ARMS-D-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA (Moderator) (12/05/85)
Arms-Discussion Digest Wednesday, December 4, 1985 6:34PM
Volume 5, Issue 43
Today's Topics:
Missing ARMS-D digests
Final Installment of Launch on Warning stuff
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed 4 Dec 85 18:01:08-EST
From: Moderator <ARMS-D-Request%MIT-MC.ARPA@MIT-XX.ARPA>
Subject: missing ARMS-D digests
I screwed up my distribution; Numbers 35, 36, 37 do not exist. Sorry.
Herb Lin
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 85 18:15:47 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN at MIT-MC.ARPA>@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: When all's said and done ... do we have LOWC?
You see I think a nuclear missile is not
conceptually the same as a tactical retaliation.
I happen to agree with that. I also agree that LOW is a bad thing,
because it is irrevocable. But your case hinges on your statement
above, and if you could find a way that your case did not, you'd have
a stronger case. I guess this last series of messages with you has
been an attempt to find an alternative argument, but I think I haven't
been smart enough to come up with one.
I'm asking
the court to declare that such authorization is required by the
Constitution, that activating LOWC is beyond the scope of the
President's limited emergency powers except AFTER armed attack.
Hmmm. This seems to be a different angle. Are you saying that we
know of "armed attack" only after warheads have detonated, and
therefore the President cannot fire missiles untile after detonation?
What about other definitions for armed attack? What if there is *one*
nuclear explosion on US soil? Then are there grounds for doing LOW
for a subsequent warning?
Don't know how you missed the "joke" business; it was headlines
Oct. 3, 1984.
I'll look it up; I knew about Reagan's joke. I didn't know about the
Soviet response.
As I said, we disagree about interpretation of the
Hart/Goldwater incident. I say the fixed procedures predetermined
the so-called human decision to launch the Pacific Command.
Given the (spurious) inputs, that's the reaction the system was
programmed to provide for.
Then you don't believe that man-in-the-loop has any practical effect?
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 85 18:15:50 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN at MIT-MC.ARPA>@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: definitions
Re distinguishing between formal military definitions and
actual actions - there is the substance of my case. It is thought
that the military understand "launch-under-attack" to mean launch
after radar confirmation of satellite warning, and NOT launch-after-
impact.
The usual jargon is that LOW means launch upon warning of incoming
missiles but before detonation. LUA means launch upon confirmed
attack, after at least one detonation.
Where can I get a miltary definition of DEFCONs?
There isn't one that is available in the public literature. You might
try International Security, Spring 1985, "Nuclear Alerts and Crisis
Management", by Scott Sagan, to get a feeling for DEFCON 3.
Herb
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 85 18:15:53 EST
From: Clifford Johnson <GA.CJJ at Forsythe>@MIT-MC.ARPA
REPLY TO 11/27/85 15:43 FROM LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA:
Yep, after detonation my complaint loses its application.
But I've researched LOW and LUA definitions, and it seems
likely that the miltary meaning of LUA is as I suggested, after
radar confirmation of an attack, before impact.
I concede Weinberger'll always keep a TOKEN man-in-the-loop,
he even promises to do so in the Star Wars scenario!
Enjoy the reading when it gets to you, happy thanksgiving,
Cliff
To: LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 85 18:16:13 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN at MIT-MC.ARPA>@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: temporary convergence..
Yep, after detonation my complaint loses its application.
But I've researched LOW and LUA definitions, and it seems
likely that the miltary meaning of LUA is as I suggested, after
radar confirmation of an attack, before impact.
I'd like to see your cites on this; I have also researched LOW and
LUA, and I come to a different conclusion.
I concede Weinberger'll always keep a TOKEN man-in-the-loop,
he even promises to do so in the Star Wars scenario!
Touche.
I think we have converged for the moment; I look forward to seeing the
stuff you send.
Happy Turkey Day.
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************