arms-d@ucbvax.ARPA (07/08/85)
From: The Arms-D Moderator (Harold Ancell) <ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 3 : Issue 56
Today's Topics:
Bomb Question
Wolitzky on Terrorism
Creating Nuclear Bombs and SDI
Terrorism: States and Individuals
SDI Software...
Star Wars Questions
Partial SDI
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 85 22:34:27 pdt
From: Andrew Scott Beals <bandy@lll-crg.ARPA>
Geographic-Location: Ground Zero, LLNL, Livermore CA
Subject: bomb question
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?
andy
[Note from the Moderator: According to Jerry Pournelle, we don't know,
because the people who were assigned to investigate it either didn't
believe it could be or should be done (I can't remember which and can
find the reference right now. Given that we can fit a nuke in a 155mm
shell, the question is how small do you need one?
- Harold
]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 85 10:49:15 EDT
From: Jeff Miller AMSTE-TOI 4675 <jmiller@apg-1>
Subject: Wolitzky on Terrorism
Jan Wolitzky mentions the teaching to schoolchildren of US government
reaction to British support for the Confederacy during the Civil War.
It is probably a good thing Wolitzky is not a schoolteacher. The US
presence in Lebanon, disastrous as it may have been, was in support of
a legally constituted government, not a faction bent on seizing
control. ( A faction futilely bent on exercising its legal control,
which has been usurped by private warlords.) To compare the shelling
of positions in the Shouf mountains by the New Jersey to the terror
bombing of the Marine barracks shows an amazing twisting of reality.
Remember, the Marines were part of a multinational force requested by
the government of Lebanon, and other than minor patrolling and
suffering attritional casualties from terrorist snipers and bombers,
did not engage in the fratricide around them. Unlike the *cowardly*
terrorists of the Shiite, Druze, Christian Phalange and the PLO before
them, the Marines did not quarter their men and dig their fighting
positions in amongst the civilian populace in a deliberate attempt to
shield themselves from attack. The reason civilians were killed by
the shells of the New Jersey was that the military targets, as usual,
were emplaced in civilian concentrations. Now I suppose that one
could take the view that the US should never become involved in any
conflict when requested by legitimate governments, since such "saber
rattling " is seen as " bullying." I take the view that such an
isolationist policy in the world as it is today is absurd.
I do agree with one statement by Wolitzky. We should never allow
a preoccupation with strategic weapons reduce the priority given to
those weapons needed to combat terrorism. The development of highly
trained special operations forces, combined with vastly better
intelligence capabilities than we have today, are sorely needed.
"Bombing Lebanon back to the Stone Age" is not the answer. The
capability of surgically attacking terrorists is the best answer.
As for remarks about "Jewish gunmen," and ridiculous comparisons
of Israeli behavior towards their prisoners to the that of the
Hezbullah terrorists toward their hostages, one hesitates to dignify
such arguments by responding. A person with some knowledge of
military affairs and history would realize that sometimes, as in the
case of the Village Relocation programs of the Brits in Malaya, or the
Strategic Hamlets program in Vietnam, or extensive cordon-and =-search
operations in Northern Ireland, stern measures in relocation,
detention, and search occur in war. The Israelis are no more or less
stern, but are not brutal or terroristic. They did not take those
prisoners under threat of death or even long confinement pursuant to
their conditions.
I recognize Israel is a favorite whipping boy on whom to blame
all that is wrong in the Near East. We tend to become exasperated by
some of their policies, and their independent, go-it-alone attitudes.
( some "proxies", huh?) Regardless of any criticism I may have for
them, I find it hard to believe that an intelligent person can compare
their behavior to that of the various terror groups in Lebanon.
J.MILLER
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 85 08:24:57 pdt
From: alice!wolit@Berkeley
Subject: "Terrorism"
> Not to digree too much from the discussion of terrorism and
> hijacking, but I feel I must respond to Jan Wolitzky's use of the
> term 'Jewish Gunmen' to characterize Israeli troops. Not only does
> this disguise the fact that we're dealing with troops taking
> prisioners of war in a combat situation (prisioners who were
> accorded all the rights of POW's), but it betrays a certain
> predjudicial streak as well; every time I hear someone say that
> they're not against Jews, just against Israel, I suspect that behind
> that statement lurks a sympathy not unlike Wolitzki's.
I thought it was quite clear that I used the term "Jewish gunmen" to
show the racism permeating the news media's coverage of the hijacking.
Noone shrinks from calling the hijackers "Moslem gunmen," yet the
term is just as offensive. The Shiites held by Israel are
NOT POW's, a term that refers to MILITARY prisoners only. The Geneva
Conventions are explicit in stating that it is illegal to transport
civilians across national boundaries, as Israel did. To kidnap
civilians and hold them without charge is as much a terrorist act when
it is perpetrated by uniformed soldiers as when it is done by
non-uniformed militia. As for my prejudices, I am a Jew myself and
have family living in Jerusalem. This does not blind me to crimes
committed by either side.
> The Shia prisoners which Israel holds were, at no time,
> threatened with death if certain conditions were not met.
Really? They weren't taken at gunpoint? They simply decided to go on
a picnic to Atlit prison with those nice Israeli soldiers?
-----
Jan Wolitzky, AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ; 201 582-2998; alice!wolit
(Affiliation given for identification purposes only)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 85 09:49:25 MDT
From: b-davis@utah-cs (Brad Davis)
Subject: Creating Nuclear Bombs and SDI
In the past 7-8 years the Readers Digest printed an article about a
mediocre physics student at one of our more prestigious universities
(Harvard, Yale, or Stanford, or someone) who was in the process of
flunking out when he decided to design a fission bomb as a sophomore or
junior project. He handed in the project and later went back to pick it
up. The secretary told him to see his advisor. He thought he had
flunked. His advisor (a Nobel laureate) told him he had gotten his A
but the paper had been classified. The student had even correctly
designed the shaped charges necessary to reliably bring the critical
mass together. I think that the student never invoked the Freedom of
Information Act, he had just looked up already declassified material.
With the discussion centering on SDI, what difference does Jack
Anderson's recent claim that the intelligence community has just decided
that the USSR has been building large numbers of ABM sites? If it is
true what should our response be?
Brad Davis
b-davis@utah-cs.ARPA
{decvax, seismo, ihnp4}!utah-cs!b-davis
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 85 09:08:43 PDT
From: Charlie Crummer <crummer@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
Subject: Terrorism: States and Individuals
> From: Richard K. Jennings <jennings@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
> Subject: Herb Lin "Pre-empting Terrorism"
> How far are we prepared to go pre-empting terrorism?
If by pre-empt you mean to remove the POSSIBILITY of a terrorist act
before it is committed, I would hope we would be willing to go a
long way. (I have a feeling that your question is rhetorical though.)
> Should we assume that hostages held by terrorists are already 'dead'
> and say target any airport where a hijacked airliner lands with an
> ICBM?
This would be terrorism in spades, wouldn't it? One of the main
functions of a government is to protect its citizens. How many
U.S. citizens would you be willing to sacrifice in order to "probably
break the cycle"? Would you be willing to sacrifice your life or those
of your loved ones for this cause?
> From what I understand of the terrorist problem this policy
> would probably break the cycle just as Hiroshima convinced governments
> to find better ways to solve their problems. Terrorists rely on
> sympathy from some quarter.
I don't think so. They rely on fear and quid pro quo. If you think
that the recent release of the hostages occured because someone was
sympathetic to the terrorists, I have a bridge in Brooklyn...
> Targeting havens would couple a cost to
> this sympathy which would, I think, remove it.
> Such a policy would probably have to be executed at least once.
Did you know that the U.S. gave asylum to a Soviet hijacker in 1973?
The Soviets do not have a hijacking problem. They also do not
have a crime problem or unemployment. Law and order reign supreme there.
I have a friend who defected from the Soviet Union knowing full well
the relative lawlessness he would find here but he also knew that that
is the price of freedom.
> Rich.
--Charlie
------------------------------
Date: Wed 3 Jul 85 14:51:58-EDT
From: Bard Bloom <BARD@MIT-XX.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V3 #54
> really hard part. (This assumes that you don't care too much
> about building a "professional" bomb with a precisely-predictable
> yield.) Virtually all of the major bits of knowledge that you
> need to do your own design are declassified now. As for actual
> construction, the Manhattan Project did not use any overly fancy
> technology in their shops, and their bombs worked just fine.
>
> Professional bomb designers may live in a rareified world, in
> which things happen when they order it to happen, and many
> technicians struggle very hard to implement their directives. An
> analogy is with auto executives, who always drive cars with full
> tanks of gas and on-call mechanics, and who also don't understand
> how to make a car that works as well for the public.
Well, even an executive of marginal skill can make a go-cart that will
probably go down hill once. Similarly, a suitable berserk terrorist
could make a nuclear bomb, by making small sheets of [stolen]
fissionables and piling them on top of each other *by hand* until they
blew up. (n piles of 1 sheet ==> n/2 of 2 sheets ==> ... for larger
blast, I guess.) This might discomfort the terrorist slightly; but
that won't discourage everyone.
This is not an option for more professional bomb designers, or for
people who want to survive the blast. Note that the terrorist will be
dead several times: making the fissionable glip into sheets by hand
with minimal protection.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 85 17:08:30 EDT
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: SDI Software...
From: _Bob <Carter at RUTGERS.ARPA>
From: Herb Lin <LIN at MIT-MC.ARPA>
Full reliability in the context of a defensive system means
that is does its assigned task with 100% assurance.
This is precisely the point of the entire SDI debate: the
defense of population is *entirely* different than the defense
of missile silos.
You and I are part of the population, and we don't demand 100%
assurance in (say) trying to avoid carcinogens; we are satisfied
to alter our conduct in quite uncomfortable ways in order to lower
risks by a few percentage points. Is SDI so different?
Yes. The President says he will "eliminate" the threat of nuclear
ballistic missiles; that is the basis for his program. The public is
not being asked to support a "reduction" in the threat of nuclear
missiles, but rather its elimination. If *reducing* the threat is
what's being proposed, let the President say THAT, and then a coherent
debate can begin. Until then, however, I will continue to hold the
President to his stated goals, and insist that the feasibility of SDI
be judged accordingly.
Therefore, the apparently technical argument over
feasibility of SDI is in fact a *political* debate over the
actual goals of SDI.
I disagree. SDI is proposed as a planning program. The time for
debate about actual goals is in the planning process, and indeed,
is the planning process. The argument right now is whether SDI is
so frivolous an idea that it is not worth even inquiring into.
Not if you listen to the President and his DoD staff. For example,
Fred Ikle has stated that SDI is an integral part of the long term
defense policy of the United States. That statement, by no means
unique, ain't talking about no "mere" research program to examine
feasibility.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 85 17:15:50 EDT
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Star Wars Questions
I heard these comments at a recent seminar. What do people think?
If Star Wars does not work then we will have put all our resources
into a system that does not work. The Russians will have put their
resources into something more conservative that does work and will be
at a great advantage with respect to us. This may lead them to attack
if our media make a convincing enough case that Star Wars is not
working.
On the other hand, if Star Wars does work as a complete system then it
seems reasonable that the Russians will achieve parity in that also
after 10 years or so. Star Wars has the capability also
of knocking out satellites. So both systems have the capability then
of knocking out the others space-based Star Wars components in a few
seconds. Then the aggressor could sit back and use his Star Wars
system to knock off ICBM's and pop-up missles; and launch his missles
at will in a carefully escalated series of steps designed to force
surrender at an early stage. Thus, Star Wars leads
directly to a first strike by the USSR and to an early surrender by
us..if Star Wars works.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 85 19:19:28 PDT
From: Richard K. Jennings <jennings@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
Subject: Partial SDI
Several commentators on this net have indicated that a less
than 100% perfect SDI would be unstablizing because it would be only
'leakproof' after a first strike.
It seems to me that this is based upon the fact that the SU
does *and always will* have all its eggs in the ICBM basket, and that
the SU (or some other country with a massive nuclear inventory) is the
primary threat. Not quite true I think.
Most of the discussion has missed the *purpose* of SDI (aka
Space Development Initiative). The plan is to develop space commercially,
and move a significant portion of our industrial base up their so that
if there is a nuclear exchange the US will reconstitute faster.
The method is for the government to subsidize the basic problems
that doomed the last major thrust of this type: Solar Power Satellites
circa 1980. For example, power, getting weight to orbit, space operations
to include space factories and on-orbit construction, command and control,
and establishing the basic infastructure for civilized life.
It has been so long since man developed a new frontier, but that
historically has been the job of the military. A close examination of
what is actually being accomplished will, I think, support in the main
this hypothesis.
What do the Russians have to do with this? If it wasn't for them
the US public couldn't be coerced into coughing up the tax dollars (as
they didn't for the solar power satellite), and the US military wouldn't
give up their people and programs. The SDI chief and his deputy
are two of the military's better generals, to say nothing of everything
else that has been annexed by the program.
I think colonizing space is a better pursuit that just building
stockpiles of nuclear weapons, and frankly I am surprised at the lack of
support for the program from groups concerned with the balance of nuclear
terror.
RKJ -- (Standard disclaimer: does not neccessarily represent my
employers views)
------------------------------
[End of ARMS-D Digest]