curts@tekecs.UUCP (Curt Stephens) (08/17/84)
In my opinion, the reason that the Russians want to negotiate away
the Star Wars scenario is quite apparent. Regardles of the actual force
being applied, the effectiveness of any missle-damaging-ray-gun would
have to depend heavily upon its tracking and aiming mechanism. This, in
turn, would depend upon rather advanced computer technology. From what
I hear, most Russia-watchers seem to think that the U.S. and its allies
are clearly ahead in the applicable computer sceiencs.
Curt Stephens
Engineering Computing Systems
Tektronix, Inc.
UUCP: {hplabs,ucbvax,decvax,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!tektronix!mako!curts
CSNET: tekecs!curts @ tektronix
ARPA: tekecs!curts.tektronix @ rand-relaydavid@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (08/20/84)
Why is Star Wars bad?
Suppose Star Wars WAS feasible and WAS 95% effective. Pretend also
that you were a Soviet leader, and American development of such a
system was proceeding apace. You would certainly do all of the
following four things:
(1) Increase the number of warheads so that the 5% that did
get through would be more than sufficient,
(2) Put more emphasis on basing systems against which Star
Wars is ineffective, e.g. SLBM's, cruise missiles, etc.,
(3) Develop countermeasures against Star Wars, e.g. killer
sattelites, and
(4) Develop a Soviet Star Wars system.
The result would be that the venerable concept of MAD (Mutual Assured
Destruction) would STILL be what prevents nuclear war, and you and the
Americans are both umpteen billion dollars in the hole.
Of course, it would be absurd for the US to forgo Star Wars
unilaterally, but as its deployment would not alter the balance of
power for very long, it makes sense to negotiate a mutual ban on such
weapons. Just because it is in Soviet interests to do so does not
automatically mean it is not in American interests, too.
The proponents of Star Wars seem to believe that American defense
policy operates in a vacuum or that Soviet policy is so static as to
be unable to react to innovations. Let us not repeat the error of MIRV
and deploy an expensive weapons system that is destabilizing and brings
only momentary advantage.
Star Wars will add security only for defense contractors.
David Rubin
{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!davidpiety@hplabs.UUCP (Bob Piety) (08/20/84)
One thing wrong with the "star wars defense" is that the satellites are very vulnerable to a ground-based particle beam weapon. The satellites are just sitting ducks, easily tracked by any country that wishes to. If this defense would really work, then *maybe* its not such a bad idea. But based upon its vulnerability, its a waste of a lot of money & effort. Bob
rcc@imsvax.UUCP (08/20/84)
[> == Brian Diehm] > OK, I'll bite. Why is the Star Wars defense system such a bad idea? Answer: Because the so-called defence system can't. Let's set aside all the problems they're going to have building the large focusing mirrors they're going need, and the problem of what kind of power source they're going to use (current satellite power sources are designed for low output over a long period of time, it takes a *lot* of power to power a laser, but that power is only needed for fractions of a second at a time). So, although it *may* be possible in the next 10 years to develop satellite based weapons systems capable of tracking and destroying missles, those satellites would be ridiculously vulnerable. Question: What will it take to destroy a multi-million dollar defense satellite? Answer: About 5 cents worth of gravel in a retrograde orbit. Satellites are *easy* to kill. Let's say a satellite is orbiting the earth at geosynchronous orbit. Somebody decides he really doesn't want that satellite there. Now, assuming he knows where the satellite is (not too difficult in this day and age), this means that he can launch something by rocket off a launch pad or by plane (ala the new F-15 ASW weapon, more about that later). Ok, let's do a little math. (Note: I want the numbers to come out even so I'm going to round the figures down in order to make life easier) Satellite speed = 22,300 miles * 2 * pi (neglecting radius of earth) approx. = 125,000 miles/hour approx. = 5,000 miles/hour (conservative figure) If the satellite hits an object that's standing still, the impact speed will be 5,000 mph. If the object is in a retrograde orbit (same orbit, going the other direction), double the impact speed. An impact speed of 10,000 mhp is nothing to sneeze at. That's a *lot* of kinetic energy. A 5 pound rock hitting something at 10,000 mph will do a lot of damage. The figures get worse as the orbits get lower since the satellites are now moving faster so they won't fall into the earth's atmosphere. The really nasty thing is that suppose the super-defensive satellite hits the 5 pound rock with its particle-laser-whatever beam. You now have 5 pounds of gravel that's going to hit at 10,000 mph. Not much of an improvement. The end result is the same. One very unhappy satellite. Now, some of you may be asking "Why hasn't the military been experimenting with this sort of anti-satellite weapon?" I'll give three reasons. First, the weapon is too obvious. You don't *need* to test it. It's like dropping a rock on an ant. You know what's going happen. Splat. There aren't any fancy electronics or gadgets involved, just simple physics. Second, there's one problem with putting shrapnel into a retrograde orbit. You take out *everything* in that orbit. The military tends to prefer more precise implements of destruction. Thus, the plethora of anti-satellite weapons that move alongside a satellite and explode, or the ones that catch satellites in a net/parasol and explode (such as the F-15 launched AS weapon), etc., etc. All these weapons take out a single satellite and leave the rest relatively safe. Third, people want Star Wars, because although it may not work, it means lots of bucks for the military contractors and it has a lot of emotional appeal. > Suddenly, it becomes well within the realm of technology to do just what >all the peace-loving people want: to make nuclear weapons obsolete, without >replacing them with even WORSE destructive weapons. Instead of us saying to >our opponents "If you destroy us, we'll make sure YOU don't survive, either" >we simply being able to say "Your nuclear attack won't work." Maybe we'll be able to say that someday, but not with Star Wars. > In an age when the MAD balance of power is beginning to crumble, JUST WHAT >IS SO BAD ABOUT SUDDENLY MAKING THE NUCLEAR THREAT INEFFECTIVE? (Note that it >becomes ineffective for both sides, too). See above. > Now, the extremist conservatives point out that Russia seems mickle >anxious to have the USA bargain away this option, and they ask why? I am not >a radical conservative, but it also makes me wonder why? It seems to me that >if the Russians do this and we don't, then our threat suddenly is not only made >obsolete, but becomes inhumane and inappropriate. Note also that it doesn't >matter for that last statement if star wars type defense works or not, it only >matters that the Russians believe it will work for them. Two reasons: First, in order to clear the skies of Star Wars satellites in a cost-effective and efficient manner, you'd have to clear the skies of the communications and spy satellites as well (note that this is not an undesirable thing, especially if some of the comsats or spysats are ABM-sats in disguise). The problem is that they have their own satellites up there as well which they don't want to lose. People hate making major decisions without adequate information. However, given a choice between losing their own satellites and not being able get any ICBM's through, I don't think they'd spend much time making up their minds in a crunch. Second, it's a short step from putting up explosive satellites in orbit to putting up satellites with nuclear warheads in them into orbit. Once *that* happens, it doesn't take a quantum leap of brilliance to say, "Hey, instead of using these satellites with nukes in them on other satellites, why don't we use them on ground targets instead. That'll cut the enemy's reaction time from 15-30 minutes down to under 5. Wow." The Russian's don't want to see this anymore than some us do. MAD is bad enough the way it is. Why make things worse if we don't have to? > So, if the technology works, I ask why is the concept so bad? Because the technology won't. A defensive system has to be defendable itself and this one isn't. > Two quick comments: I think that from here on this should be moved to >net.politics; I am responding only because this was brought up here. Also, I >don't need emotional flames in response, I need constructive information about >why my views are inaccurate. OK, third quick (obvious) point: my views are >solely my own and not my employer's. This is going into net.politics and net.follow-up because I think people should see this. Too many people of been letting the Star Wars hype bypass their brains. Unfortunately, this is one decision that has to made correctly or we're all in trouble. We don't have weapons out in space -- yet, but once they get there, it's going to be near impossible to get them out. And the most effective weapons in space are the offensive ones, not the defensive ones. -- The preceding message was brought to you by -- Ray Chen UUCP: {umcp-cs!eneevax || seismo!rlgvax!elsie}!imsvax!rcc USnail: Integrated Microcomputer Systems, Inc. Suite 400 6100 Executive Blvd. Rockville, MD 20852
rcc@imsvax.UUCP (08/23/84)
A small correction. I goofed on two of the dimensions on the figures. The correct equations follow. ^'s point at the changes. >(Note: I want the numbers to come out even so I'm going to round the > figures down in order to make life easier) > Satellite speed = 22,300 miles/day * 2 * pi (neglecting radius of earth) > ^^^^ > approx. = 125,000 miles/day ^^^^ > approx. = 5,000 miles/hour (conservative figure) Sigh. Gimme a break, huh? It was Monday... -- The preceding message was brought to you by -- Ray Chen UUCP: {umcp-cs!eneevax || seismo!rlgvax!elsie}!imsvax!rcc USnail: Integrated Microcomputer Systems, Inc. Suite 400 6100 Executive Blvd. Rockville, MD 20852
nowlin@ihu1e.UUCP (Jerry Nowlin) (08/23/84)
. If proscription of nuclear weapons were the *only* reasonable defense we'd already be cinders. At least I credit the balance of power with postponing a nuclear war up to now. But I wonder how much more the scales can take before they break? I've never heard anyone seriously denounce unilateral disarmament and give some real reasons why it won't work. What would happen if the US shot all its nuclear weapons out into space or dropped them into a live volcano or did something to make them inaccessible to us or anyone else? We could even invite the Soviets to watch. Then what would they do? I seriously doubt they'd rub their hands together in glee and start pushing their buttons. They don't want to conquer a waste land. Meanwhile we could use most of the money we'd save on peaceful programs (like space exploration, medical research, etc.) and still have enough for a strong conventional defense. I worked with some Russians while visiting IIASA in Austria some years back and the impression I got was NOT that they were a bunch of war mongers. They were just as scared of war as I was and just as worried about nuclear weapons. It seems natural for both governments to want to compete. Why can't they be interested in being the best in alternative energy sources or biotechnology instead of military might? I really don't see why the US can't be big enough to end this showdown by saying nuclear war is bad and we're not going to fight one. Let *them* set a foot on US soil and I'll get out the old squirrel gun and help kick em off. I don't think it would come to that. I'd have to think twice about going over to Germany or France to fight but it would sure beat using cruise missiles. If the whole world agreed with me I'd be awful bored, so if you want to flame that's fine. I'd rather have some informative answers though. You'll notice several sentences ended with question marks. Jerry Nowlin ihnp4!ihu1e!nowlin
mwm@ea.UUCP (08/23/84)
#R:tekecs:-398200:ea:3400027:000:386 ea!mwm Aug 23 14:50:00 1984 /***** ea:net.followup / hplabs!piety / 11:16 pm Aug 21, 1984 */ One thing wrong with the "star wars defense" is that the satellites are very vulnerable to a ground-based particle beam weapon. Bob /* ---------- */ Last time I'd looked, ground-based beam weapons were only effective against sensors that were looking at them. Do you have newer facts? If so, provide pointers. <mike
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (08/24/84)
>I've never heard anyone seriously denounce unilateral disarmament and give >some real reasons why it won't work. What would happen if the US shot all its >nuclear weapons out into space or dropped them into a live volcano or did >something to make them inaccessible to us or anyone else? We could even >invite the Soviets to watch. Then what would they do? I seriously doubt >they'd rub their hands together in glee and start pushing their buttons. They >don't want to conquer a waste land. Meanwhile we could use most of the money >we'd save on peaceful programs (like space exploration, medical research, >etc.) and still have enough for a strong conventional defense. No, the USSR wouldn't immediately launch a strike against the US. They would just do as they damn well please. Who's going to stop them? What money are you going to have left over from defense if the Soviets are free to demand that Western Europe trade with the USSR on the same proprietary basis Eastern Europe does, to occupy and monopolize petroleum producing centers in the Middle East, etc., etc. Rational Soviet leaders are not interested in mutual destruction; that is why deterrence has worked. However, the Soviet system does not allow "nice" men to rise to positions of leadership; it selects individuals for the desire for ability to wield power. It may be plausible to believe that they would not gratuitously incinerate the US, but it is naive to believe they would voluntarily forgo the opportunity for unmatched power. There have been instances where unilateral disarmanent has been employed, by intent or accident. Examples include Britain in the 1930's, Britain and France in the 1950's, and the US in the 1970's. In none of these cases did the opponent (Nazi Germany in the first, the USSR in the latter two) even slow down its buildup. Historical precedent, as well as rational expectation, argues against unilateral disarmanent. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
bsa@ncoast.UUCP (The WITNESS) (08/25/84)
Fine. So we negotiate a ban on space weapons systems. So the Sovs
see the next Space Shuttle launch, cry "Space Weapon!!!!", and launch their
space-borne defense system. They seem to be good at that kind of insanity.
Remember Eisenhower? He worked it out with the Sovs so we would
mutually stop testing nuclear weapons... so the Russians went ahead and
tested new bombs when it pleased them to do so. I expect the same if we
ban space weapons... and then we'll be caught with our satellites down when
the Sovs launch their nuclear weapons, wipe out our launched weapons via
satellite and knock out any that did NOT get launched with their own bombs,
and take us over. THIS is sanity?
I am not in favor of unlimited arms buildups, but I have to look at
the Orwellians looking at us through their gunsights and plan accordingly.
--bsa
--
Brandon Allbery: decvax!cwruecmp{!atvax}!ncoast!bsa: R0176@CSUOHIO.BITNET
6504 Chestnut Road, Independence, OH 44131 <> (216) 524-1416
<burble>phil@amd.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (08/26/84)
>I worked with some Russians while visiting IIASA in Austria some years back >and the impression I got was NOT that they were a bunch of war mongers. They >were just as scared of war as I was and just as worried about nuclear weapons. Are these the same Ruskies (sp?) that shot down a 747 full of innocent people and never even said sorry? -- I'm a rice eater. Are you a rice eater? Phil Ngai (408) 982-6554 UUCPnet: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amd!phil ARPAnet: amd!phil@decwrl.ARPA
faustus@ucbvax.UUCP (Wayne Christopher) (08/26/84)
> I've never heard anyone seriously denounce unilateral disarmament and give > some real reasons why it won't work. What would happen if the US shot all its > nuclear weapons out into space or dropped them into a live volcano or did > something to make them inaccessible to us or anyone else? We could even > invite the Soviets to watch. Then what would they do? I seriously doubt > they'd rub their hands together in glee and start pushing their buttons. They > don't want to conquer a waste land. Meanwhile we could use most of the money > we'd save on peaceful programs (like space exploration, medical research, > etc.) and still have enough for a strong conventional defense. Is it really that difficult to see what wold happen if we did something like that? The Russians say, "Ok, we have nukes and you don't, so do as we say or we start taking out your cities one at a time." And they'd mean it too. You have to understand that the essense of Soviet foreign policy is agression and its only ultimate aim is world domination. > I worked with some Russians while visiting IIASA in Austria some years back > and the impression I got was NOT that they were a bunch of war mongers. They > were just as scared of war as I was and just as worried about nuclear weapons. Sure, the Russian people don't want war, but what say do they have in the matter? The USSR is a dictatorship. > It seems natural for both governments to want to compete. Why can't they be > interested in being the best in alternative energy sources or biotechnology > instead of military might? They also have one of the most inefficient economies in the industrialized world, and they know that it is never going to get any better under the communist system. They don't want to compete, they want to be on top, and the only way they can do this is by dominating the world militarily. > I really don't see why the US can't be big enough to end this showdown by > saying nuclear war is bad and we're not going to fight one. And when they say, "Sure it's bad but we're going to fight one anyway", where does that leave us? > Let *them* set a > foot on US soil and I'll get out the old squirrel gun and help kick em off. But they will have tanks and machine guns. After they have taken out all of our major military bases (with nukes, if they have to), that's all there is to it... > I don't think it would come to that. I'd have to think twice about going over > to Germany or France to fight but it would sure beat using cruise missiles. But you can't fight Russian SS-11's with rifles... > If the whole world agreed with me I'd be awful bored, so if you want to flame > that's fine. I'd rather have some informative answers though. You'll notice > several sentences ended with question marks. > Jerry Nowlin > ihnp4!ihu1e!nowlin I hope the answers are informative... Wayne
terryl@tekchips.UUCP (Terry Laskodi) (08/27/84)
>>I worked with some Russians while visiting IIASA in Austria some years back >>and the impression I got was NOT that they were a bunch of war mongers. They >>were just as scared of war as I was and just as worried about nuclear weapons. >Are these the same Ruskies (sp?) that shot down a 747 full of innocent people >and never even said sorry? Well, always one to stick my foot in my mouth, let's not confuse ordinary everyday people with the brass at the top (who are the ones that really make all of the decisions). It is probably true that you'll find a lot of COMMON ordinary everyday people on both sides with the opinion that nuclear war has no winners, only losers. You'll also probably find people on both sides who think that a nuclear war is a viable strategic move. Now, aren't you glad you live in a country where these discussions can take place without fear of retribution or harassment????
faustus@ucbvax.UUCP (Wayne Christopher) (08/27/84)
>>I worked with some Russians while visiting IIASA in Austria some years back >>and the impression I got was NOT that they were a bunch of war mongers. They >>were just as scared of war as I was and just as worried about nuclear weapons. > > Are these the same Ruskies (sp?) that shot down a 747 full of innocent people > and never even said sorry? > > -- > > Phil Ngai (408) 982-6554 No Phil, they are not the same "Ruskies". The people of Russia do NOT shoot down 747's, the government does. What would you think of some person from El Salvador who says about you, "Oh, that's one of the guys who sends weapons to the death squads"? If you think that all "Ruskies" are out to kill innocent Americans, you have a lot of learning to do about the world and people from foreigh countries. Wayne
dsmith@proper.UUCP (David Smith) (08/27/84)
{I'm not afraid of no line eaters}
>Are these the same Ruskies that shot down a 747...
Haven't you HEARD? WE did that!
Yet Another Repentant Capitalist,
David Smith @ Proper Unixphil@amd.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (08/27/84)
> No Phil, they are not the same "Ruskies". The people of Russia do NOT > shoot down 747's, the government does. The point I was trying to make was that I do not believe in laying down our arms in the hopes that the other side will too. What difference does it make to me whether it is the people of Russia or the government of Russia who invade my country, the net result is the same. Unilateral disarmament is a pretty dangerous thing to do, in my opinion. -- Nerds of the world unite! Phil Ngai (408) 982-6554 UUCPnet: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amd!phil ARPAnet: amd!phil@decwrl.ARPA
hawk@oliven.UUCP (08/27/84)
>I've never heard anyone seriously denounce unilateral disarmament and give >some real reasons why it won't work. What would happen if the US shot all its >nuclear weapons out into space or dropped them into a live volcano or did >something to make them inaccessible to us or anyone else? We could even >invite the Soviets to watch. Then what would they do? No, they wouldn't launch an attack. They'd blackmail us. >I worked with some Russians while visiting IIASA in Austria some years back >and the impression I got was NOT that they were a bunch of war mongers. They >were just as scared of war as I was and just as worried about nuclear weapons. Those were Russians. Please don't confuse Russians and their government--they have no control over it. >It seems natural for both governments to want to compete. Why can't they be >interested in being the best in alternative energy sources or biotechnology >instead of military might? By the Russian version of history, they made all of the major breakthroughs. For example, the Russians developed the atomic bomb before the United States, but didn't use it for humanitarian reasons. >I really don't see why the US can't be big enough to end this showdown by >saying nuclear war is bad and we're not going to fight one. Let *them* set a >foot on US soil and I'll get out the old squirrel gun and help kick em off. If we did, the US would suddenly become very small, nothing more than a reference to an old imperialistic nation in semi-ficticious history texts. Squirrel guns ain't much good against tactical nukes (yes, the russians have them too). >I don't think it would come to that. Nah, the expressed goal of the Russian government is only to take over the world. No reason to think they'd invade if we disarmed ourselves. They never take over defenseless countries. -- rick (Rick Hawkins @ Olivetti ATC) [hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix]!oliveb!oliven!hawk
jerry@oliveb.UUCP (Jerry Aguirre) (08/28/84)
First let me state that if a practical defense against ICBMs can be
developed then I am for it. Even a limited defense capability would
help with accidental launches and launches by terrorists.
What I would like is for someone who is proposing the "Star Wars" plan
to answer the question of how we defend a space based weapons system.
Before Star Wars there was a lot of news about the development of
killer satellites and other weapons capable of destroying satellites.
At that point the worry was over loosing our surveillance and
communications but the same vulnerability would seem to apply to space
based weapons systems. I think the question about what happens when
the other side puts a hundred pounds of gravel in the reverse orbit
ought to be answered also.
About the only way I can see to counter this kind of threat is to put
up thousands of small individual systems along with thousands more decoy
systems. But none of the proposed systems seem to be along this line.
If we put up a billion dollar weapons system and they knock it down
with a million dollar weapons system then I think we lost out on the
deal. This brings me to another related question. Suppose we build
this weapons system and someone knocks it down (or for those who
believe it can't be knocked down, suppose they try). Is that grounds
for war? Do we open a whole new area for "incidents" like we had with
the U2 reconnaisance flights.
If that isn't enough for discussion what if happens someone launches a
strike against us and we knock out all the incoming weapons? Do we
still launch a counter strike?
Jerry Aguirre
{hplabs|fortune|ios|idi|ihnp4|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!jerrykissell@flairvax.UUCP (08/29/84)
I don't think unilateral disarmament is a good idea. However, I take exception to casual statements like: > Nah, the expressed goal of the Russian government is only to take over the > world. > (Rick Hawkins @ Olivetti ATC) Can someone cite me a reference to such an expression of this goal, made by the Soviet government within the last thirty years? Kevin D. Kissell Fairchild Research Center Advanced Processor Development uucp: {ihnp4 decvax}!decwrl!\ >flairvax!kissell {ucbvax sdcrdcf}!hplabs!/ "Any closing epigram, regardless of truth or wit, grows galling after a number of repetitions"
barry@ames.UUCP (Ken Barry) (08/31/84)
[] Let me begin by thanking Jerry Aguirre for one of the most reasonable postings questioning the "Star Wars" idea that I've seen; serious questions are better than reflex responses based on political ideology. I am certainly not competent to answer all his questions, but I'll attempt to do what I can. > What I would like is for someone who is proposing the "Star Wars" plan > to answer the question of how we defend a space based weapons system. > Before Star Wars there was a lot of news about the development of > killer satellites and other weapons capable of destroying satellites. > At that point the worry was over loosing our surveillance and > communications but the same vulnerability would seem to apply to space > based weapons systems. I think the question about what happens when > the other side puts a hundred pounds of gravel in the reverse orbit > ought to be answered also. I think we have to take a long view; we will certainly not have a large-scale, space-based ICBM defense for some decades, yet. All that has been proposed so far is to spend money to determine feasibility. The questions you raise are ones which will need to be answered by these feasibility studies. For now, I can only suggest that we are likely to have a much larger presence in space, generally, by the turn of the century, and we will have to think about defending our spy satellites, communications satellites, and space-based industries by then, even if we do not choose to build a space-based ICBM defense. > About the only way I can see to counter this kind of threat is to put > up thousands of small individual systems along with thousands more decoy > systems. But none of the proposed systems seem to be along this line. Actually, General Daniel Graham's "High Frontier" concept is precisely along these lines. He suggests an armada of ~440 low-cost ICBM killers using the low-tech "throw-gravel-at-'em" approach instead of the high-tech beam weapons. > If we put up a billion dollar weapons system and they knock it down > with a million dollar weapons system then I think we lost out on the > deal. I agree. This is all part of the feasibility question, and the feasibility of space-based ICBM defense has not yet been demonstrated. > This brings me to another related question. Suppose we build > this weapons system and someone knocks it down (or for those who > believe it can't be knocked down, suppose they try). Is that grounds > for war? Do we open a whole new area for "incidents" like we had with > the U2 reconnaisance flights. If someone makes a massive attack on our space-based defenses, be it successful or no, there are two obvious responses: first, full nuclear alert. One of the advantages of space-based defense is exactly this; we get more than 10-30 minutes warning of a nuclear strike BECAUSE they'll attack our space-based defenses and warning systems first. The other obvious response is to attack THEIR space-based defenses (we can assume that, if they take our defense seriously enough to attack it, they would want to have a similar system, themselves). One possible outcome of such a preliminary "space war" (which would involve little or no direct danger to humans) is that one side would be left in a losing position where further action (i.e. atomic attacks on the other country) would be suicidal (their defense survived, yours didn't). In this scenario, an atomic war which would otherwise have occurred has been avoided. > If that isn't enough for discussion what if happens someone launches a > strike against us and we knock out all the incoming weapons? Do we > still launch a counter strike? See above. Instead of a choice between only two unacceptable alternatives (surrender or massive retaliation), we would have many options. We could demand their verified destruction of their atomic arsenal, under threat of doing it for them with selected strikes against military targets. We could do nothing immediate, proving our peaceful nature to the world at large, but still having all our missiles safely in their silos, while they would require much time to replace their spent offensive capability. Though I doubt they'd bother, since we would have just proved that capability worthless. Or we could use our new military dominance to make them pull in their horns, generally. If we assume the attacker to be the Soviets, for instance, we would have the clout to demand their withdrawal from Afghanistan, to make them give greater autonomy to their Eastern European client states, etc. Let me close by pointing out that this is not intended as a thorough defense of the space-based defense concept, but just an attempt to partly answer the questions raised by Jerry Aguirre. There are other serious questions that have been raised, and while I am attracted by the idea of an effective defense against atomic attack, I am far from convinced of its feasibility, myself. But I do think it's worth spending some serious money to try to discover if "Star Wars" can offer us an alternative to the present nuclear nightmare. [The opinions expressed herein are my own foolishness, and do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone that matters.] - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Electric Avenue: {dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry
jhs@druxy.UUCP (08/31/84)
A response to the following: > I don't think unilateral disarmament is a good idea. However, I take exception to casual statements like: >> Nah, the expressed goal of the Russian government is only to >> take over the world. (Rick Hawkins @ Olivetti ATC) > Can someone cite me a reference to such an expression of this goal, > made by the Soviet government within the last thirty years? > Kevin D. Kissell > Fairchild Research Center Granted, the reply was in a *casual* style, but the substance was (I believe) an accurate reflection of the Soviet dogma and intent (within the last 30 years). Re the dogma: the Communist Manifesto cites world domination as a goal and philosophy. Re the last thirty years: The best-known public comment was by N. Khruschev--"We will bury you."--in 1960 (this is probably a solid date; if not, please correct). That Russian good-old-boy, N.K., as Soviet premier could reasonably be considered an official spokesperson for the Soviet government (which is also why Ronnie's recent open-make gaffe is more significant politically). Private statements, actions, and policies of the KGB (also reflective of the Soviet government's position) indicate that an active unremitting campaign has been in progress for at least 30 years with the principal goal of undermining Western and Western-sympathetic governments, institutions, and philosophies. (yes, yes, yes, I know; we have the sometimes suspect actions of our CIA as an albatross--all the more reason to keep them under control and prevent them from making de facto policies and taking unilateral actions). Also, lack of restatement or public repudiation for a standing policy/intent does not mean that the policy is no longer active. It just means that they are trying to keep a lower profile on the issue. Comments, corrections, or flames, anyone? -- Jeff Shore AT&T-IS (Denver) druxy!jhs
hawk@oliven.UUCP (08/31/84)
> >I don't think unilateral disarmament is a good idea. However, I take exception >to casual statements like: > >> Nah, the expressed goal of the Russian government is only to take over the >> world. >> (Rick Hawkins @ Olivetti ATC) > >Can someone cite me a reference to such an expression of this goal, >made by the Soviet government within the last thirty years? Afghanistan. Chezcloslovakia (sp?). -- rick (Rick Hawkins @ Olivetti ATC) [hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix]!oliveb!oliven!hawk
hawk@oliven.UUCP (08/31/84)
And these, transported from net.flame [without permission, of course] > "there is profound error and harm in the disorienting >claims of bourgeois ideologues that there will be no victor >in the thermonuclear world war. The peoples of the world will >put an end to imperialism, which is causing mankind incalcuable >suffering" > > -- Major General A. Milovidov and Col. V. Kozlov, eds > The Philosophical Heritage of V.I. Lenin and Problems > of Contemporary War [Moscow: Voenizdat, 1972], page 24 > > "Today the Soviet Union has military superiority over the >United States and henceforth the United States will be threatened. >You had better get used to it" > > -- Marshal Nikolai Ogarkov, Chief of the Soviet > General Staff, following a meeting in Moscow in > 1978 with members of the House Armed Services Committee >Carl >..!ctvax!uokvax!lmaher -- rick (Rick Hawkins @ Olivetti ATC) [hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix]!oliveb!oliven!hawk
bsa@ncoast.UUCP (The WITNESS) (09/01/84)
[Line-eater? WHAT line-ea... (burp)] > From: terryl@tekchips.UUCP (Terry Laskodi) >>>I worked with some Russians while visiting IIASA in Austria some years back >>>and the impression I got was NOT that they were a bunch of war mongers. >>Are these the same Ruskies (sp?) that shot down a 747 full of innocent people > Well, always one to stick my foot in my mouth, let's not confuse ordinary > everyday people with the brass at the top (who are the ones that really make > all of the decisions). Exactly. I do not have recent information (who does?), but the common Russian people are not anti-American fanatics, mostly. Of course, when they hear only the lies that the Communist government tells them, they make their decisions based on what they hear. So SOME Russians believe we are as nasty as the Kremlin makes us out to be. Until they meet the occasional American tourist and can talk with him/her when a government spy doesn't seem to be around -- notice the wording, please. > Now, aren't you glad you live in a country where these discussions can take > place without fear of retribution or harassment???? VERY MUCH SO!!! "A free man cannot be enslaved, he can only be killed." --bsa
faustus@ucbvax.ARPA (Wayne Christopher) (09/02/84)
> Private statements, actions, and policies of the KGB (also reflective > of the Soviet government's position) indicate that an active unremitting > campaign has been in progress for at least 30 years with the principal > goal of undermining Western and Western-sympathetic governments, > institutions, and philosophies. (yes, yes, yes, I know; we have the > sometimes suspect actions of our CIA as an albatross--all the more > reason to keep them under control and prevent them from making de facto > policies and taking unilateral actions). All the more reason, I think, for giving it more power so that it can effectively challenge the KGB in these countries (and undermine USSR-sympathetic governments). You have to fight fire with fire, and if half the country knows exactly what the CIA is up to all the time, and whether or not it will do some espionage must be determined by a vote of congress, it can't be very effective. Wayne
alan@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Alan Algustyniak) (09/03/84)
>> Nah, the expressed goal of the Russian government is only to take over the >> world. >> (Rick Hawkins @ Olivetti ATC) > >Can someone cite me a reference to such an expression of this goal, >made by the Soviet government within the last thirty years? > I can; I can give you a whole bunch of them! The earliest is 1956, the invasion of Hungary to prevent it's people from escaping control by the Russian Soviets. The latest is 1984, preparations for the invasion of neutral Sweden by reconaissance of defenses by submarines and covert landing parties. The latter was reported by the L.A. Times last week, quoting from one of "Jane's...of the World" books, that it has been going on since 1962. There are a lot more in between those dates, of course, you can almost pick a year at random... Too bad you didn't say 'last 40 years', the aims of Communism haven't changed preceptibly since then, and the list would be even longer. But let me quote Dimitri Z. Manuilsky, lecturing at the Lenin School of Political Warfare, in Moscow in 1931: War to the hilt between capitalism and communism is inevitable. Today, of course, we are not strong enough to attack. Our time will come in 20 or 30 years. In order to win we shall need the element of surprise. The bourgeoisie will have to be put to sleep so we shall begin by launching the most spectacular peace movement on record. There will be electrifying overtures and unheard of concessions. The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent, will rejoice to cooperate in their own destruction. They will leap at another chance to be friends. As soon as their guard is down, we shall smash them with our clenched fist. Alan Algustyniak (ihnp4!sdcrdcf!alan) (allegra!sdcrdcf!alan) (cbosgd!sdcrdcf!alan)
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (09/04/84)
From: bsa@ncoast.UUCP (The WITNESS) > Remember Eisenhower? He worked it out with the Sovs so we would >mutually stop testing nuclear weapons... so the Russians went ahead and >tested new bombs when it pleased them to do so. I expect the same if we >ban space weapons... and then we'll be caught with our satellites down when >the Sovs launch their nuclear weapons, wipe out our launched weapons via >satellite and knock out any that did NOT get launched with their own bombs, >and take us over. THIS is sanity? You're a little confused. The Partial Test Ban Treaty was signed on August 5, 1963, and negotiated under Kennedy's administration. The treaty did not ban all testing, although that was the next planned step, yet to be achieved. Here's a comparison of testing following signing of the Partial Test Ban Treaty (source: "World View 1984", Pantheon, New York): Year US USSR UK France 1964 28 6 1 3 1965 29 9 1 4 1966 40 15 - 6 The Soviets did more testing during the 70's, but it is completely untrue that "the Russians went ahead and tested new bombs when it pleased them to do so" if by this you mean regardless of treaty limitations. I don't know where the idea that the Soviets just violate treaties with abandon came from, but it certainly isn't backed by any reasonable data. The yellow rain controversy (mentioned in another article) should be treated seriously. It is not, however, a clear treaty violation (there are U.S. experts who still dispute the findings of the Reagan Administration), and if it is, there are ways to deal with that. I think it is absurd to think that the Soviets and the U.S. can long exist together on this Earth without treaties limiting their activities. If the point is, you can't trust the Soviets, fine. Trust has very little to do with treaties, though. Mike Kelly Mike Kelly
bill@utastro.UUCP (09/05/84)
> All the more reason, I think, for giving it [the CIA] more power so that > it can effectively challenge the KGB in these countries (and > undermine USSR-sympathetic governments). You have to fight fire > with fire, and if half the country knows exactly what the CIA is > up to all the time, and whether or not it will do some espionage > must be determined by a vote of congress, it can't be very effective. Those who fight fire with fire...usually get burned. -- Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) utastro!bill@ut-ngp (ARPANET)
garry@bolton.UUCP (Garry Baer) (09/05/84)
This message is empty.
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (09/06/84)
> ".. you have to fight fire with fire .."
Reminds me of Darth Vader: "To defeat me you must become me." Is that
what you want, Wayne?
Mike Kellygabor@qantel.UUCP (Gabor Fencsik) (09/06/84)
Baba ROM DOS from Palo Alto writes in and says: >Afghanistan, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary demonstrate that the Soviet Union >is an expansionist power. That's troublesome. It should be kept in mind, >however, that we did some amusing things to Mexico and Spain in the pursuit >of our "manifest destiny" in the nineteenth century. I don't believe that my >great grandfather's generation were bent on enslaving the world. I see no >reason to believe that the Soviets are either. They will, however, spread >their power to whatever extent realistic political and military situations >allow. To the extent that their gains are our losses, we must oppose them. >The bent-on-world-domination demonology, while useful in whipping up support >for military expenditures, can be a hinderance to addressing the very real >issues of day to day coexistence with a fellow nuclear superpower. Here Baba seems to be repeating a well-known Kissinger argument: let's forget about Cold War rhetoric and treat the Russian-American conflict as a traditionalbig-power rivalry; nothing that can't be solved by a dose of shrewd diplomacy and a couple of agreements on spheres of influence, buffer states and the like. I feel this is fine as far as it goes but it is also entirely correct to point out that the Soviet regime is a menace to humanity in a way that 19th century America (or Spain, for that matter) was not. Through a series of historical misfortunes over the last 600 years Russia has evolved into a heavily militarized, centralized, hierarchical police state with no traditions of pluralism, tolerance, free discussion, limited government, civic courage, accountability of government power, distinction between opposition and treason, privacy, free flow of people and ideas, civil disobedience, local autonomy or rules of succession. Now most of this is the Russians' problem, not ours; much of it has existed before 1917. Our problem is having to deal with a ruling elite acting in a vacuum, insulated from pressures that would keep them from persisting in disastrous policies indefinitely. This is what makes them far more menacing than your run-of-the-mill expansionist power. So Reagan's 'evil empire' talk doesn't bother me much; I'll even swallow Jeane Kirkpatrick's rather lame distinction between 'authoritarian' and 'totalitarian' regimes. What does bother me in all this rhetoric is that Reagan and the people around him seem to consider the USSR as an unstable regime teetering on the edge of imminent collapse: all it takes is a few more turns of the screw, a bit of economic warfare and an intensified arms race. This is an appalling misconception because a) the regime is stable and enjoys the support of most of the population; b) the violent collapse of the Soviet Union and the resulting wars, revolutions and famines are not in the American national interest. There would be no guarantees of a better regime emerging in the end (remember, many Iranians thought nothing could be worse than the Shah and plenty of Germans were sure nothing could be worse than the Weimar Republic). c) We have no mission to set Russian history right and, anyway, we can have only a very marginal effect on the evolution of their society and policies.
richard@apple.UUCP (Richard Johnson) (09/08/84)
[manges-moi]
PLEASE. Move this discussion to net.politics. I am sick of reading this shit.
My `n' finger is in a cast.
richard johnson apple computers, inc.
( the new wave fruit stand of the valley )
{dual,mtxinu,nsc,voder}!apple!richard [flames to /dev/null]faustus@ucbvax.ARPA (Wayne Christopher) (09/08/84)
> > ".. you have to fight fire with fire .." > > Reminds me of Darth Vader: "To defeat me you must become me." Is that > what you want, Wayne? > > Mike Kelly I think you are quoting this a bit out of context, but... I think that if you really think about it, you can find a lot of ways in which Darth Vader is a bad analogy for the USSR. What I meant is, if the Soviets are running around supplying arms to countries and overthrowing governments without scruples, and we agonize for months about whether some dictator really deserves our support, we aren't going to stay ahead for long. Politics (especially international politics) isn't a moral game -- you do what you have to if you want to survive. That doesn't mean that we have to become like the USSR... How about "Strike me down and I will become infinitely more powerful?" Would you rather use this as a slogan for foreign affairs? Wayne
jdd@allegra.UUCP (John DeTreville) (09/08/84)
Okay, everyone, let's just agree that the Russian dilemma can be solved only
through an all-out nuclear attack just as soon as we can get our defenses
up, and move on to the next topic, okay?
Or you guys could continue it in net.politics.
Cheers,
John ("Hall/Davis in 84") DeTreville
Bell Labs, Murray Hillhenry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (09/13/84)
> b) the violent collapse of the Soviet Union and the resulting wars, > revolutions and famines are not in the American national interest. > There would be no guarantees of a better regime emerging in the > end (remember, many Iranians thought nothing could be worse than > the Shah and plenty of Germans were sure nothing could be worse > than the Weimar Republic). More to the point, if you are worried about accidental nuclear war, then internal collapse in the Soviet Union is something to be deeply concerned about, not to say frightened of. Revolutionary chaos in a nuclear-armed country is not to be taken lightly. Especially since there would inevitably be accusations that the US had started it. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (09/13/84)
> a) the regime is stable and enjoys the support of most of the population;
This is actually somewhat debatable; it depends on exactly what you mean
by "support". It would be more accurate to say that the government has
the passive support of most of the population, but that dissatisfaction
with specific policies is frequent. The Soviet government has had to
cope with quite a number of incidents of unrest, industrial action, and
even outright revolt (notably the Novocherkassk [sp?] uprising) in the
last decade or two. These have all been fairly localized, and the Soviet
government has generally dealt with them quickly and then hushed them up.
(The usual technique for dealing with them, by the way, has been to give
in quickly on material issues and then have the KGB infiltrate to prevent
recurrences.) "It all depends on whose ox is gored"; the average Soviet
citizen probably supports his government in the abstract until pushed too
far over some concrete issue. The government remains stable as long as
it can avoid pushing too many people too far simultaneously. So far it's
proven fairly adept at doing this.
--
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henrymmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (09/14/84)
====================
All the more reason, I think, for giving it [the CIA] more power so that
it can effectively challenge the KGB in these countries (and
undermine USSR-sympathetic governments). You have to fight fire
with fire, and if half the country knows exactly what the CIA is
up to all the time, and whether or not it will do some espionage
must be determined by a vote of congress, it can't be very effective.
Wayne
=======================
I've always thought the metaphor "fight fire with fire" rather strange.
Water usually works best, although there are occasions when you have
to burn a firebreak to contain a conflagration.
Whether the current state of the world could be considered a conflagration
depends on your particular demonology. My feeling is that the best defence
against the Communists is to make our own way of life evidently attractive,
not to copy them. If our principles (and practices) are obviously better
for another country than the Communist principles (and practices), why
should any country go their way. The problem is that both Russia and the
USA are seen as big bullies, and their rhetoric sounds better to poor
people. It isn't self-evident that our way is better when you are
starving and without effective ways of sampling either possibility. Who
offers most apparent opportunity for improvement? For lots of people
oppresed by dictators supported from Washington, the Russian offers of
support must sound mighty attractive.
We must not only be better than them; we must be seen to be better.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmtroy@eisx.UUCP (Steve Rojak) (10/12/84)
Ogarkov? He directs Soviet misinformation efforts. sr