ARMS-D-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA (Moderator) (12/04/85)
Arms-Discussion Digest Tuesday, December 3, 1985 4:42PM
Volume 5, Issue 38
Today's Topics:
Smuggled Nuclear Weapons
Response to D Rogers ( Whose address is undigestable to ARPA )
Rendering Nuclear Weapons Impotent and Obsolete'
Re: nuclear cruise missiles
Re: Social Responsibility and the Game Designer
The Monumental Breakthrough
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 85 08:28 PST
From: "Morton Jim"@LLL-MFE.ARPA
Subject: Smuggled Nuclear Weapons
It seems to be quite possible to build Nuclear Weapons that are small.
I have seen models of the 155 MM Artilery Fired Atomic Projectile (AFAP)
and it is easy to guess that the Nuclear explosive is smaller than a
two-liter soda-pop bottle. While the yield of an explosive this small is
not great ( I would GUESS under 10 KT ) that is still enough power to
destroy soft targets.
I think there are two problems with emplacement of weapons of this
type. The first is the lack of safety systems. It would be hard to build
a weapon of this type that would be impossible to detonate at will. This
would be a desirable terrorist bomb, one neither the U.S. or Soviet
government would like to see in production.
The second is the lack of positive control. In order to have an
effective attack with emplaced weapons, a large number of them need to be
placed in the target country. It would be fairly easy for one or more of
the weapons to be stolen and misused.
As the U.S. would seem to be more of a target for this kind of attack,
the Soviet Union would be sending the weapons. I do not think the Soviet
government trusts any one person enough to hand them a ten kiloton bomb
and say " Here go bury this bomb. Make sure you dont touch the red button,
that will set it off. " They seem to me to like more central control
of their Nuclear Weapons. I doubt that they would ever start handing
bombs out to the K G B to deliver to the U. S.
If there were a number of bombs emplaced over a large land area, i
think they could be exploded at the same time by exploding one or more
EMP generators in near-space and having the emplaced weapons trigger
on the EMP. The EMP generators could be disguised as spy sattelites
and "steered" to the proper points over the target country. Thus with
one command from the control point, you have both a de-capitating EMP
strike, wiping out command and control, and an emplaced strike that
makes it very hard to be effective in any area near one of the buried
nukes. Most of the military bases I have seen and been on would be
hurt pretty badly by one or two 10 KT bombs burried outside the
fence. ( or parked next to it etc.)
These are my own views and do not represent those of my employer or
any of their contract agencies.
Jim Morton
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 85 14:51:08 EST
From: Jeff Miller AMSTE-TEI 4675 <jmiller@apg-1>
Subject: Response to D Rogers ( Whose address is undigestable to ARPA )
Dear Sir,
Thanks for your message.
I sometimes feel that people allow themselves to become too polarized by
their self-perceptions of being either hawks or doves (i.e. " All dovish ideas
are wrong, all hawkish ideas are right " and vice versa.)
I am usually quite hawkish, but I look upon SDI somewhat ambivalently. I
felt the same about MX. I do not believe that SDI will be worth its costs,
nor do I believe that its existence would force a showdown with the Soviets.
Fellow hawks would probably ostracize me for not vigorously defending the
concept, come what may. They are polarized.
As an officer in W. Germany I was quite supportive of the ERW ("neutron
bomb"). It was the best concept ever forwarded for offsetting the threat's
numerical superiority, by forcing him to disperse his armored formations and
lose the advantage of mass. The best part was that this would be achieved by
deterrent, not employment. In so doing, it would have lessened the liklihood
of the use, in desperation, of tac nukes to break up enemy tank formations.
(almost a certainty under the status quo.) This frightened the Soviets more
than anything in two decades, as it threatened their conventional superiority.
Their massive propaganda campaign found enough people in the West to cause the
demise of ERW. People with no grasp of the weapon system or its concept.
They were polarized - and surely succeeded in dooming many thousands of their
countrymen, and insuring a nuclear escalation, should a Central European war
break out.
Folks in the democratic West had better learn to examine issues logically
rather than ideologically, or they will either push the button too fast, or
the leadership felt politically compelled to accede to whatever misinformed
tide of opinion held sway at a particular time. ( And I will say again: if we
don't find ways to counter the Soviets' huge machine for exploiting
misinformed opinion, we will find that they have finally learned how to make
the Western democracies' hang themselves with their own rope.)
J.Miller
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 85 15:37 EST
From: Jong@HIS-BILLERICA-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject: Rendering Nuclear Weapons Impotent and Obsolete'
Think how much more focussed this dicussion of SDI would be if
President Reagan had used, instead of the subject phrase, what I
contend is the more accurate phrase:
...rendering ICBMs impotent and obsolete...
That kind of limits your expectations, doesn't it?
------------------------------
Date: 3 Dec 1985 15:25-EST
From: Hank.Walker@UNH.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: nuclear cruise missiles
It sounds to me like a nuclear-powered cruise "missile" would be
something more along the lines of a B-52 rather than a flying torpedo.
There goes the cost. It seems more likely that it will be cheaper to
make many stealthy cruise missiles rather than a few semi-impervious
monsters.
1) Range to the target can be greatly reduced from intercontinental
distances by air or sea launch. Even an intercontinental subsonic
cruise missile may be possible with very efficient engines and high
specific energy fuel, as is currently being studied.
2) At supersonic on the deck, air friction and the resulting heat is
probably more of a problem than fuel consumption. Recall that the
SR-71 glows red at Mach 3 at 85,000 feet. I don't know of any vehicles
that can travel supersonic at low altitudes for any length of time. In
the book MiG Pilot, Viktor Belenko said that even though a MiG-25 had a
higher top speed than an F-15, the F-15 could always get away by going
to lower altitudes, where its better metallurgy allowed it to go
faster.
3) Given the history of the nuclear airplane program, it's pretty
doubtful than a nuclear engine would be smaller and weigh less than
existing chemical systems at intercontinental distances, even with
reduced shielding.
4) Current armored aircraft like the A-10 are designed to withstand
small arms fire and flak, not missiles. A great deal of armor is
required to protect tanks from missiles, particularly the Maverick.
It seems impossible to build anything affordable that can get off the
ground with that much weight.
The heat of the exhaust and white-hot skin will be far easier to
detect than any engine radiation, particularly from space. The sonic
boom will also be useful for locating the missile's general location
and ground track.
Even at 10g acceleration, a missile at Mach 3 must pull up a mile or
more ahead of a hill, presenting an easily trackable target that can be
attacked by very high speed short-range missiles. Since we assume SDI
exists, then perhaps railguns or lasers would be available too.
------------------------------
Date: 3 Dec 85 (Tue) 15:48:40 EST
From: Robert Goldman <rpg%brown.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Social Responsibility and the Game Designer
I am very interested to hear about Tom Snyder's talk. Would anyone
care to post a summary of his speech?
Robert Goldman
N.B. Sorry if I've sent this to the wrong address.
BITNET rpg@BROWNCS.BITNET (to IBMS:BROWNVM)
CSNET rpg@Brown.CSNET
ARPANET rpg%Brown@csnet-relay.ARPA
UUCP {decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!brunix!rpg
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 85 14:01 MST
From: Jong@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject: The Monumental Breakthrough
When challenged in the SPACE Digest to name the "monumental
discovery" that put the Soviets into the SDI driver's seat, Paul M. Koloc,
president of Prometheus II, Ltd., replied:
>The "monumental discovery" is a compact pulsed high power density
>fusion device based on work by Kurtmulleav at K. P. The power
>source in addition as direct MHD drive for beam weapons, may be
>for both a boost phase rocket engine and an electric mode drive
>for pulsed "super high specific thrust" orbital engines. This
>would reduce the cost of the "SDI" program by at least 10, and
>the difficulty with the Russian idea of the strategic concept is
>that it includes having racks of nuclear fission or fission-
>fusion devices for a space initiated total attack on the selected
>surface geopolitical targets. I don't think they can pulse the
>device fast enough, yet, for most of these applications.
>THIS concept of SDI actually increases the spread of potential
>nuclear death, and is not part of the the Presidents program.
>However, there are those (father of the beast) who would use
>these devices as drivers of space based excimer lasers. (Which
>work with a vengeance but still the laser effects are micro-
>scopic compared with the nuclear explosive driver).
>This doesn't make for a neat and tidy system, and from an
>engineering point of view the use of these devices would be too
>disruptive to be highly effective.
I hope this information will serve to direct the efforts of our own
researchers into the practical technological paths.
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************ARMS-D-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA (Moderator) (12/04/85)
Arms-Discussion Digest Tuesday, December 3, 1985 4:42PM
Volume 5, Issue 38
Today's Topics:
Smuggled Nuclear Weapons
Response to D Rogers ( Whose address is undigestable to ARPA )
Response to D Rogers ( Whose address is undigestable to ARPA )
Rendering Nuclear Weapons Impotent and Obsolete'
Re: nuclear cruise missiles
Re: Social Responsibility and the Game Designer
The Monumental Breakthrough
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 85 08:28 PST
From: "Morton Jim"@LLL-MFE.ARPA
Subject: Smuggled Nuclear Weapons
It seems to be quite possible to build Nuclear Weapons that are small.
I have seen models of the 155 MM Artilery Fired Atomic Projectile (AFAP)
and it is easy to guess that the Nuclear explosive is smaller than a
two-liter soda-pop bottle. While the yield of an explosive this small is
not great ( I would GUESS under 10 KT ) that is still enough power to
destroy soft targets.
I think there are two problems with emplacement of weapons of this
type. The first is the lack of safety systems. It would be hard to build
a weapon of this type that would be impossible to detonate at will. This
would be a desirable terrorist bomb, one neither the U.S. or Soviet
government would like to see in production.
The second is the lack of positive control. In order to have an
effective attack with emplaced weapons, a large number of them need to be
placed in the target country. It would be fairly easy for one or more of
the weapons to be stolen and misused.
As the U.S. would seem to be more of a target for this kind of attack,
the Soviet Union would be sending the weapons. I do not think the Soviet
government trusts any one person enough to hand them a ten kiloton bomb
and say " Here go bury this bomb. Make sure you dont touch the red button,
that will set it off. " They seem to me to like more central control
of their Nuclear Weapons. I doubt that they would ever start handing
bombs out to the K G B to deliver to the U. S.
If there were a number of bombs emplaced over a large land area, i
think they could be exploded at the same time by exploding one or more
EMP generators in near-space and having the emplaced weapons trigger
on the EMP. The EMP generators could be disguised as spy sattelites
and "steered" to the proper points over the target country. Thus with
one command from the control point, you have both a de-capitating EMP
strike, wiping out command and control, and an emplaced strike that
makes it very hard to be effective in any area near one of the buried
nukes. Most of the military bases I have seen and been on would be
hurt pretty badly by one or two 10 KT bombs burried outside the
fence. ( or parked next to it etc.)
These are my own views and do not represent those of my employer or
any of their contract agencies.
Jim Morton
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 85 14:51:08 EST
From: Jeff Miller AMSTE-TEI 4675 <jmiller@apg-1>
Subject: Response to D Rogers ( Whose address is undigestable to ARPA )
Dear Sir,
Thanks for your message.
I sometimes feel that people allow themselves to become too polarized by
their self-perceptions of being either hawks or doves (i.e. " All dovish ideas
are wrong, all hawkish ideas are right " and vice versa.)
I am usually quite hawkish, but I look upon SDI somewhat ambivalently. I
felt the same about MX. I do not believe that SDI will be worth its costs,
nor do I believe that its existence would force a showdown with the Soviets.
Fellow hawks would probably ostracize me for not vigorously defending the
concept, come what may. They are polarized.
As an officer in W. Germany I was quite supportive of the ERW ("neutron
bomb"). It was the best concept ever forwarded for offsetting the threat's
numerical superiority, by forcing him to disperse his armored formations and
lose the advantage of mass. The best part was that this would be achieved by
deterrent, not employment. In so doing, it would have lessened the liklihood
of the use, in desperation, of tac nukes to break up enemy tank formations.
(almost a certainty under the status quo.) This frightened the Soviets more
than anything in two decades, as it threatened their conventional superiority.
Their massive propaganda campaign found enough people in the West to cause the
demise of ERW. People with no grasp of the weapon system or its concept.
They were polarized - and surely succeeded in dooming many thousands of their
countrymen, and insuring a nuclear escalation, should a Central European war
break out.
Folks in the democratic West had better learn to examine issues logically
rather than ideologically, or they will either push the button too fast, or
find that they have foolishly disconnected the button - in either case because
the leadership felt politically compelled to accede to whatever misinformed
tide of opinion held sway at a particular time. ( And I will say again: if we
don't find ways to counter the Soviets' huge machine for exploiting
misinformed opinion, we will find that they have finally learned how to make
the Western democracies' hang themselves with their own rope.)
J.Miller
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 85 14:51:08 EST
From: Jeff Miller AMSTE-TEI 4675 <jmiller@apg-1>
Subject: Response to D Rogers ( Whose address is undigestable to ARPA )
Dear Sir,
Thanks for your message.
I sometimes feel that people allow themselves to become too polarized by
their self-perceptions of being either hawks or doves (i.e. " All dovish ideas
are wrong, all hawkish ideas are right " and vice versa.)
I am usually quite hawkish, but I look upon SDI somewhat ambivalently. I
felt the same about MX. I do not believe that SDI will be worth its costs,
nor do I believe that its existence would force a showdown with the Soviets.
Fellow hawks would probably ostracize me for not vigorously defending the
concept, come what may. They are polarized.
As an officer in W. Germany I was quite supportive of the ERW ("neutron
bomb"). It was the best concept ever forwarded for offsetting the threat's
numerical superiority, by forcing him to disperse his armored formations and
lose the advantage of mass. The best part was that this would be achieved by
deterrent, not employment. In so doing, it would have lessened the liklihood
of the use, in desperation, of tac nukes to break up enemy tank formations.
(almost a certainty under the status quo.) This frightened the Soviets more
than anything in two decades, as it threatened their conventional superiority.
Their massive propaganda campaign found enough people in the West to cause the
demise of ERW. People with no grasp of the weapon system or its concept.
They were polarized - and surely succeeded in dooming many thousands of their
countrymen, and insuring a nuclear escalation, should a Central European war
break out.
Folks in the democratic West had better learn to examine issues logically
rather than ideologically, or they will either push the button too fast, or
the leadership felt politically compelled to accede to whatever misinformed
tide of opinion held sway at a particular time. ( And I will say again: if we
don't find ways to counter the Soviets' huge machine for exploiting
misinformed opinion, we will find that they have finally learned how to make
the Western democracies' hang themselves with their own rope.)
J.Miller
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 85 15:37 EST
From: Jong@HIS-BILLERICA-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject: Rendering Nuclear Weapons Impotent and Obsolete'
Think how much more focussed this dicussion of SDI would be if
President Reagan had used, instead of the subject phrase, what I
contend is the more accurate phrase:
...rendering ICBMs impotent and obsolete...
That kind of limits your expectations, doesn't it?
------------------------------
Date: 3 Dec 1985 15:25-EST
From: Hank.Walker@UNH.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: nuclear cruise missiles
It sounds to me like a nuclear-powered cruise "missile" would be
something more along the lines of a B-52 rather than a flying torpedo.
There goes the cost. It seems more likely that it will be cheaper to
make many stealthy cruise missiles rather than a few semi-impervious
monsters.
1) Range to the target can be greatly reduced from intercontinental
distances by air or sea launch. Even an intercontinental subsonic
cruise missile may be possible with very efficient engines and high
specific energy fuel, as is currently being studied.
2) At supersonic on the deck, air friction and the resulting heat is
probably more of a problem than fuel consumption. Recall that the
SR-71 glows red at Mach 3 at 85,000 feet. I don't know of any vehicles
that can travel supersonic at low altitudes for any length of time. In
the book MiG Pilot, Viktor Belenko said that even though a MiG-25 had a
higher top speed than an F-15, the F-15 could always get away by going
to lower altitudes, where its better metallurgy allowed it to go
faster.
3) Given the history of the nuclear airplane program, it's pretty
doubtful than a nuclear engine would be smaller and weigh less than
existing chemical systems at intercontinental distances, even with
reduced shielding.
4) Current armored aircraft like the A-10 are designed to withstand
small arms fire and flak, not missiles. A great deal of armor is
required to protect tanks from missiles, particularly the Maverick.
It seems impossible to build anything affordable that can get off the
ground with that much weight.
The heat of the exhaust and white-hot skin will be far easier to
detect than any engine radiation, particularly from space. The sonic
boom will also be useful for locating the missile's general location
and ground track.
Even at 10g acceleration, a missile at Mach 3 must pull up a mile or
more ahead of a hill, presenting an easily trackable target that can be
attacked by very high speed short-range missiles. Since we assume SDI
exists, then perhaps railguns or lasers would be available too.
------------------------------
Date: 3 Dec 85 (Tue) 15:48:40 EST
From: Robert Goldman <rpg%brown.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Social Responsibility and the Game Designer
I am very interested to hear about Tom Snyder's talk. Would anyone
care to post a summary of his speech?
Robert Goldman
N.B. Sorry if I've sent this to the wrong address.
BITNET rpg@BROWNCS.BITNET (to IBMS:BROWNVM)
CSNET rpg@Brown.CSNET
ARPANET rpg%Brown@csnet-relay.ARPA
UUCP {decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!brunix!rpg
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 85 14:01 MST
From: Jong@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject: The Monumental Breakthrough
When challenged in the SPACE Digest to name the "monumental
discovery" that put the Soviets into the SDI driver's seat, Paul M. Koloc,
president of Prometheus II, Ltd., replied:
>The "monumental discovery" is a compact pulsed high power density
>fusion device based on work by Kurtmulleav at K. P. The power
>source in addition as direct MHD drive for beam weapons, may be
>for both a boost phase rocket engine and an electric mode drive
>for pulsed "super high specific thrust" orbital engines. This
>would reduce the cost of the "SDI" program by at least 10, and
>the difficulty with the Russian idea of the strategic concept is
>that it includes having racks of nuclear fission or fission-
>fusion devices for a space initiated total attack on the selected
>surface geopolitical targets. I don't think they can pulse the
>device fast enough, yet, for most of these applications.
>THIS concept of SDI actually increases the spread of potential
>nuclear death, and is not part of the the Presidents program.
>However, there are those (father of the beast) who would use
>these devices as drivers of space based excimer lasers. (Which
>work with a vengeance but still the laser effects are micro-
>scopic compared with the nuclear explosive driver).
>This doesn't make for a neat and tidy system, and from an
>engineering point of view the use of these devices would be too
>disruptive to be highly effective.
I hope this information will serve to direct the efforts of our own
researchers into the practical technological paths.
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************