ARMS-D-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA (Moderator) (01/02/86)
Arms-Discussion Digest Thursday, January 2, 1986 9:58AM
Volume 5, Issue 84
Today's Topics:
Conflict Resolution
Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V5 #80
Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V5 #83
SDI Satire
ABM Treaty
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 86 02:13:40 EST
From: alpert@harvard.HARVARD.EDU (Richard Alpert)
Subject: Conflict Resolution
> From: Herb Lin <LIN@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
>
> Most of the arguments about the need to improve relations and resolve
> conflict without violence miss an important point. Even relations
> between friendly nations require armed forces in the background,
> because relations do change. No one would argue that better relations
> between nations are a good thing, but no nation would disarm even if
> it had good relations with all the world, becasue no one could be sure
> that those relations would last.
Neither the United States nor the Soviet Union maintain large numbers of
highly skilled "go" players, because no one could even imagine settling
disputes between the two countries by holding a "go" tournement. Armies
are needed because war is an practiced method of resolving international
conflict. If the world were such that no one could even imagine settling
disputes between countries by holding a war, countries would not
invest even small percentages of their gross national products on arms and
armed forces. Yes, given the current state of the world, armed forces are
necessary..... given the currrent state of the world.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 86 05:45:09 PST
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V5 #80
Soviet subs are very effective anti-ship weapons since they carry a mix of
surface-to-surface missiles and torpedoes. Land-based aircraft are also
effective, but can't strike until the target is fairly close to the air base.
The Soviets don't have any big carriers (yet), so they try to fill in the
gap with missile frigates and subs.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 86 06:05:36 PST
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V5 #83
In the computer game North Atlantic '86, the primary goal is to supply
England after a conventional war in Europe. The only way to get the
ships past the Soviet blockade of ships, subs and aircraft is with
carrier task forces and our own subs. Without the carrier's air cover,
missiles from ships, subs and planes would decimate the slow cargo
ships.
Of course, the carriers could be destroyed by a close hit from a nuclear
warhead. But if the situation is that bad, everybody will end up getting
nuked, since we have no defense against that type of attack.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 86 09:20:04 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: SDI Satire
'Twas the Night before Christmas -- The Very Last One
-----------------------------------------------------
(Anon. 1986)
'Twas the night before Christmas -- the very last one --
When the blazing of lasers destroyed all our fun.
Just as Santa had lifted off, driving his sleigh,
A satellite spotted him making his way.
The Star Wars Defense System -- Reagan's desire
Was ready for action, and started to fire!
The laser beams criss-crossed and lit up the sky
Like a fireworks show on the Fourth of July.
I'd just finished wrapping the last of the toys
When out of my chimney there came a great noise.
I looked to the fireplace, hoping to see
St. Nick bringing presents for missus and me.
But what I saw next was disturbing and shocking:
A flaming red jacket setting fire to my stocking!
Charred reindeer remains and a melted sleigh-bell;
Outside burning toys like confetti they fell.
So now you know, children, why Christmas is gone:
The Star Wars computer had got something wrong.
Only programmed for battle, it hadn't a heart;
'Twas hardly a chance it would work from the start.
It couldn't be tested, and no one could tell,
If the crazy contraption would work very well.
So after a trillion or two had been spent
The system thought Santa a Red missle sent.
So kids dry your tears now, and get off to bed,
There won't be a Christmas -- since Santa is dead.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 86 09:22:56 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: ABM Treaty
The ABM Treaty bans the testing and development of "components" of ABM
systems. There is currently a raging debate over what exactly
constitutes a "component", and how one can determine that something is
a component or not. For example, the SDIO asserts that a component is
something that can perform *all* of the functions of a sub-system
needed for missile defense -- therefore, an airborne tracker is not a
component if it cannot communicate with the ground even if it can
track more warheads than a ground-based radar.
Anyone care to flame on what differentiates components from
sub-components?
Thanks.
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************