ARMS-D-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA (Moderator) (11/11/85)
Arms-Discussion Digest Monday, November 11, 1985 10:35AM
Volume 5, Issue 17
Today's Topics:
ALCMs vs. ballistic missiles as B-52 payloads
How much can they cheat on missile counts?
triad deterrent and interservie rivalry
umbrella forward-based SDI vs. other (more reasonable) defense ideas
letters to Sci.Am. on ARMS-D topics, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 85 12:01:23 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: ALCMs vs. ballistic missiles as B-52 payloads
From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry at ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Actually, the cruise missiles are probably more accurate than the air-
launched Trident I that I suggested. And the current ALCM warheads are
probably more powerful than most current Trident warheads (the Tridents
are MIRVed, and tend to be equipped with lots of little warheads rather
than a few big ones).
True, though not by much. T-I warheads are 100 kt and 8/missile, ALCM
are 170 kt, 1/missile.
------------------------------
Date: 1985 November 10 19:26:41 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@IMSSS.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:How much can they cheat on missile counts?
Continuing my thought of my message of 1985 November 05 03:40:08 PST...
Does anybody have solid information (expert opinion) on how missiles
the USSR and the USA can effectively hide from surveilance or from
on-site inspection in various existing and potential variations?
The idea is, suppose there are 50 missiles hidden, and 500 legal on
both sides. Then deterrence is still stable, 500 can cancel 550 for
all practical purposes. But if there are 1000 hidden and 500 legal,
500 might not cancel 1500, and the side with 1500 might be able to do
a first strike with part of its force and hold back the rest as
deterrance to a counterstrike.
If we knew how many missiles they might be able to hide, we'd know how
many we should keep around on both sides to prevent a big misbalance
due to cheating on one side or the other. As our ability to detect
cheating improves, so the number of possible hidden missiles
decreases, it'll be safe to negotiate a reduction in the legal
missiles on both sides.
------------------------------
Date: 1985 November 10 20:59:17 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@IMSSS.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:triad deterrent and interservie rivalry
| Date: Thu, 7 Nov 85 11:24 EST
| From: Jong@HIS-BILLERICA-MULTICS.ARPA
| Subject: Gwynn Dyer on "War"
| I too am watching this PBS series of commentaries. The most
| recent episode gave us these opinions (MY INTERPRETATION):
| The arms race is basically between the U.S. Air Force, the
| U.S. Army, and the U.S. Navy. The Soviets are not really the
| prime antagonist.
| The Triad was born of interservice rivalry, not the
| strategic merits of the concept. Had the U.S. Marine Corps
| possessed the Bomb in 1950, we'd have the Quadrangle.
However to dismiss the Triad because of how it started would be
something like an ad hominum argument (can some latin expert come up
with the correct term for arguing against something because of origin
instead of present merit?). Having totally different locales and
methods for deterrent is crucial (same as redundancy in any important
system; shuttle has a pentad of computers), and something I didn't
think of until your message, having totally different management of
the parts of the system, by agencies that distrust each other and are
engaged in rivalry, makes for even better redundancy than multiple
systems under single management. Let's keep the overall system
redundant as we work out our arms-control treaties to reduce the total.
------------------------------
Date: 1985 November 10 19:45:08 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@IMSSS.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:umbrella forward-based SDI vs. other (more reasonable) defense ideas
| Date: 5 Nov 85 09:09:09 EST (Tuesday)
| From: MJackson.Wbst@Xerox.ARPA
| Subject: Re: Defending ICBMs with SDI
| In V5 #12 Michael Joseph Edelman supports Robert Maas' earlier
| suggestion that an ABM system might be most useful, from a "protection
| of deterrent" viewpoint, defending a small hardened site with multiple
| launchers.
| This certainly is the most plausible argument for ABM deployment I have
| seen. However, it appears that much of the current push for SDI is
| irrelevant to such a task, since one would hardly choose to defend such
| a site by intercepting incoming ICBMs during the boost phase!
(1) I don't recall making such a proposal, although I might have
concurred in the idea if somebody else proposed it, because it sounds
workable, or at least more workable than Reagan's umbrella plan. My
actual proposal (as contrasted with concurrance) was that we reduce
the total arsenal to a hundred or so warheads on each side then
install an umbrella defense using only the second and third tiers of
Reagan's proposal (pop-up defense against coasting missiles or
alternately worldwide multinational orbiting defense; and
ground-to-air defense of specific ultra-valuable targets such as
missiles and CCC centers.
(2) I agree, the first tier of Reagan's plan, essentially
forward-based space-orbiting air-to-ground directed-energy weapons to
intercept enemy missiles during their boost phase over enemy
territory, are undistinguishable from offense capability, and also
irrelevant to point-defense since we can't tell during the boost phase
which ones are heading for the particular defended missile field. I.e.
I concur totally with your point.
| All of this presumes, of course, that the current deterrent is
| inadequate, a proposition I doubt.
I think it's adequate at present to hold us a few more years, but it's
changing and before those years go by it will no longer be adequate at
all; because of multiple-warhead missiles (MX and others), detection
of submarines from space or buoys, and Reagan's forward-based "star-wars".
| By the way, I believe I heard this morning that Reagan told the Soviets
| (through his interview with Tass) that SDI would not be deployed until
| agreement had been reached on elimination of offensive missiles.
I heard that too, and was amazed. It's totally contrary to Reagan's
expressed policy, and it's much more in line with my proposal. I would
like it very much if Reagan switched horses before he got too far into
the stream, and came onto my side. (I'd like it even better if he was
honest with the citizens, saying at first the Star-Wars sounded like a
good idea but now he realizes it was a folly, but it would be truly
good if we first got rid of most of the offensive missiles, so he's
modified his proposal; but the reality of politics is he must save
face and never admit he was wrong even for a moment, so I don't expect
him to be honest about his reason for changing his proposal. Rather I
expect he'll quietly change his rhetoric and then pretend this was his
idea all along, 1984-Orwell-style rewriting history to pretend he was
right all along.)
------------------------------
Date: 1985 November 10 20:49:46 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@IMSSS.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:letters to Sci.Am. on ARMS-D topics, etc.
| Date: Tue, 5 Nov 85 09:40:36 pst
| From: king@kestrel (Dick King)
| Subject: insulting 3rd parties
| ...
| I didn't bother writing a letter to anybody about the bees**t article.
| I have better things to do with my time than to write letters that I
| expect would be ignored.
I suggest the optimal thing to do is use your editor to draft the
letter online, print a copy to Sci.Am. or other journal, but also send
a copy to this mailing list saying "here's a letter I am now sending
to Sci.Am., if you agree, make a listing and sign your name and send
it to them too". If they get diluged with copies of a letter signed by
people all over the nation they may take a little time to draft a
reply to at least the original author if not mass-mailed to everyone
who sent a copy. Even if they don't reply, the time drafting the
original letter won't have been wasted because both Sci.Am. and ARMS-D
will have seen it instead of just Sci.Am.
By the way, it would be interesting to send all the messages about
Sci.Am.'s general reliability of info and bias and specific handling
of bee feces debate, to Sci.Am. via hardcopy listing, and see their
reaction to all this discussion of whether it's fair for a private
group to debate such issues without informing Sci.Am. in advance.
My guess, they would be amused that we wasted so much time on such a
trivial topic.
From later in the digest...
| ... "research" done to support positions, and of course the science in
| these articles is trash. *Usually*, there is one such article per
| month, and it is the first one.
Gee, now we have a heuristic for reading Sci.Am. -- always ignore the
first article (except in the once-a-year special-topic issue where the
first article is summary of the topic instead of political).
| The request was that no one on this list ever cite an article from SA in
| an arms-control context. I don't think this request should be taken
| seriously.
| I, for one, second the request, and believe it should be taken very
| seriously. SA has a long history of abuse of its pretensions to
| scientific objectivity in just this area. You are as likely to
| find truth in the National Inquirer.
I propose somebody search N.I. for articles relevant to Arms-D, and
post in this digest brief citations&summaries together with individual
evaluation of the truth-value, and the rest of us debate the N.I. view.
(But please only people who buy N.I. already. I don't want to increase
N.I.'s income by encouraging everyone on this forum to start buying
N.I. just to search for arms-discussion-relevant articles.)
Re how to knock down Sci.Am. and other disliked-authority opinions,
sometimes we might say something like this "I am uneasy with the
evidence submitted from Sci.Am. because I generally distrust Sci.Am.,
I've found it to be quite biased; but I have no contrary evidence to
submit to refute Sci.Am.'s evidence." This makes it clear that the
writer is not saying "because it's in Sci.Am. it must be wrong", or
even "because it's in Sci.Am. it's insufficient for this debate", just
that "because it's in Sci.Am. it is suspect".
- Just an idea.
| I suggest that a letter to SA noting that a constituency of that
| size and level of expertise is aware of the issues, and and objects
| strongly, would get a response that a letter from an individual
| might not. I propose that any one of you who feel strongly about
| SA's editorial practice could submit the letter to the list, and
| take non-objection to the letter, except perhaps by a few, and
| perhaps as amended by debate, as endorsement.
I second that in amended form. Request anyone who agrees to
specifically send a message of agreement. Just because someone doesn't
have time or energy to rebut a particular point doesn't mean he/she
agrees with it. I would resent being counted among the "silent
majority" in favor of any particular point of view. Anyway, after
allowing a few days for agreements and disagreements to trickle in
(directly to author, not to digest!), send the list of agreements and
disagreements (i.e. unprivate ballot = proxy) to the digest and also
to Sci.Am. or other third party subject of the vote.
| Date: Wed, 6 Nov 85 11:45:35 PST
| From: Richard Foy <foy@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
| Subject: Criticism &Scientific American
| Criticism is ethical only if it is given constructively to the
| person criticsed.
| Slander and libel laws cover the subject of criticising SA on this net. I
| suspect that SA could make a reasonably good case of libel concerning some
| of the postings. Libel is usually used by individuals against the media.
If we were saying "Sci.Am. is terrible, everybody stop their
subscriptions and try to get your local libraries and friends to stop
subscribing too", that would be libel. If were were passing this idea
around to friends in a rumor mill, that would be slander. If we were
saying Sci.Am. has committed a legal offense (crime), that would be
libel or slander depending on mode of communication. But all we're
saying is "Sci.Am. is not as scientifically objective as we need for
using it as "gospel" in this forum, so in future please take their
words as less than "gospel" (except for the extremists among us who
say Sci.Am. is so dishonest that it shouldn't ever be quoted again in
this forum even with disclaimers; that might qualify as libel).
| Perhaps a third point: unless one discusses a criticism with the party
| concerned, one has no opportunity of learning.
I suggest somebody draft a message to Sci.Am. (Foy is prime candidate
for this task) stating our median opinion, which is that Sci.Am. tends
to have one blatantly political article per issue (except for the
once-a-year special-topic issue) which also tends to be scientifically
flawed, and also some extreme views expressed, i.e. some of us take
the extreme view that Sci.Am. shouldn't be quoted at all, while others
trust Sci.Am. so much that they quote Sci.Am. as an authority. Then
ask Sci.Am. to express an opinion on our median and extreme
evaluations of their political bias and scientific validity. (As
usual, send copy of letter to this forum.)
| Date: Thu, 7 Nov 85 8:01:28 EST
| From: Bruce Nevin <bnevin@bbncch.ARPA>
| 13. I still feel it is crucial to good communication, particularly in this
| medium, to start with certain positive assumptions about one's
| interlocutors, which include:
| You are intelligent, not dumb;
I agree.
| competent in the areas in which you are expressing opinions, not
| totally incompetent in them.
How competant. As expert or as reasonably-informed layman? I assume
the latter, but I think it's too much to ask that nobody contribute to
this forum unless they are a true professional expert. Should only
people who have actually (personally) designed a missile control
system be allowed to express an opinion about space-based defense?
Should only people who have worked at least several years as chemist
to analyze samples, be allowed to comment on the beefeces article?
Let's assume we're informed laymen and intelligent but not necessary
experts (I'm not an expert on much of anything, although I'm
intelligent and reasonably informed on lots of scientific stuff).
| You are honest, not deliberately deceptive.
I agree.
| Date: Thu, 7 Nov 85 13:07:25 EST
| From: Bruce Nevin <bnevin@bbncch.ARPA>
| And there is probably a legal issue. Were someone actually to
| draft a letter and lobby for amendments and tacit support from
| participants on this forum, as I described, it would probably
| contravene some legal requirement on traffic using the ARPAnet.
Amendment to anything legal, such as the Constitution, yes, Arpanet
shouldn't be used to promote partisan or legal battls. But merely to
include Sci.Am. in our debate (on condition we make it clear they
aren't allowed to publish our letter in their magazine), I see no
problem, assuming our ARMS-D stuff is legal in the first place.
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************