arms-d@ucbvax.ARPA (06/18/85)
From: The Arms-D Moderator (Harold Ancell) <ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 3 : Issue 46
Today's Topics:
Neutron Weapons & Nuclear Winter
Walker Spy Case
SDI in June "Atlantic"
Review and Commentary on "The Fire Unleashed"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 85 20:07:45 edt
From: <ihnp4!watmath!looking!brad@Berkeley>
Subject: Neutron Weapons & Nuclear Winter
I am aware that neutron bombs are intended as in-the-field weapons to
be used against advancing enemy armies. My point was that they can
also be used to ruin a city. They may only destroy a small portion of
the physical structure of a city, but the deaths by radiation would
seriously cripple a city and thus reduce its industrial usefulness.
You don't have to knock down a factory to render it useless. The
destruction of the logistic systems and population are enough.
What I wanted to discuss was this: If a nation felt that using standard
H-bombs would cause firestorms resulting in nuclear winter, could they
not switch to radiation weapons (or biological weapons for that matter,
although they are harder to control and can spread back to you) in order
to avoid that risk?
It has been suggested that we dismantle our city-aimed nuclear weapons
because their use would destroy us with nuclear winter. The validity
of the NW theory aside, is my question above important?
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 85 08:57:55 edt
From: Walter Hamscher <hamscher@mit-htvax>
Subject: Walker Spy Case
ARMS-D seems to be strangely quiet on the Walker spy case.
I listened to Lehman's remarks on PBS and he seemed to be
fairly sanguine about the various secrets revealed, except
for the information about US ASW capabilities, which seems
to have been more serious.
I'm not as well informed about ASW as I'm sure some of you
out there are. Anybody care to speculate on what capabilities
were revealed, what kinds of responses the US has available,
and what the long-term impact of the revelations has been and
will be?
Walter Hamscher
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 85 19:17:16 cdt
From: riddle%zotz.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (Prentiss Riddle)
Subject: SDI in June "Atlantic"
I've been an irregular reader of fa.arms-d of late, so forgive me if
this has been discussed already, but I just wanted to contribute a
pointer to an interesting article on the SDI that appeared in the June
1985 issue of the Atlantic. Entitled "The 'Star Wars' Defense Won't
Compute" and authored by Jonathan Jacky of UW, the article struck me
as a well-written introduction to the SDI, computer reliability and
even a tad of what AI is all about, aimed at non-CS types. Any
comments?
--- Prentiss Riddle ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.")
--- {ihnp4,harvard,seismo,gatech,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddle
--- riddle@ut-sally.UUCP, riddle@ut-sally.ARPA, riddle%zotz@ut-sally
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10-Jun-85 02:34:09 EDT
From: simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard)
Subject: The Fire Unleashed
[Note from the Moderator: I've included in today's digest (with the
author's permission) this item from the USENET newsgroup net.politics.
It is an example of the sort of quality we all should strive for in
our submissions to this digest. - Harold]
Tonight I, along with innumerable others, watched the ABC
television network's documentary "The Fire Unleashed". What I saw was
an opportunity for responsible journalism collapsing under the weight
of its creators' prejudices, reflecting clearly the origin of the
claims of bias frequently levelled against the network news
establishments.
The program did, I grant, include plenty of fact, and clearly a
great deal of painstaking research went into its production. I have
little doubt that the facts and statistics in the program were
accurate; at least, I do not presume to question them here. What I do
question is less the product than the package, and the apparent intent
of the program's writers.
What was wrong with "The Fire Unleashed"?
The answer was evident, not only in my own impressions, but also
those of the panel of scientists interviewed on KGTV just after the
program, and of the local family that was also queried. The problem
is, the program sought, not to inform and motivate, but to frighten
the viewer. This meretricious play on fear is not surprising;
suspense and terror are great theatre. Morose, often funereal music,
coupled with a liberal sprinkling of such freighted words as
"nightmare", "terror", "failure" and "disaster" and a glut of visuals
of rockets and bomb tests seemed more appropriate to the provocative
fictions of Alfred Hitchcock or Rod Serling than what purports to be
an objective documentary.
In the interviews following the program, allusions to fright
dominated the reactions. And why not, some will say. Why shouldn't
we be afraid of the threats of annihilation that may result from a
nuclear catastrophe, accidental or intentional?
The reason is, solid, effective answers to these threats will
come only from sober, informed and logical thinking, the kind of
thinking that is never prompted by fear, but rather hampered by it.
Fear breeds the kind of frenzied, impulsive reactions that produce, at
best, short-term solutions, and much more often result in damaging
policies that, in this area of concern, we may feel lucky to live to
regret.
I was especially bothered by the statement by one of the
scientists in the panel, to paraphrase: "We should be nervous about
(these matters)". Come again? As a person making a profession of
science, a discipline of hard fact, he could not be more incorrect in
promoting emotionalism. Yes, we should be concerned. Yes, we should
be informed. And yes, we should act. But not from fear.
A second weakness of "The Fire Unleashed" is an abundance of of
individual opinion, presented as fact:
The however response: To its credit, ABC did manage to include
expert opinion on both sides of most issues, albeit with some distinct
imablance. Nevertheless, the narrator of the program almost
invariably followed any such testimony that did not reflect the
orthodoxy of the anti-nuke cadre with "however...", the following
words rebutting the interview just presented. Never did I hear the
reverse - a fear-provoking statement rebutted by the narrator.
Sins of omission: In the discussion of the Three Mile Island
accident, no mention was made of the fact that the safety systems at
the plant worked just fine - until the operators, doubting their
instruments, deliberately overrode them. I had the opportunity to
chat with one of the physicists who participated in the
decontamination effort that immediately followed the shutdown of the
damaged TMI reactor, and he stated that, had the operators left the
plant en masse and spent the rest of the day watching football at
home, the incident would probably never have advanced to any stage
even remotely dangerous. The accident, therefore, was primarily a
human error problem - one that could have been avoided by better
training. Yet, the ABC program seemed to intimate that the accident
was the unavoidable result of equipment failure.
Another egregious omission is the failure to mention President
Reagan's "zero-zero" option for intermediate-range nuclear weapons in
Europe. Surely this call for the ultimate in arms control, for that
category at least, was deserving of mention.
Unsubstantiated claims: Dour citizens of the community around
Three Mile Island testified to the effect that numerous problems with
plants, animals, and themselves occurred after the accident. Whether
or not some of these aberrations may have resulted from the accident,
the fact remains that the average viewer is left with the distinct
impression that they all did, and that this is established fact. No
allowance was made for what certainly must be a major psychological
influence: it is hard to imagine that numerous events or conditions
that would have occurred in the normal course of time would not be
more closely oberved, more noticed, and more likely blamed on the
accident. I find an analogy to this human tendency in my own
experience when I first obtained an amateur radio licence and set up a
rather conspicuous antenna in my yard, some years ago. Suddenly, I
was deluged with complaints of radio and television interference, even
though the times I was supposedly interrupting reception were times
during which I was not even home! Another very questionable item in
the documentary was the inclusion of the description, reminiscent of
"The Day After", of a sudden cessation of the wind and a "wave of
heat", at about the time of the accident. I am not a physicist, but
it is my impression that any radiation flux sufficient to be felt as
such would cause serious injury or death far sooner than in the time
between the TMI event and the filming of the interview. This is pure
emotionalism.
Political opinion presented as fact: Many believe that the arms
race is simply two equivalent powers building nuclear arms only to
counter those being built by the other side. They do it 'cause we do
it, and vice versa, they say. If we stop, they'll stop. Whether or
not one accepts this view, it is clearly but one opinion. In "The
Fire Unleashed", this view was presented as incontrovertible fact. I
don't mind editorials, but I'd appreciate it if ABC and friends would
have the integrity to acknowledge them as such.
The three hours expended on this program could have accomplished
much to help our citizenry become educated and motivated toward
reducing the risks attendant in the presence of nuclear energy and
arms in our world. A few ideas as to how:
Get off the Doomsday bandwagon: Fear is the worst motivator
toward action. Acknowldedge the problem without the tawdry
horror-movie tactics.
Offer solutions: This point was raised by one of the scientists
on the panel. Without some discussions of solutions, even if only
conjectural or theoretical, the program degenerates into three hours
of prime-time hand- wringing.
Promote confidence: Nobody attacks a problem with much enthusiasm
or energy when the problem appears insurmountable. Yet, this
documentary tended to present the nuclear threat as just that: a
global death sentence without possibilty of appeal. If the public
were presented with a little more faith in the capacity of dedicated
and energetic human beings to find answers, the program just might
help advance that cause. As it is, those who invest their time and
energy in the cause of peace and safety found precious little
encouragement in "The Fire Unleashed".
ABC presented "The Day After", which served to tell us that
nuclear war is horrible, a supreme assertion of the obvious. If
anyone expected "The Fire Unleashed" to be much of an improvement,
they, like me, were probably disappointed.
[ I am not a stranger, but a friend you haven't met yet ]
Ray Simard
Loral Instrumentation, San Diego
{ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdcc6!loral!simard
...Though we may sometimes disagree,
You are still a friend to me!
------------------------------
[End of ARMS-D Digest]