared in the NY Times on 9/26/85
To the Editor:
The Pentagon response to the OTA report on ballistic missile defense
(news story, September 26) that "effective defenses would greatly
increase an attacker's uncertainties as to whether his weapons would
penetrate the defenses" is a hopeful sign for the proponents of arms
control. Specifically, the statement suggests that the desired
@ux[goal] is increased uncertainty; the Strategic Defense Initiative
(SDI) is only one of several methods to that goal.
Another method to achieve the same goal would be a comprehensive ban
on the flight testing of all ballistic missiles. Over time, the
inability to test missiles would invariably lead to doubts about
their reliability. Since a first strike requires missiles of
certifiably high reliability, these doubts would induce Soviet
caution regarding a decision to launch a first strike in much the
same way that missile defenses would do so.
It would take time for a ban on flight testing to affect
significantly Soviet confidence in the reliability of their
missiles. Most military planners would not want to rely on a weapon
that has been operationally untested for even a few years. However,
even if it took ten years, it would still achieve the desired result
before operational weapons resulting from the SDI could be fielded.
A flight test ban has other advantages over the SDI. For example,
the technical risk is much lower; while argument exists over the
technological feasibility of ballistic missile defenses intended to
protect populations, virtually all analysts agree that the lack of
missile flight testing would over time erode confidence in the
performance of these missiles. Moreover, the cost of implementing a
flight test ban is very small compared to that of the SDI; for
example, verification of a flight test ban would be possible today,
through satellites and other means already deployed.
Of course, a flight test ban would also affect American confidence
in the performance of its weapons. But no less an authority than
President Reagan himself has suggested that sharing defensive
technology with the Soviets would be a good thing; a mutual ban on
flight testing achieves the same result.
More importantly, it would have little effect on our capabilities
for retaliation, since only a fraction of our nuclear arsenal would
be necessary to cause unacceptable damage to the Soviet Union. Thus,
Soviet leaders could not be assured that our missiles could not
carry out a retaliatory strike, and they could not act with
impunity.
A ban on missile flight testing would be a way to achieve the stated
goal of the SDI at much lower cost and technical risk. It would
build upon past arms control achievements and contribute to improved
Soviet-American relations. In light of Soviet desires to limit
sharply the SDI program and American desires to increase Soviet
uncertainty, the exchange of a mutual ban on flight testing in
exchange for sharp limits on BMD research on both sides should be a
prime topic for discussion at the upcoming summit.
Comments from the readership welcome.
------------------------------
Date: 11 Jan 1986 17:33-EST
From: Nicholas.Spies@H.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: SDI goals
In ARMS-D V6 #18.3 Herb Lin says: "No matter what goal you
give it, SDI isn't the way to go."
...with one exception: SDI has proven to be a wonderful way to
part fools and their money. The political processes that can
give life to such fantasies as SDI have a greater strategic
importance in the long term than SDI itself, for after SDI what
new bogosity will be foisted on us and the world, and why?
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 86 18:41:08 PST
From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Beyond War
foy@aero writes:
> Spencer calls the Beyond War Awards a farce if Argentina, Greece and India
> didn't say anything about their own conflicts with UK, Chile, Turkey and
> Pakistan. They of course did not. However that doesn't make the Awards a
> farce.
Upon reflection, you are right. They weren't a farce, because there was
nothing funny about it. They were a travesty. They were the international
analog of two street gangs, fighting over some insult or other, blood
dripping from their fists and switchblades, suddenly stopping for a moment
to point accusing fingers at a passing mobster and to indignantly demand
that the police arrest the criminal!
> ...Spencer did not seem to be able to include Sweden and Tanzania in his
> comments... also neglected to include the President of Mexico...
50% is not a very good batting record. The Swedes have been conspicuously
neutral for quite a while, and I don't think the Mexicans have fought anyone
recently. Tanzania I'm unsure about, so I'll give them the benefit of the
doubt. These countries are not themselves to blame, but they've fallen
into bad company.
> Argentina has had a complete change of government since the
> Falklands/Malvinas incident...
So? The new government isn't showing any signs of being more peaceful about
it than the old one. There isn't even a formal ceasefire, which is why the
Falklands' two airports are the most heavily-defended RAF bases on Earth.
If Argentina is seriously interested in world peace, surely a formal pledge
not to attempt to settle the issue by force would be a forward step! I tend
to agree that this particular impasse may be unresolvable by normal diplomacy,
but it would certainly be peaceful of Argentina to try. Similarly, I haven't
heard of any attempt to negotiate the Beagle Channel dispute. The significant
datum is not the absence of peaceful settlement, but the lack of any attempt
at one.
> ...The fact that the new President of Argentina has not seen fit to conceed
> to the UK or to Chile on the dispute in no way invalidates his concern about
> the need to find other ways of conflict resolution that with nuclear arms.
Then why hasn't Argentina signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty??
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
> I am not as knowledgeable about the dispute between Greece and Turkey. I
> also doubt that Greece is seriously considering going to war with Turkey
> over this dispute.
Now, no. But they were shooting at each other in deadly earnest a decade
ago, and I'm not aware of any formal settlement. This sort of internal war
between two NATO members is the last thing we need! I admit that the Greeks
were largely the attackees rather than the attackers, but efforts at a
negotiated peace would still be welcome.
> The current Gandhi is certainly not as skilled as the first one in the use
> of non-violent means in conflict resolution. This in no ways invalidates
> his comments about nuclear war.
In general India has been all too willing to fight with Pakistan rather than
attempting peaceful settlements. I see no sign of great change in this. As
for nuclear war, note that India is a nuclear power. Despite clumsy lies
about "nuclear explosives for peaceful uses", no such "peaceful use" has
appeared in the decade since India exploded its first bomb. If India really
wants to make a contribution to avoiding nuclear war, why don't they scrap
their nuclear weapons capability and open their reactors to IAEA inspection?
Such an unprecedented voluntary abandoning of nuclear weapons would do more
for non-proliferation, and hence world peace, than a hundred hypocritical
"peace initiatives"!
> The fact that I may not have settled all of my disputes with my wife, boss,
> fellow workers, or people on this net in no way invalidates my comments
> about nuclear war...
True, but a violent long-running dispute with your wife would cast grave
doubts on your qualifications as a marriage counselor! If you can't get your
own disputes settled, you should refrain from rebuking others about their
inability to solve theirs. What Argentina, Greece, and India are really
saying is "we'd really prefer that you avoid destroying the world, so we can
carry on with destroying the specific parts of it that we don't like".
> ...Disputes between nuclear powers
> are qualtively different from disputes between non nuclear powers...
"The rich are very different from us." "Yes, they have more money."
I see no qualitative difference between the USA and the USSR disagreeing
over who should run Afghanistan, and the UK and Argentina disagreeing over
who should run the Falklands. Quantitative, perhaps, due to the greater
potential for worldwide disaster -- although note that the UK is a nuclear
power and Argentina probably will be soon -- but the fundamental problems
seem awfully similar. Insights on solving one would presumably help to solve
the other.
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************