ARMS-D-Request%MIT-MC.ARPA@MIT-XX.ARPA (Moderator) (10/20/85)
Arms-Discussion Digest Sunday, October 20, 1985 1:24AM
Volume 5, Issue 3
Today's Topics:
ABM treaty question
SDI and build-down
Re: build-down & SDI
SDI as Space Development Initiative
Parnas' comments on SDI
Computers and Proliferation
Fissionless fusion bombs
Re: build-down & SDI
Leonard Koppett, newspaper columnist, good recently
One Apocalyptic Scenario: Yahweh vs. Allah
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 85 15:35:39 EDT
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: ABM treaty question
To: rimey%ucbmiro@UCB-VAX.ARPA
cc: ARMS-DISCUSSION@MIT-MC.ARPA, LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA
In-reply-to: Msg of Thu 4 Jul 85 02:05:50 PDT from rimey%ucbmiro at Berkeley (Ken Rimey)
Message-ID: <[MIT-MC.ARPA].570602.850710.LIN>
I want to pose a question concerning the interpretation of the 1972
ABM Treaty. It was obviously written without directed energy weapons
in mind. Article II, reproduced below, defines the term "ABM system".
Are directed energy weapons covered by the treaty or not? I have read
contradictory things.
There is also a set of Common Understandings, one of which states that
systems based on "new physical principles" are subject to consultation
and agreement. The interpretation of nearly everyone in the business
is that this understanding covers DEWs.
More precisely, what are the official interpretations of the US and
USSR, and what were they when the treaty was signed? I have also
included Article V below because it suggests that beam weapons are
in spirit banned by the treaty.
I would be surprised if the copy you have of the treaty does not have
these Common Understandings, as they have the force of law.
-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 85 15:38:32 EDT
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: SDI and build-down
To: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@UCB-VAX.ARPA
cc: ARMS-DISCUSSION@MIT-MC.ARPA, LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA
In-reply-to: Msg of 5 Jul 85 00:43:52 CDT (Fri) from ihnp4!utzoo!henry at Berkeley
Message-ID: <[MIT-MC.ARPA].570609.850710.LIN>
If one assumes that the coast-phase interception system
within SDI is ground-launched rather than satellite-based, one interesting
way of going about it would be to use existing Minuteman silos as launch
points for the interception system. In this way, deploying the defense
system automatically reduces the number of offensive missiles.
The one disadvantage -- grave, possibly prohibitive -- of this scheme is
that a mass interceptor launch looks very much like a retaliatory attack,
from a distance.
The fly-out times of defensive ICBM's becomes a problem. They leave
the ground so slowly that you can't commit them before you know where
they are headed.
A fellow at Stanford (George Smith) who used to read this Diges has
done some work on this subject. If George is out there, maybe he
would care to contribute?
herb
-----------------------------------------
Received: from CMU-CS-UNH.ARPA by MIT-MC.ARPA.ARPA; 10 Jul 85 16:46:38 EDT
Date: 10 Jul 1985 16:40-EDT
From: Hank.Walker@CMU-CS-UNH.ARPA
To: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@ucb-vax.arpa
cc: arms-d@mit-mc.arpa
Subject: Re: build-down & SDI
Message-Id: <489876038/dmw@CMU-CS-UNH>
1054 silo-based ABM interceptors would have a real tough time countering
6540 SLBM warheads (assumes no boost-phase intercept). How do you tell
the difference between boost-phase and mid-course space-based SDI
systems?
-----------------------------------------
Received: from RUTGERS.ARPA by MIT-MC.ARPA.ARPA; 10 Jul 85 17:26:29 EDT
Date: 10 Jul 85 17:24:48 EDT
From: DIETZ@RUTGERS.ARPA
Subject: SDI as Space Development Initiative
To: Hank.Walker@CMU-CS-UNH.ARPA
cc: arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA
Some comments on the SDI/space development connection...
While pop-up x-ray lasers are not useful in space development, other
SDI technologies are very useful for civilian space exploitation.
Perhaps the best example is the ground based laser system using space
based mirrors. This system could be trivially adapted to power orbital
transfer vehicles, space stations or lunar bases. Railguns have been
considered as reaction engines with high Isp. Any SDI deployment using
space based weapons will probably require the development of heavy lift
vehicles and the exploitation of lunar resources (for shielding against
enemy attack).
My concern is that after Reagan leaves office one of his successors will
sign a super ABM treaty, and high energy lasers and microwave beams (read
solar power satellites) will go the way of project Orion.
-------
-----------------------------------------
Received: from UCB-VAX.ARPA by MIT-MC.ARPA.ARPA; 10 Jul 85 22:35:07 EDT
Received: by UCB-VAX.ARPA (4.24/5.2)
id AA00985; Wed, 10 Jul 85 19:29:08 pdt
Message-Id: <8507110229.AA00985@UCB-VAX.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 85 15:46:33 edt
From: decvax!yetti!peter@Berkeley (Peter Roosen-Runge)
To: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!arms-d@Berkeley
Subject: Parnas' comments on SDI
According to the Globe & Mail (July 9), David Parnas told the Strategic
Defence Initiatives Organization in his resignation letter that
"the goals stated for the strategic defence system cannot be attained
by the class of systems [they] are considering." Parnas resigned after
being on the SDIO panel for 1 month and 2 meetings. He is also quoted
as saying that the SDI system is a "fraud" and that most of the money
allocated to it will be wasted.
His reaction, as a military software developer and software-engineering
theoretician, confirms my impression that the least convincing component
of the entire SDI concept is the battle-management software envisioned
in the Strategic Computing Program. Question: what sustains the conviction
of those people supporting and participating in SCP that it can actually
perform the kind of identification and targeting functions required?
Peter H. Roosen-Runge, Dept. of Computer Science
York University, Toronto, Canada
-----------------------------------------
Received: from RUTGERS.ARPA by MIT-MC.ARPA.ARPA; 11 Jul 85 07:57:56 EDT
Date: 11 Jul 85 07:56:26 EDT
From: DIETZ@RUTGERS.ARPA
Subject: Computers and Proliferation
To: arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA
I haven't seen anyone mention the obvious connection between computing
power and nuclear weapon design. Today's personal computers are more
powerful than the mainframes available when the H bomb was invented, and
no electronic computers at all were used at Los Alamos. Widely available
number crunchers are orders of magnitude more powerful still, and withcontinuing technological advance will become much cheaper. While
physical intuition may have been required to build efficient nuclear
weapons back then, perhaps today that can be replaced with a good program
and lots of cycles.
Received: from uw-june.arpa by MIT-MC.ARPA.ARPA; 12 Jul 85 08:02:28 EDT
Received: by uw-june.arpa (4.42/3.2D)
id AA15067; Fri, 12 Jul 85 05:00:48 PDT
Return-Path: <bcsaic!douglas@uw-june.arpa>
Received: by bcsaic (4.12/4.7)
id AA22624; Thu, 11 Jul 85 14:39:29 pdt
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 85 14:39:29 pdt
From: bcsaic!douglas@uw-june.arpa (douglas schuler)
Message-Id: <8507112139.AA22624@bcsaic>
To: uw-june!arms-d@mit-mc.arpa
I have just joined this discussion so excuse this question if it's
been discussed to death..
Is there anybody who actually believes that the SDI as promoted
(100% protection from ICBM's) is feasible? If, in actuality,
no one believes this then the real isssue is being evaded.
A disturbing aspect of Star Wars is the implication, advanced
rather shamelessly, that once the system is deployed, the whole
game (arms race) is over. It is obvious to me that the deployment
of the system would just signal a new round of maintenance and
enhancement. This would mean additional defense against star
wars penetrating missiles and decoys. It is also obvious (if
the entire history of software development is not to be ignored)
that software maintenance and (heaven forbid) debugging would be
necessary in a post-deployment situation.
These _necessary_ developments would all be _necessary_ in an
atmosphere where negotiations and arms control were not
employed.
------------------------------
Received: from UCB-VAX.ARPA by MIT-MC.ARPA.ARPA; 12 Jul 85 14:37:35 EDT
Received: by UCB-VAX.ARPA (4.24/5.2)
id AA20178; Wed, 10 Jul 85 01:46:35 pdt
From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@Berkeley
Message-Id: <8507100846.AA20178@UCB-VAX.ARPA>
Date: 10 Jul 85 00:14:05 CDT (Wed)
Received: by ihnp4.ATT.UUCP id AA26322; 10 Jul 85 00:14:05 CDT (Wed)
To: arms-d@mit-mc.ARPA
Subject: fissionless fusion bombs
> Is it possible to make a fusion bomb without using any fission bombs to
> get things started? If so, what is the smallest that one could be made
> using current technology and how fragile would it be?
Right now I believe the answer is "no"; the heating and compression needed
to ignite fusion fuel is a little much to expect of anything short of a
fission explosion. Actually, not quite true, as witness the various
pellet-implosion fusion-power schemes, but the equipment needed for those
methods fills buildings right now. Conceivably there are simpler ways if
you don't care about the equipment surviving for a second shot, but I'm
not aware of any.
I would be surprised if it were possible and were not being pursued; the
presence of the fission trigger in a fusion bomb is a major expense and
a major source of fallout in "clean" bombs.
Fission bombs can be the size of grapefruit, so a fission-triggered fusion
bomb the size of a toaster is probably possible. (It would be a lot
heavier than a toaster, though...) Any nuclear bomb is definitely a
precision device, so it can't take unlimited bashing about, but bombs
that can be fired from guns are presumably fairly tough.
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
------------------------------
Received: from UCB-VAX.ARPA by MIT-MC.ARPA.ARPA; 12 Jul 85 20:27:15 EDT
Received: by UCB-VAX.ARPA (4.24/5.2)
id AA09484; Fri, 12 Jul 85 17:21:07 pdt
From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@Berkeley
Message-Id: <8507130021.AA09484@UCB-VAX.ARPA>
Date: 12 Jul 85 16:26:56 CDT (Fri)
Received: by ihnp4.ATT.UUCP id AA29003; 12 Jul 85 16:26:56 CDT (Fri)
To: Hank.Walker@CMU-CS-UNH.ARPA
Cc: arms-d@mit-mc.ARPA
Subject: Re: build-down & SDI
> 1054 silo-based ABM interceptors would have a real tough time countering
> 6540 SLBM warheads (assumes no boost-phase intercept).
It's obvious: you MIRV them! Or maybe MIMI would be a better acronym:
Multiple Independently-targeted Missile Interceptors. More seriously,
there's no reason why you couldn't build more silos once you'd run out
of existing ones, but this aggravates the problem of distinguishing the
defensive system from a bigger-and-better offensive system.
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
------------------------------
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by MIT-MC.ARPA.ARPA; 13 Jul 85 05:19:17 EDT
Received: from IMSSS by Score with Pup; Sat 13 Jul 85 02:12:36-PDT
Date: 13 Jul 1985 0210-PDT
From: Rem@IMSSS
Subject: Leonard Koppett, newspaper columnist, good recently
To: ARMS-D%MIT-MC@SCORE
I recommend ARMS-D people reading Leonard Koppett's newspaper column
if it is available. It's in the Peninsula Times-Tribune (Palo Alto, CA)
on page 2 on Tuesday&Friday&Sunday. I presume it's in other newspapers
nationwide. Lately it's had some really good ideas regarding international
relations that might be relevant to Arms-D discussions.
This last Tuesday (Jul 9), it was a criticism of Ronald Reagan's live-TV
utterance in which the "outlaw states" of Iran, Libya, N.Korea, Cuba and
Nicaragua were compared to the Third Reich. This Friday (Jul 12), it was
a presentation of the thesis that we should consider what some news item
means to the Soviet people rather than just what it means to US/USSR
relations, and that we should learn some basic stuff about Soviet people
and peoples of other nations so we can have some grasp on how they might
react to some news. For example, how many of us realize that Pushkin is
as famous in the USSR as Shakespeare is in the English-speaking nations?
We should learn at last that kind of truly basic common stuff that "everybody"
over there knows, even if we don't have time to learn all the obscure stuff.
If we hope to get along with them, we must understand them a little.
Anybody else on this netlist read Koppett lately and have something to add?
-------
------------------------------
Received: from UCB-VAX.ARPA by MIT-MC.ARPA.ARPA; 13 Jul 85 05:28:39 EDT
Received: by UCB-VAX.ARPA (4.24/5.2)
id AA05406; Thu, 11 Jul 85 17:25:14 pdt
From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@Berkeley
Message-Id: <8507120025.AA05406@UCB-VAX.ARPA>
Date: 11 Jul 85 18:20:33 CDT (Thu)
Received: by ihnp4.ATT.UUCP id AA12098; 11 Jul 85 18:20:33 CDT (Thu)
To: arms-d@mit-mc.ARPA
Subject: One Apocalyptic Scenario: Yahweh vs. Allah
> ... Iraq and Iran have settled their
> past disputes, and are, with Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other
> nations in the region, now joined in an intimate and mighty military
> alliance governed by Islamic fundamentalism. ...
Dept. of Minor Nitpicking:
Including Iran in this is dubious. The Iranians and the Arabs (the
Iranians are *not* Arabs) have a history of hatred and conflict going
back many centuries. The Iran-Iraq war is merely the latest manifestation
of it. Islamic fundamentalism *might* suffice to overcome this for a
while, but it's a large assumption.
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************