ARMS-D-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA (Moderator) (11/15/85)
Arms-Discussion Digest Friday, November 15, 1985 11:05AM
Volume 5, Issue 21
Today's Topics:
The REAL reason the Russians are afraid of Star Wars
REAL reasons for Russian reservations.
VMOS instead of krytrons
Nuclear Winter & Missile Basing
We think *gun* control is bad
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 85 17:55:02 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: The REAL reason the Russians are afraid of Star Wars
On the MacNeil-Lehrer Report a few weeks back, a "Star Wars" panel
discussed
why the Russian were afraid of the program even if their advisors counsel
them that it won't work as advertised. I was surprised that both the
proponents and opponents of the program agreed that the real reason they
feared massive research is that it would give US military technology a
huge lead in weapons miniturazation.
Question: does anybody know anything about this belief? Is Star Wars a
PR cover for a crash development program in miniturazation of military
hardware?
I think that the last statement is not true: SDI is not a "PR cover".
But I also believe that the most likely applications of SDI are not in
BMD but in other areas. The Office of Technology Assessment report on
SDI commented on this point, saying that space to ground attacks with
SDI technology are indeed feasible, and must be considered in
analyzing the effects of SDI.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 85 17:31:07 est
From: nikhil@MIT-NEWTOWNE-VARIETY.MIT.EDU (Rishiyur S. Nikhil)
Subject: REAL reasons for Russian reservations.
> ... since the Russians seemed to hold
> the contradictory views that Star Wars was infeasable but was still
> extremely important to abort ...
This seems to be puzzling a lot of people, and is often cited by proponents
of SDI as further evidence that it is feasible ("even the Russians know it").
To me, however, there is no contradiction in the Russian position. The
question of feasibility cannot merely be with respect to TODAY's ICBMs, but
against any future ICBMs (in quantity and quality), anti-Star Wars systems,
and other counters that the Russians dream up. So, even though they may be
confident of their ability to always "stay ahead" with enough counters to
keep Star Wars ineffective, they know it's not going to be for free, they're
going to have to WORK for it at huge expense. Obviously, they're not anxious
to jump into this new race.
Rishiyur Nikhil (Nikhil@mit-xx.arpa)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 85 18:02:07 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: VMOS instead of krytrons
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 85 18:27:02 PST
From: Jeffrey S. Gruszynski <jsg at AEROSPACE.ARPA>
To: Arms-Discussion
Re: VMOS instead of krytrons
First I want to thank everyone for their comments. As I expected
some of my comments were misunderstood. My comment about SF was wrong, I
not perfect either :-), thanks Herb. I must differ on your comment that
SEU could be prevented simply by shielding. If you know of an easy way of
shielding against 50 MeV iron ions, I'd like to hear about it.
I didn't exactly say that. I said that shielding against alphas was
easy, and that SEU should be correctable using EC techniques.
My back of the envelope calculation/AIP handbook tells me that an Ca
ion of Z=20 (Fe has Z= 26) at 50 MeV would be shielded by a thickness
of 0.2 mm of graphite. 50 MeV alphas would be shielded by that
thickness of copper.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 85 22:31:13 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Nuclear Winter & Missile Basing
I'd like to raise the question of whether nuclear winter (and
to some extent, counterforce targeting) makes the basing of ICBM's within
cities a rational strategy.
The American public would never stand for it, rational though it may be.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1985 02:29 EST
From: "David D. Story" <FTD%MIT-OZ @ MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: [ihnp4!seismo!RUTGERS.ARPA!Carter: We think *gun* control is bad.]
>>Date: Saturday, 9 November 1985 11:57-EST
>>From: ihnp4!seismo!RUTGERS.ARPA!Carter (Bob Carter)
>>To: Today's at MIT-MC
>>Re: We think *gun* control is bad.
> Date: Friday, 1 November 1985 16:34-EST
> From: Dale.Amon at FAS.RI.CMU.EDU
> To: SPACE at MIT-MC, BBoard.Maintainer at A.CS.CMU.EDU
> Re: Senator Glenn comments
> This last week I presented testimony at the NCS hearings in
> Cleveland. Among the other presentors was a Glenn staff member
> reading Sen. Glenn's position paper. Much was reasonable, but he
> made one statement which utterly horrified me, and I'm sure will
> equally horrify most of you.
> He suggested that rocket technology, because of it's potential use
> as ICBM's, be internationally regulated the way nuclear technology
> is.
> One twist of the pen, and you and I will never own a private
> spaceship. Admittedly, we probably wouldn't anyway, but at least
> we can dream. I would like to ask any of you who are as violently
> opposed to such a scheme as I am to write Senator Glenn and tell
> him that this is not a very good idea.
Sen. John Glenn SH 503 Hart Senate Office Bldg Washington, DC
20510
> Just imagine where aviation would be today if in the first part of
> this century it had been regulated like the nuclear industry.
> I have hopes that in the early teens of the next century, we will
> see spaceships owned by anyone of any race, creed, nation,
> minority, majority
> or political leaning who could buy a jet plane today.
Does this mean that NASA is requesting their own security clearances
such as the DOE Q which semi-equivocates to DOD TOP SECRET ? And possible
further breakdown such as NSC/DOD/DOE NWCS clearances (which is really
need-to-know information). IF SO I AM FOR IT even though NATO need-to-
know is not specifically included (I would imagine that this would be
considered by government application on a case by case basis).
I think that since so many of the NEWFIES coming into technology have
little regard for export licensing and the like and think that the
best way to make a buck is by shipping out critical technology by
means of black market (I have been approached by some of these,
especially the ones from the finer academic institutions - most
notably at AAAI '83). These think that export licensing of potential
military technology is a joke (I think that the lack of restriction
even with licensing is a joke).
Foreign Countries might have the bomb but that is of little use
without delivery (sometimes I wonder why they would even want to
join the insanity seeing that it means small revamps of targeting by
US and THEM and THOSE with the technology base capable of mounting
even a peaceful space program).
I also take exception that you would include this in the firearms
list. I think this lies in the area of the fallacy of composition.
Regardless of that, I appreciate your information and would like
to ask why you think we should export of information and products
to countries that would rather blow each other off the map and have
neither the money, programs or technology base for doing little else
than delivering a nuclear warhead. There are already consortiums set
up for those countries to participate in that are reasonably ethical.
I qualify that statement by asking if you think that it is reasonable for
the French to sell Exocets to gun toting dictators that get their
votes in rather a Hitlereze fashion and their rocks off by pulling
triggers, regardless of the consequences, to placate their political
factions. If not that one, how about a free trip over Korea by way
of a beaten short cut. Or live in Prague in '68.
We should use the U.S., E.C.C. & U.K. technology base to
extract some reasonableness if they really want the goodies. To
wholesale it out is a depletion of the technological edge as well as
economically and finacially unsound practice. The total investiture
in rocketry and our technology base are not even closely reflected
in even our elementary textbooks. Don't you think that for all the
give away we should extract something in return from the AYATOLLAHs
SANDINISTAs, SOMOZAs, SHAHs, CUBANs, and the rest !
Comments Welcomed
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************