db@cstvax.UUCP (Dave Berry) (11/19/85)
In article <3327@brl-tgr.ARPA> gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) writes: >> I suspect the Russians have made a monumental discovery >> and are not willing to share it with us, and if I am correct as >> to what is is, I don't blame them because in a few more years it >> will give them a massive military edge. > >It is, I thought, well known that the Soviets test-fired a >neutral particle beam "weapon" several years ago. One assumes >that they are farther along by now. Yes, but do they have the computing skills/resources to control an actual system (as opposed to a test version)? I doubt it - people here are being jailed for shipping PDP-11s to Warsaw Pact countries, and from what we know of their computer science research they're far behind us. And YOUR software engineers don't think SDI is feasible, so I doubt that the USSR could manage it. >If it weren't so dangerous, it would be almost amusing how >readily a lot of Americans (apparently including the President >himself) jump at the chance to bargain away strategic defense >at the negotiating table. You haven't had one for 40 years and you're still the most powerful nation on Earth. >If you read the memoirs >of high-level Soviet defectors (not ballet performers, but those >involved in the military, intelligence, or diplomatic service), >you will find that it is quite common for the Soviets to >encourage nuclear-freeze, unilateral disarmament, and anti- >defense movements in the U.S. Often this is not as overt as >Velikov lobbying in the Senate. But if you're the least bit >suspicious of the Soviet government having our best interests at >heart, you might be able to conclude what their perception of >the real worth of America's military development is. Of course, >your values may not be quite the same as theirs.. I've been involved in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament for some years, and I've seen little of this money. Even if it's there, it doesn't mean that an arms freeze is to our disadvantage - I think an arms freeze would benefit everyone in the world (*) including the USSR, who could then develop their economy & provide a better standard of living for their people. * - except those who make money from developing weapons, of course. >This subject should probably move off net.physics, but I don't >know where it belongs. Sorry. Try the arms-digest (now available as mod.arms-d). -- Dave Berry. CS postgrad, Univ. of Edinburgh ...mcvax!ukc!cstvax!db
pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (11/21/85)
Paul M. Koloc, pmk@prometheus writes >>> I suspect the Russians have made a monumental discovery >>> and are not willing to share it with us, and if I am correct as >>> to what is is, I don't blame them because in a few more years it >>> will give them a massive military edge. >> In article <3327@brl-tgr.ARPA> gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) adds: >>It is, I thought, well known that the Soviets test-fired a >>neutral particle beam "weapon" several years ago. One assumes >>that they are farther along by now. > Dave Berry. CS postgrad, Univ. of Edinburgh.mcvax!ukc!cstvax!db says" > Yes, but do they have the computing skills/resources to control an actual > system (as opposed to a test version)? I doubt it > 16k of 68020 should be enough, plus a 64 manned space platforms should be effective. Consider that the chemical potential energy of the launchers sitting in silos in the Soviet Union, are a few minutes from being converted to the gravitation potential energy and kinetic energy of space based nuclear terror. Weapons are as much in space as if they were waiting to drop on us from an artificial moon. So the argument of keeping space free of weapons is bogus. Orbital Space will look like the Tokyo subway system during rush hour, if some jerk pulls the trigger. 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. What must be done is to rid the solar system of fission devices; even a commercial reactor could conceivably wipe out the concept of humanity as we know it in a few short centuries. But like a one year old 500 kg child playing with your shot gun, please won't work. Try to give him something else, less deadly, that he perceives as more fun. One basically has to "update" the defensive power of the masses with something they would take pride and feel psychologically secure. That means "put a substitute" defense in place and then "scrap" the nuclear based one. One whose drivers are based on controlled fusion would not be lethal to mankind. > You haven't had one for 40 years and you're still the most powerful > nation on Earth. We have been tested & seriously bloodied a couple of times, during that time. But there is no substitute for a strong defense to reduce the loss of life. Even disarming the citizens of large technologically advanced nations, on the average results in about two or three orders of magnitude increase in the loss of life, since a totalitarian regime can assume power without great difficulty and they can exterminate tens of millions ie. Hitler of Germany, and Stalin of Russia. > > >If you read the memoirs > >of high-level Soviet defectors (not ballet performers, but those > >involved in the military, intelligence, or diplomatic service), > >you will find that it is quite common for the Soviets to > >encourage nuclear-freeze, unilateral disarmament, and anti- > >defense movements in the U.S. > > I've been involved in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament for some years, > and I've seen little of this money. It doesn't take much money to encourage "apple pie" liberal causes. Everybody wants peace, unfortunately it's a tough cookie to hold on to, and like turning a spinning bicycle wheel it sometimes takes force in a orthogonal direction to get it where you want it. > * - except those who make money from developing weapons, of course. Well not just weapons, it turns out that Velikov and (Furth of PPPL) have been scheming ways to boost government funding of "big physics" such as fusion, including joint projects that wouldn't otherwise be supported by each government alone. It's a good cover for Velikov. Furth was turned down last year from going ahead with a so called "hot core" tokamak (20 year old Russian invention) which would cost $2.6 billion & wouldn't "burn". Pure government boondoggle "science". Tokamaks are great plasma physics test chambers (when they are carefully engineered like the German ASDEX). As of a few years ago it has been generally accepted by the few in the know that they can't be ever made to work commercially. So why propose a costly project whose engineering is not feasible? The answer seems to be that if it's not BIG, it's not noticed by the government and the research base isn't large enough to bring in enough of a lobby effort to keep it going. That works for the Soviets as well. So let's be fair and include big physics as a culprit. Fusion could have been commercialized by now if "big" could have been forced out of the the equation. With fusion in hand the frontier of space would be a piece of cake and we wouldn't have time to play "my fist is bigger". +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP | decade | +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
rivero@kovacs.UUCP (Michael Foster Rivero) (11/25/85)
Regarding the Soviets potential SDI capability. Yes, the USSR has test fired an anti-satallite weapon. There is still some speculation that Seasat 1 was knocked out by such a weapon. In any case, all of these rumors and tests can be grouped under the heading "rattling the spears", i.e. a show of potential force. They rattle, then we rattle, then they rattle, then we rattle. This is called, "Strengthening our bargaining position". The main reason certain strategic weapons are bargained away at the conferance table is that neither side wants the weapons to be developed, usually for ecenomic reasons. The idea is," If you do not deploy weapon X, and I do not deploy weapon Y, then both sides can build hydroelectric dams instead." With the exception of the actual contractors involved, most people,in both governments would rather spend their military budgets on civilian programs instead; Hospitals, Utilities, Colleges, Better health services, and the Space Programs, etc. Ultimatly, at some point, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. will probably ally with each other, if for no other reason than to jointly police the third worlds use of nuclear weapons. Unfortunatly. it will probably take a limited nuclear war to make both countries see the light. But, like the Krupps and the Colts discovered during the last two World Wars, there is a lot more money to be made from war than from peace! Hence, SDI.
al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus) (12/31/85)
> > Regarding the Soviets potential SDI capability. > > Yes, the USSR has test fired an anti-satallite weapon. > There is still some speculation that Seasat 1 was knocked out > by such a weapon. In any case, all of these rumors and tests > can be grouped under the heading "rattling the spears", i.e. a > show of potential force. They rattle, then we rattle, then > they rattle, then we rattle. This is called, "Strengthening > our bargaining position". A similar contest in the early part of this century resulted in world war 1.
karn@petrus.UUCP (Phil R. Karn) (01/01/86)
> > Yes, the USSR has test fired an anti-satallite weapon. > > There is still some speculation that Seasat 1 was knocked out > > by such a weapon.... > > A similar contest in the early part of this century resulted in > world war 1. Very true. Depending on which rumor mill you listen to, an alternative explanation for the failure of Seasat 1 is that somebody discovered it was able to detect the slight disturbances of the ocean surface caused by missile-carrying submarines underneath. Has anyone set up a Star Wars (aka SDI) newsgroup yet? Phil
rimey@ernie.BERKELEY.EDU (Ken &) (01/08/86)
> Has anyone set up a Star Wars (aka SDI) newsgroup yet?
Try mod.politics.arms-d
Ken Rimeycrs@lanl.ARPA (01/08/86)
> > Has anyone set up a Star Wars (aka SDI) newsgroup yet? > > Try mod.politics.arms-d See also current discussions in mod.risks. -- The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer, the government or your favorite deity. Charlie Sorsby ...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa
mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) (01/13/86)
In article <787@petrus.UUCP> karn@petrus.UUCP (Phil R. Karn) writes: > . . . > Has anyone set up a Star Wars (aka SDI) newsgroup yet? > > Phil Try mod.politics.arms-d, which is gatewayed from the ARPANET ARMS-D (Arms Discussion Digest) mailing list. About every angle about SDI has been discussed, and probably will continue to be discussed. Michael C. Berch ARPA: mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA UUCP: {akgua,allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,dual,ihnp4,sun}!idi!styx!mcb
ladkin@kestrel.ARPA (01/23/86)
In article <18493@styx.UUCP>, mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) writes: > In article <787@petrus.UUCP> karn@petrus.UUCP (Phil R. Karn) writes: > > . . . > > Has anyone set up a Star Wars (aka SDI) newsgroup yet? > > > > Phil > > Try mod.politics.arms-d, which is gatewayed from the ARPANET ARMS-D > (Arms Discussion Digest) mailing list. About every angle about SDI > has been discussed, and probably will continue to be discussed. > the risks digest, moderated by Peter Neumann (Neumann@sri-csl.arpa) contains extensive discussion of the SDI software problem, by major participants in the debate. I'm not sure how you may get it, except by ftp over the arpanet. Sending a note to risks-request@sri-csl.arpa can result in adding your machine to the distribution list, I believe. Peter Ladkin