ARMS-D-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA (Moderator @MIT-MC.ARPA) (12/07/85)
Arms-Discussion Digest Tuesday, November 19, 1985 10:36AM
Volume 5, Issue 24
Today's Topics:
SDI
Archeology shows war is aggression is cultural not genetic
SDI
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 85 19:11:21 est
From: Walter Hamscher <hamscher@mit-htvax>
Subject: SDI
Assume that one wants to shoot down Soviet satellites in high orbit.
Impact or explosive weapons like the ASAT system tested last
year are no good because the boosters take too long to get into
the neighborhood to do their business. If you're trying to pull
off a first strike, the Soviets get too much warning time to
launch their counterstrike. If the Soviets launched first and
you're trying to knock out their communication satellites it'll
be too late by the time your ASAT gets up there. What you need
is something that's already up there in orbit-- something that
can hit targets way up above it-- hit them really fast.
But say for some reason you think that politically you couldn't
push a development program for this through Congress. Instead
you sell the whole development program as a system for shooting
down Soviet missiles. No matter that it's much harder to aim at
thousands of things zooming through the atmosphere than a few
dozen things lolling about in predictable orbits with nothing to
obstruct the view. The public eats it up because it promises to
"Kill bombs, not people."
Well-meaning intelligent technical people argue endlessly over
whether or not we could put something powerful enough to do any
good up there in orbit, will we be able to destroy warheads with
lasers, can we write the software to manage the whole thing, ad
infinitum. In fact after a couple of years and spending a few
million dollars you'll be able to find lots of things that show
that Strategic Defense as you originally promoted it just ain't
possible. But that won't matter.
By that time people are used to the idea. They've been
tantalized by the prospect-- they're primed for a proposal to do
a much more moderate, scaled down "Strategic Defense" based on
the same technologies that were studied for shooting down
missiles-- a system for shooting down Soviet satellites, which,
lo and behold, has been discovered to be much easier than
shooting down missiles in flight. Indeed, maybe one of those
panels of experts appointed to study SDI proposes this for you.
All you have to do is convince the public that this is almost as
effective a "defensive" system as the missile-destroying
variety, but lots easier and cheaper.
It's just like the $2000 sweaters in the display case at
Nieman-Marcus. Gullible customers go inside, see a $300
sweater, and think it's a bargain.
The Strategic Defense Initiative is a Trojan Horse. I predict
that during 1986, the Reagan administration's "Star Wars"
proposal will get scaled down -- to a system for shooting down
satellites.
Walter Hamscher
MIT AI Lab
(include |standard disclaimer|)
------------------------------
Date: 18 Nov 1985 2215-PST
From: Rem@IMSSS
Subject: Archeology shows war is aggression is cultural not genetic
TO:ARMS-D@MIT-MC
SUBJECT:Leakey answers question whether human aggression is genetic or culture
In the current (last?) episode of The Making of Mankind, "Survival of
the Species", Richard Leakey tries to answer the question that ARMS-D
posed a year or so ago: whether human aggression, warfare, etc. is
genetic (Homo Sapiens = "killer ape") or cultural (modern society =
"killer society"). He concludes, based on archeology and the past 30
years of change in the !Kung people of south Africa, that it is
cultural. He says it isn't our ability to kill that made our species
successful. Rather it is our ability to cooperate, men bringing back
food they've scavanged to feed their families (previous episode gave
details on this: allowing women to bear children as fast as biology
wll permit, instead of having to wait 4 years until their previous
child can walk for miles a day before they can have another).
Organized warfare is an artifact of the change from hunter-gatherer to
farming, about 10,000 years ago (15 years ago in case of !Kung), where
it was no longer possible to simply move elsewhere when threatened,
because now so much had been invested in plowing&planting fields or in
building habitat or in acquiring material possessions that couldn't be
carted away en masse.
Did anyone else on this discussion list see the series on PBS, or at
least this last episode, so we can discuss this further?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 85 8:46:36 EST
From: Jeff Miller AMSTE-TEI 4675 <jmiller@apg-1>
Subject: SDI
The message recorded below was found in Space Digest V6 #23. As
the author expressed uncertainty as to which forum best suited
his topic, I thought I'd take the liberty of piping it along to
ARMS-D.
J. MILLER
******************************************************************************
Date: 18 Nov 85 00:36:12 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!brl-tgr!gwyn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Doug Gwyn <ucdavis!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!brl-
Subject: Re: Star-Wars/Space Telescopes
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
> Consequently, the best source for Stars Wars research support is
> Eugene Velikov, (no relation to Velikovsky) of the Academy of
> Science, Moscow, a head of Kurchatov, and a mastermind of their
> own advanced Star Wars effort at Krasnaya Pachra and other Russian
> military labs, (so secure that even scientists from the "Eastern
> Allies" can not visit them). Incidentally, Velikov has lobbied
> Senator Pell and others against our new fledgling program and
> has served on disarmament committees. My own personal information
> is that the Russian program was in progress at least as far back
> as 1976. I suspect the Russians have made a monumental discovery
> and are not willing to share it with us, and if I am correct as
> to what is is, I don't blame them because in a few more years it
> will give them a massive military edge. I also think the concept
> of their program is considerably more aggressive (offensive) than
> ours.
It is, I thought, well known that the Soviets test-fired a
neutral particle beam "weapon" several years ago. One assumes
that they are farther along by now.
If it weren't so dangerous, it would be almost amusing how
readily a lot of Americans (apparently including the President
himself) jump at the chance to bargain away strategic defense
at the negotiating table. The only logic for a strategic defense
would preclude failing to deploy it. If you read the memoirs
of high-level Soviet defectors (not ballet performers, but those
involved in the military, intelligence, or diplomatic service),
you will find that it is quite common for the Soviets to
encourage nuclear-freeze, unilateral disarmament, and anti-
defense movements in the U.S. Often this is not as overt as
Velikov lobbying in the Senate. But if you're the least bit
suspicious of the Soviet government having our best interests at
heart, you might be able to conclude what their perception of
the real worth of America's military development is. Of course,
your values may not be quite the same as theirs..
This subject should probably move off net.physics, but I don't
know where it belongs. Sorry.
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************