ARMS-D-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA (Moderator) (01/11/86)
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"war is obsolete" vs. "S&M is obsolete"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Bruce Neven discusses the Beyond War slogan, "War Is Obsolete."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: 1986 January 09 18:15:02 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@IMSSS> (this host known locally only)
Subject: 50% effective means what?
Reply-to: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA (MF for IMSSS.STANFORD.EDU)
JF: Date: 3 Jan 86 04:35:01 GMT
JF: From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!ritcv!moscom!jens@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
(Jens Fiederer)
JF: Subject: Re: Aviation Week on Star Wars
JF: Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
JF: To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
(This belongs on ARMS-D not SPACE so I'm re-directing reply)
JF: ... A 50% effective SDI protecting our missiles would mean that
JF: we need 50% fewer missiles for "defensive" purposes.
Please explain your mathematics. I thought a "50% effective SDI" meant
that 50% of the warheads get through, not that 50% of the targets
survive. If we have 10 times overkill, with say 99% of targets
destroyed, if we reduce that overkill to 5 times (by knocking out the
other 5 with our SDI), what percent of targets are now destroyed?
Contrarywise, if enemy missiles can destroy only 20% of our missiles in
their silos, and we knock out half that with SDI so they can destroy
only 10% of our missiles in their silos, that increases our remaining
(surviving) missiles from originally 80% to now 90% and I don't see
how decreasing the total number of our missiles by half is a
reasonable response.
My current opinion is that you threw together words in a way that
sounded nice but without reasoning out what you were saying.
------------------------------
Date: 9 Jan 1986 22:12-EST
From: Nicholas.Spies@H.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Goals Worth Persuing
Rather than going to pains to misquote Jim McGrath again I
would ask him to explain what he means by the phrase "the
non-transitive nature of the utility functions of voters". It
sounds pretty bogus to me, if only because it depersonalizes
the act of voting hopelessly. Is this necessary? Please make
your further points in English rather than in
scientific-engineering cant. You`ll find your arguments have
much more appeal if they are simply stated. --Nick
------------------------------
Date: Thu 9 Jan 86 20:34:45-PST
From: Jim McGrath <J.JPM@Epic>
Subject: Re: International Order
Reply-to: mcgrath%mit-oz@mit-mc.arpa
9-Jan-86 18:58:08-PST,1017;000000000001
If I am falling from the top of the World Trade Center, then saying
that "I will die when I hit the ground" is also "not a satisfactory
response, under the circumstances" (to use your phrase). But I would
be lying if I said anything else.
We may eventually get an international enforcement system. But if we
do, we will not get it peacefully (my point). The first problem is in
envisioning a scenario where such a peaceful evolution would be
possible. The second is selling that scenario over the other possible
scenarios that bring us international order - but with a violent price
tag. I think the latter problem is more difficult to solve than the
former.
The collective threat is anything but clear. And if it were made
clear, the correct (peaceful) answer to the threat is unknown. And if
known, I doubt you could convince people to go along with it, when
violence is probably so much neater (and, for some, more profitable).
Call me a pessimist, although I prefer realist.
Jim
------------------------------
Date: Thu 9 Jan 86 20:43:25-PST
From: Jim McGrath <J.JPM@Epic>
Subject: Re: Deep Strike
Reply-to: mcgrath%mit-oz@mit-mc.arpa
The only problem I can see with a Deep Strike strategy is that, if the
Soviets feel we are carrying the battle to their homeland (ala the
Germans in '41), then they might be tempted to launch a preemptive
strike. This risk can be minimized by 1) confining targets to Eastern
Europe (why else do they have a buffer zone?), 2) making sure that
targets are tactical, not strategic (even if they are in the USSR),
and/or 3) communicating these plans to the Soviets so that all sides
will know that both parties want to keep things limited. On the whole
it is a good option to have, and probably to use, if use carefully.
Do the plans now in existence incorporate any of these elements?
Jim
------------------------------
Date: Thu 9 Jan 86 20:45:53-PST
From: Jim McGrath <J.JPM@Epic>
Subject: Re: International Order
Reply-to: mcgrath%mit-oz@mit-mc.arpa
If I am falling from the top of the World Trade Center, then saying
that "I will die when I hit the ground" is also "not a satisfactory
response, under the circumstances" (to use your phrase). But I would
be lying if I said anything else.
We may eventually get an international enforcement system. But if we
do, we will not get it peacefully (my point). The first problem is in
envisioning a scenerio where such a peaceful evolution would be
possible. The second is selling that scenerio over the other possible
scenerios that bring us international order - but with a violent price
tag. I think the latter problem is more difficult to solve than the
former.
The collective threat is anything but clear. And if it were made
clear, the correct (peaceful) answer to the threat is unknown. And if
known, I doubt you could convince people to go along with it, when
violence is probably so much neater (and, for some, more profitable).
Call me a pessimist, although I prefer realist.
Jim
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************