ARMS-D-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA (Moderator) (12/07/85)
Arms-Discussion Digest Saturday, December 7, 1985 1:38PM
Volume 5, Issue 47
Today's Topics:
Excerpts from Senate Testimony on Nuclear War Strategy (1981)
SADM deployment
The Cold War (reply to Karl Dahlke)
Re: Exploiting any information
Arms-Discussion Digest V5 #22
Retaliation for Reagan's un-off-mike joke, signals of attack
Admit we really have been a (cold-)war all along?
nuclear-powered cruise missiles
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 85 23:41:50 EST
From: Clifford Johnson <GA.CJJ at Forsythe>@MIT-MC.ARPA
Re said Feb. 1981 report, its subject is PD-59, and in particular
it addresses the concept of limited nuclear war, which everybody
agrees is impossible, but the U.S. argues that it must have
limited retaliatory options in the SIOP because the Ruskies will
think it incredible that the U.S. would retaliate massively because
of a limited Soviet attack. It's a bit ambiguous, as always, re
launch on warning, but this in conjunction with other documents
make the existence of LOWC as a SIOP option clear:
"SEN. PERCY: We have had in our lifetime experience where a
nation waged war because in their perception they were acting in
anticipation of a hostile action that was going to be waged
against them. Certainly if we had intelligence that we were going
to be attacked at Pearl Harbor, we would have done something about it
then, rather then waiting to retaliate. [Ironically, the U.S. did
have this information, but no-one paid attention due to the more
engrossing intersticial defense rivalries, as described in Ford's
"The Button".] Do we have a plan? If our intelligence, for
instance, gave us 100-percent assurance that there was an intended
strike on us unless we did something about it, what would we do?
Do we have such a plan to deal with such a hypothetical situation?
SEC. BROWN: There are options that cover that situation. (Deleted.)
SEN. PERCY: Would you say then, in your judgment (deleted). Because
I can recall when Tom Watson and I, 20 years ago, were at NORAD,
that famous, or infamous, incident occurred - when all hell broke
loose; they were absolutely convinced there were missiles coming at
us.
THE CHAIRMAN: Was it a flock of ducks?
SEN. PERCY: It was radar reflections off the moon or something.
They didn't retaliate or do anything; they straightened it out.
SEC. BROWN: That matter has been a matter of discussion before me in
other committees. I think launch under attack is something that is
important to have as an option, but the time to decide, and only the
President can decide, in terms of retaliation, in terms of launching
missiles, is so short and the possibilities of mechanical malfunction,
computer malfunction, so great that I don't think that that is a
credible sole strategy. Let me put it this way: The Soviets should
not be able to count, AND I THINK AREN'T ABLE TO COUNT, on our
not doing it, but we surely should not count on being able to.
That is uncomfortable [sic; unconstitutional?] but that is the way
it is, and I think that contributes to deterrence. Ed, you have
thought about this, I know, a lot.
SEN. MUSKIE: Let me give you the specifics of it. (Deleted.)"
To: LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 85 09:31:36 pst
From: Gary Chapman <PARC-CSLI!chapman@glacier>
Subject: SADM deployment
This is in response to Bob Carter's questions about SADMs.
As far as I know, SADM training is only available for Special Foces teams,
which of course is Army. (Special Forces are the "Green Berets.") When I
went through SADM training, it seemed to me that most if not all the people
taking the training were also qualified in some specialized form of infil-
tration, usually HALO. HALO is "high altitude-low opening" parachute
infiltration, in which you jump from about 30,000 feet (with oxygen), and
open at about 800-1,000 feet (that's about 100 seconds of free fall). A
HALO team consists of twelve men. We usually jumped from C-130s. The
tactical plan for a HALO infiltration is very complicated, using C-130
"Blackbird" aircraft that are chock full of electronic jamming and decoy
equipment, muffled engines, no lights, etc. The aircraft with the HALO team
on board is usually accompanied by other decoy aircraft that are also putting
out lots of EW signals so that the whole range of radar bandwith is scrambled.
(A Blackbird pilot once told me he could drop us in Red Square if that's
where we wanted to go, but then you know the egos of Air Force pilots...)
We never jumped with SADMs. All the SADM training I took was in the class-
room, which by the way was always guarded by a number of armed MPs.
Special Forces extraction plans are classified information, for the most
part. Actually they are not that exotic: the classified plans are what are
called "E & E", or "escape and evasion" plans, which I can't describe in
any detail. There is training in conventional extractions like getting out
by submarine pick-up. There used to be the "Star" extraction system, which
was featured in the John Wayne movie, "The Green Berets," in which the man
on the ground gets into a harness attached to an inflatable helium balloon,
and a specially equipped C-130 flies over and grabs the cable under the
balloon and hauls the guy into the aircraft. Hoo, boy, I could tell some
funny stories about that Rube Goldberg piece of equipment! It was abandoned
because I think they would test it on 25 year-old soldiers and find they
were 50 years old when they got out of the harness in the aircraft...
What are SADMs supposed to be used for? Mostly targets that are too big to
be blown up by conventional explosives, but too small to be hit with an
ICBM or a cruise missile. Like a big bridge, or a dam, or a radar instal-
lation. That kind of thing. Actually, in my humble opinion, I think SADMs
are a stupid idea, and just an example of the Army playing "Me too!" The
Army has always been envious of the Air Force and the Navy being the really
"serious" purveyors of nuclear weapons, so they had to think up some way to
use nukes themselves. So we got SADMs and nuclear artillery shells, which
are both kind of stupid. Of course now the Army has Pershing 2s, so they've
managed to get into the major leagues at long last.
--Gary
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 85 10:04:30 PST
From: walton%Deimos@CIT-Hamlet.ARPA
Subject: The Cold War (reply to Karl Dahlke)
In Volume 5, number 29, Karl Dahlke writes
> During the recent arms control negotiations, the issue of human rights was
> raised again and again. We (the U.S.) seem to be saying "shape up, or no
> substantive arms agreements will be forthcoming". I believe this is an
> irresponsible position that is, at best, counterproductive. ...
>
> Now consider their perspective (something rarely done). Their homeland has
> been invaded repeatedly, and 20,000,000 died during the last war. Now,
> they want lots of "communist" territory between them and the west. This
> helps explain (not justify) their expansionist tendencies. They believe we
> increase our sphere of influence through subtle manipulative economic
> means. The Solviets consider this to be as bad as an invasion.
> Furthermore, they claim we violate human rights daily, albeit indirectly.
> Our government sits back, and watches the cycle of poverty repeat in our
> filthy slums. They consider our level of crime to be a constant affront
> to human rights. They have such simple solutions, namely a controlled
> economy and a closed strong government. If only we would shape up!!!
May I politely but firmly suggest that Mr. Dahlke read the lead editorial,
titled "The Cold War", in a recent issue of The New Republic. I will
summarize its main points, with which I totally agree. Keep in mind that
this is coming from a lifelong Democratic voter who believes that there is
almost nothing which the Reagan Administration has done right since
January 20, 1980. If he has a little more time, he might consider picking
up Hedrick Smith's book "The Russians" and read that too.
The Soviet Union and the United States have fundamentally different views
about the role of the individual in society. In the Soviet Union and in
the United States, it is front-page news when a poor black is executed for
committing a heinous murder. It is front-page news (but only outside the
Soviet Union) when a physicist who has done nothing except criticize his
government is allowed to make a phone call to his children--his first one
in 6 years. In the United States, journalists work for privately owned
organizations and are primarily in an adversary relationship with the
government. In the Soviet Union, journalists work for the government and
their function in life is to justify the government's actions to the
people.
We must never forget that the Soviet Union is both a totalitarian
dictatorship and a direct descendant of the Czarist Russian Empire. Lenin
spent the years from 1920 to 1925 reconquering the portions of said Empire
which thought that the overthrow of the Czar meant they were independent.
The Western allies almost totally disarmed "virtually on the morrow of the
1945 victory," whereas the Soviet Union maintained its very large standing
army. This army was then used to crush the life out of the democratic
resistance movements which fought the Nazis in Eastern Europe, occupy
them, and add them to the Russian Empire. In 1946, the Soviet Union
vetoed, in the UN Security Council, the Baruch plan, which would have put
all nuclear-related developments under the control of an international
agency WITH NO BIG-POWER VETO. The only other vote against the plan was
that of the Soviet-installed Communist government of Poland. Despite
having swallowed 500 miles of territory, they were and are unwilling to
accept limits to the growth of their influence, and have not reduced their
paranoia about the outside threat posed by the West.
Why can this happen? Because there are always those, like Mr. Dahlke, who
are willing to make the Soviet Union's case for them in the West. It is
difficult, but important, to remember that many in the United States in
the 1930's and 40's thought that Stalin was a democrat, which is why they
were willing to let him conquer Eastern Europe--behavior which they would
never have allowed Czarist Russia to get away with. My employer and his
wife are fluent in Russian. In the early 1960's, they lived in Kiev for 6
months, spoke with ordinary Russians in Russian, and saw many parts of the
country which Westerners don't usually see. When they returned,
friends simply refused to believe their stories about what life there was
like--friends who couldn't speak Russian and had never been to the Soviet
Union. For example, the areas in the Soviet Union to which Westerners
are not allowed to travel are primarily regions where there is not much
food. One employee of the Astronomical Institute in Kiev grew up in one
of these closed areas, and she said that the only meat they saw was when a
local farmer surreptitiously slaughtered one of his animals himself rather
than giving it to the central livestock collective. Did Mr. Dahlke know
that grenade-throwing classes are considered a normal part of the Soviet
public high school PE curriculum?
William Pfaff, in an editorial in the LA Times a few weeks back, commented
that the Soviet Union could end the Cold War tomorrow if they chose. The
United States really doesn't care what the Soviets do to their own people.
We do care when 120,000 Soviet troops are in Afghanistan, 2 million Soviet
troops are in Eastern Europe. If the Soviets were to agree to remove the
troops and weapons of themselves and their allies from Eastern Europe,
Afghanistan, Africa, and Asia, the United States would be forced by
domestic and foreign opinion to do the same. They haven't done this.
They won't do it. They believe, really deep down in their heart of
hearts, that it is their destiny to bring the glory of the Communist
revolution to the rest of the world.
"The Capitalist will sell you the rope to hang him with."--Lenin
Stephen Walton
Caltech Solar Astronomy
walton%deimos@cit-hamlet.arpa
swalton@caltech.bitnet
...!ucbvax!cithep!hamlet#walton@deimos
------------------------------
Date: 6 Dec 85 16:33:30 PST (Friday)
From: Hoffman.es@Xerox.ARPA
Subject: Re: Exploiting any information
Jeff,
You ask whether I really think the USA could possibly be equivalent to
the KGB in effective disinformation. Frankly, yes. I doubt that the
KGB's disinformation reaches as many people worldwide as the Great
Communicator. Further, Reagan is believed and trusted by more people
than is any other person or government. (Unjustifiably, in my opinion.)
You say "The information [about KGB internal organization] is
available." I've seen only a little. Would you care to recommend a
good source?
You further say "most non-techspec data is made available in
unclassified form". Well, we couldn't disagree more, and I can't think
of anything you or I could say to one another to change the other's
mind, so I won't pursue the point.
re: "I will assume something in my examples touched upon one of your
personal beliefs." Only my belief that most governments and politicians
(ours AND theirs) are liars not to be believed, and I do get tired of
your examples assuming only the other side lies and manipulates people.
--Rodney Hoffman
------------------------------
Date: 1985 December 06 23:45:14 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@IMSSS.STANFORD.EDU>
SUBJECT:Retaliation for Reagan's un-off-mike joke, signals of attack
Reply-to: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA (temporary until nameservers up)
| Date: Wed, 4 Dec 85 11:42:03 EST
| From: Clifford Johnson <GA.CJJ at Forsythe>@MIT-MC.ARPA
| (6) After Reagan's "joke", Moscow sent a "joke" message to its Siberian
| forces to attack U.S. Pacific forces in 30 mins. The reaction was a
| major alert of U.S./ Japanese forces, until Moscow's cancellation
| order arrived 20 minutes later. We never even heard of this till
| it was leaked months later.
I never heard of it until now. Can we have more details? Was the order
so obviously absurd that no commander took it seriously, or was it
apparently valid and only upon rescind did the commanders realize it
had been a joke from the start? What would have happened if some
commander seeing a US battleship only a few miles away and wishing to
be a "hero" had taken it upon himself to attack the battlship only 19
minutes after he command, one minute before the rescind?
| Date: Wed, 4 Dec 85 11:42:07 EST
| From: Herb Lin <LIN at MIT-MC.ARPA>@MIT-MC.ARPA
| I also call the take-off of the POacific command post
| a strategically significant decision.
| Why? Indeed, why should any measure taken to enhance survivability
| that does not also imply a committment to offensive action be regarded
| as strategically significant (in the sense of making war more likely)?
A few years ago it was stated that if suddenly all our cities were
evacuated as a "drill" the soviets might think we were doing that in
preparation for a first strike, and they might strike first before our
evacuation could complete. Since evacuation doesn't attack the enemy,
it merely defends ourselves in event they attack us, wouldn't
evacuation and takeoff of command post be similar, indicating we were
preparing to attack, and thus inciting a pre-emptive counterattack?
------------------------------
Date: 1985 December 06 22:53:31 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@IMSSS.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:Admit we really have been a (cold-)war all along?
Reply-to: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA (temporary until nameservers up)
While reading LIN's discussion on whether LOW is constitutional or
usurpts Congress's war-making power, it occurred to me that maybe in
effect we really have been at war all along but afraid to admit it.
For about 30 years we have been saying we're in a "cold war", which
usualy emphasized propaganda and bad feelings mixed with on&off puppet
wars around the "third world". But all this time we've had a much more
real state of war which I'll try to convey below.
In the old days (150 years ago), if an atagonistic nation had moved
its armies to where it could destroy your capital within 15 minutes,
we'd be alarmed and force the enemy troops to withdraw or be
destroyed. We'd consider positionning troops 15 minutes from our
capitol and posed to strike to be an act of war itself. But for the
past 10-20-some-odd years that's just what we've had, submarines off
our east coast with thermonuclear missiles. Likewise from bases in
Turkey and W.Germany the USSR has been threatened by our missiles. In
the old days we'd consider that a state of war existed, even if war
hadn't yet been declared. Perhaps we should admit the "cold war" is in
fact a technical state of war? (But we should break the news to USSR
carefully so they don't think we're trying to start a real (hot) war!!)
Now that we've admited we've been at war for many years, we should
concentrate on ending the war as soon as possible, by agreements to
draw back our poised weapons to where LOW won't be needed to deter them.
((Flaming replies eagerly invited.))
------------------------------
From: decvax!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 85 02:49:49 est
Subject: nuclear-powered cruise missiles
> Power. With a more powerful engine one can add armor to the
> missile, reducing the effectiveness of antimissile weapons.
It is very difficult for an aircraft of any sort (which is what a cruise
missile is) to carry enough armor to usefully protect it against anything
much heavier than a 30mm shell. That is about the level of protection
claimed for the A-10, possibly the most heavily-armored aircraft now flying.
As various people have pointed out, a few 75mm shells or a good antiaircraft
missile would probably wreck an A-10, armor notwithstanding. Armoring
cruise missiles does not seem a useful approach.
> Also, current cruise missiles must attack their targets on
> flat terminal trajectories, because they have insufficient
> power to climb & dive at steep angles. A nuclear powered missile
> would avoid this problem...
Older antiship missiles do in fact climb-and-dive for the final attack
maneuver. Newer ones *don't*, because this maneuver is considered to make
the missile a good deal *more* vulnerable to fast-acting close-in defences.
The newer antiship missiles use a different style of terminal maneuver,
dropping from their (low) cruising altitude to belly-gets-wet altitude for
the final attack.
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************