arms-d@ucbvax.ARPA (04/26/85)
From: Moderator <ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA> Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 3 : Issue 26 Today's Topics: Arms-D solution already ?? Homing Interceptors Strategic Interests Space Bullets Peace With Honor Winning = imposing your will Re: Strategic Attacks SDI and welfare (2 msgs) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26-Apr-85 0:33:08 From: JLarson.pa@Xerox Subject: Arms-D solution already ?? To: ARMS-D@MIT-MC Just after sending that last digest, we received an offer that may well be the ideal solution to all this! Former Arms-D moderator, Harold G. Ancell <HGA@MIT-MC.ARPA>, has offered to take over as moderator again and set up a regional redistribution scheme which should allow Arms-D to stay on MC. Keep your fingers crossed. It may take a bit of time to set all this up so please bear with us. More soon .. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Apr 85 11:01:09 pst From: alice!wolit@UCB-VAX.ARPA Subject: Re: Homing Interceptors Apparently-To: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA Dane Eder writes: > Place 'pods' in orbit some humdreds of > kilometers high. Each pod covers a 1000 km radius sphere. Space > the pods 1500 km apart, allowing for some overlap of coverage. > Then 27 pods in the same orbit will go all the way around the > earth. If you use polar type orbits, 27 orbits side by side will > cover the entire earth, with lots of overlap over the poles. > Now, if each pod carries 100 interceptors, we have 72900 interceptors, > with a total weight of 7.29 million kg. Allow overhead for the > pods and we get perhaps 10 million kg. This is perhaps 200 launches > of a Shuttle-derived cargo launcher. Not trivial, but in the > 10-20 billion$ range. Wrong. 27 pods will provide complete coverage of ONE orbital path. If in a polar orbit, this would assure that there was always one pod covering the North Pole, for instance, at all times. So what? One pod can shoot down 100 warheads (or 100 dummies). Let's generously assume that EVERY Soviet ICBM passes within 1000 km of the Pole. Unless the Soviets are obliging enough to stagger their launches so as to give EACH pod a shot at a small number of targets (and, incidentally, to give the US time to get its ICBMs out of their silos), all you've got is 100 fewer warhead+dummies out of 10,000+ warheads. Not much of a bargain for "$10 - $20 billion"! Especially when you realize that these pods are in low orbits, which will decay, so you'll have to spend "$10 - $20 billion" every few months to replace them! Now, you could always put them into geosynchronous orbit, but then you'd always be out of range. At least that would prevent all the inevitable accidents from causing much trouble... Jan Wolitzky, AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ; 201 582-2998; alice!wolit (Affiliation given for identification purposes only) ------------------------------ Date: 23 Apr 85 10:02:15 EST (Tuesday) From: Jeff Miller AMSTE-TOI 4675 <jmiller@apg-1.ARPA> Subject: Strategic Interests To: arms-d@mit-mc.ARPA Cc: jmiller@apg-1.ARPA Here's a thought that should engender some serious defense comment and, inevitably, emotion. The US depends heavily on certain strategic materials. Among these are uranium, chromium, titanium, magnesium and cobalt. The USSR has reserves of most of these. In case of war with the USSR, it would be a grave strategic vulnerability if our supplies of these minerals were not in friendly hands. Currently the chief supplier of these and other materials is South Africa. What should the US policy toward South Africa be? How valid is the contention that the US should only associate with regimes that pass a moral litmus test? The chance that any majority government in South Africa might be pro-Western is practically non- existent. Are we willing to abandon the most critical sealane chokepoint in the oil pipeline to the West? Remember, that majority government will probably act in conjunction with current front-line states that are already affording the Soviets port and air facilities. Remember when everyone said that a majority government in Zimbabwe wouldn't drastically change anything? Has anybody out there been to Zimbabwe recently? Zimbabwe, of course, poses no threat to US interests. Can the same be said for an anti-West South Africa, with its regional military power intact, its strategic minerals under Soviet influence and its dominant position astride the supertanker lanes available only to Soviet military presence? Hans J. Morgenthau said that national leaders whose pursuit of moral imperatives cause them to sacrifice their peoples' true interests are the most immoral of all men. J. Miller ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Apr 85 12:12 MST From: Jong@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA Subject: Space Bullets To: arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA The idea of "space Bullets" seems very attractive, for several reasons. First is its reasonableness (compared with space-based lasers, say). Second, high-velocity, low-mass projectiles seem difficult to convert into offensive weapons; a swarm of bullets loosed suddenly upon Moscow would probably vaporize in the atmosphere. In light of its attractiveness (at least to a layman such as myself), I wonder why we haven't heard more talk of it. Could it be that the technology isn't "sexy" enough? If you were a Pentagon planner, and you had a chance to lobby for an entirely new concept in armaments, or a stodgy but effective alternative, which would you push for? ------------------------------ Date: 23 Apr 85 14:18:55 EST (Tuesday) From: Jeff Miller AMSTE-TOI 4675 <jmiller@apg-1.ARPA> Subject: Peace With Honor To: arms-d@mit-mc.ARPA Cc: rbloom@apg-1.ARPA, jmiller@apg-1.ARPA Here is my proposal for avoiding the expense and inherent dangers of an escalating strategic arms race. We're already moving this way so we might as well save ourselves a lot of money. I propose that our national leaders meet with the Soviet leaders and request that they supply an exhaustive list of geopolitical and strategic aims, and accede on every point. Our leaders might explain that we've decided Lenin was right all along, that the West would succumb because its freedoms included the freedoms of naivete and irresolve. Gorbachev, of course, wouldn't be surprised by the offer, only the ease with which he'd won. He will have been totally aware of the intense efforts to undermine US resolve through disinformation and Active Measures - he'd probably feel sorry for old Yuri Andropov, who was the father of the successful campaign. At least Yuri had lived to see his initial victory, one might say the first victory of the next nuclear war. By use of the incredible opportunities afforded KGB operatives and agents of influence in the US, the Soviets prevented the deployment of the Enhanced Radiation Warhead - and realized that they possessed the ability to influence Western public opinion and bring about destructive results. Despite the fact that the ERW, artillery fired with accuracy, has a blast-destruction radius of only around 150 yards, and its released neutron radiation, which can penetrate armor and is quite deadly out to a 1 mile radius, dissipates quickly, the public was led to believe this was the dirtiest weapon in history. The fact that the tactical nuclear devices in Europe are more destructive, both in terms of physical destruction and tactical practicality, was never mentioned. The smallest of these will wipe out a 3-5 mile radius and spread radiation over an even wider area, and the lingering effects of the radiation denies the use of the terrain. The ERW would have enabled NATO to bring grievious casualties to the WP without destroying most of Western Europe in doing so. That, of course, is the point. The Soviets bank on the European Allies deciding to block further US deployments of nuclear munitions of the type which mean large-scale physical destruction. They use their excellent methods of Active Measures to influence political parties, peace organizations, parliamentarians and the press to oppose deployments. The danger posed by the ERW was simple; it nullified the logic being pushed by the KGB, because it offered a viable way to cancel the weight of Soviet numbers without large- scale destruction. It had to be defeated. After a massive disinformation effort, it was. The Soviets have found our society an easy mark for purposes of propaganda and influence. Thousands of people were mobilized, demonstrated, conducted letter writing campaigns. Red agents, plotting the end of the West? No. Well-meaning, loyal, concerned Americans, whose politcization and organization was influenced and directed through front organizations like "The World Peace Council," a division of the International Department of the KGB. During the blitz, a congressional conference attended by US Representatives John Conyers, John Burton, Ronald Dellums, Ted Weiss Don Edwards and others, applauded the criticisms of the ERW made by a guest, Radomir Bogdanov of the Soviet Academy of Sciences. Colonel Radomir Gregorovich Bogdanov of the Twelfth Department, First Chief Directorate, KGB. The successes of that campaign have led to the nuclear freeze movement of today. Counterintelligence has determined a tremendous effort is being made by the KGB, using regular operatives, agents of influence, co-opted Soviet academicians and scientists and, indeed, many KGB officers posing as the smiling, sympathetic, concerned scientists, writers and physicians whose words of peace are seized upon by people too desperate to believe "they're regular guys just like us " to be suspicious. In a democracy, everyone has the right to use all media and forums to express one's opinions. It is a system with awesome potential to a group that has spent a half century perfecting the arts of propaganda and disinformation, which has unlimited resources and no compunction about committing them, which enjoys a freedom of movement that even their most experienced agents have trouble believing. The US public is free to choose. Such is the nature of democracy - I wouldn't have it any other way. Given the unwillingness of that public to believe that bad guys would be able to influence them - insults the intelligence, you know, I believe we will choose wrong. Not right away, all at once, but a long series of wrong choices. So - why prolong the inevitable? Why spend money on compromise weapons systems that get built after one side cripples the program to avoid antagonizing the peace-loving Soviets and the other side decides its too embarassing to just dump the program? I say peace is the way, and I know the public will agree allowing a little time for the PR blitz to get underway. ------------------------------ Date: 1985 Apr 23 21:03:02 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@IMSSS.SU.EDU.ARPA> To: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA Subject: Winning = imposing your will, want to discuss L. Koppett's column Reply-to: REM@MIT-MC.ARPA Did anybody besides me happen to read Leonard Koppett's column in the newspaper today (Tuesday April 23)? It discussed the question of what "winning" really means, how it often is just a metaphor rather than the truth, how equating success with winning confuses our thinking, etc. I'd like to discuss this particular column (entitled "The fatal illusion we call 'victory'") with anybody else who has read it too. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 85 12:53:11 pst From: alice!wolit@UCB-VAX.ARPA To: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA Subject: Re: Strategic Attacks > From: Laurinda Rohn <rohn@rand-unix> > > Estimates of casualties range from down in the thousands for attacks > like #4 [Leadership attack] to a million or so for > #1 [Counterforce] to upwards of 10 million for #3 [Countervalue]. > [#2 = Countermilitary, #5 = C3 attack.] > The reason the media doesn't talk about things > like #1 or #4 is that those attacks aren't nearly so gruesome or > sensational as the country being blown to bits. Gimme a break, Laurinda! Casualties "down in the thousands" for an attack that takes out "the White House, the Pentagon, and Congress"!!! We're talking about several million people who live in D.C., unless you envision an attack by a human wave of Iranian teenagers, or something... Similarly, the estimates I've read of the results of a counterforce attack run from more like several tens of millions just from fallout alone up to the whole shebang if you believe -- as does the Pentagon -- in nuclear winter. As for 10 million dead in a countervalue [nice euphemism for city-busting] attack, you could easily generate that with, say, 5 bombs each on NY and Chicago, which is more like what RAND strategists consider to be "communication of intentions" rather than serious war-making. Besides, it is already widely acknowledged that AUTHORITY exists well below the level of the residents of the White House, the Pentagon, and Congress for launching nuclear attacks in their absence, and the ABILITY exists right down to the level of the individual sub captain, bomber pilot, or missile crew, so it's all but 100% assured that a #4 or #5 will degrade to a #2 and #3 in a matter of hours, making the casualty figures for such attacks mere fantasies. I'm glad that you don't consider your opinions to be those of "any resonable entity," since they're clearly not! After the last world war, we hanged those who expounded the theories that inspired the prosecution of aggressive war (which included political assasination -- your "#4 attack"). What size necktie do YOU wear? Jan Wolitzky, AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ; 201 582-2998; alice!wolit (Affiliation given for identification purposes only) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 85 23:37:12 EST From: Richard A. Cowan <COWAN@MIT-XX.ARPA> Subject: Re: SDI and welfare To: LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA cc: arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA, cowan@MIT-XX.ARPA In-Reply-To: Message from "Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC>" of Fri 19 Apr 85 08:05:41-EST From: Richard A. Cowan <COWAN at MIT-XX.ARPA> [cowan] .... When we have a nation full of MITs --a few of which study the damage caused by military bias -- supporting a largely military economy, there is no countervailing influence to sustained military buildup. >From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA> I suspect that we will always be arming, and that military research will always be necessary. That doesn't change my belief that we have to find political accomodations, but that's a fact of the world. Sustained military buildup -- depending on its definition -- is not necessarily a pure evil. While sustained military research may be a fact of life in the eighties, and it may have obvious positive in addition to negative effects, I think we'd all agree that there's a point of military dominance in society which we would not tolerate. I think Nazi Germany in 1939 reached such a point. The fact that we have lots of military research today isn't such a big deal. The fact that this can lead to a dangerously militarized state which commits atrocities, even in a democratic country such as the United States, scares me. United States influence economically and geopolitically is bound to decline as countries like China and Japan continue to grow and exert their full economic weight. But US foreign policy operates under the assumption that the US is the world's number one power. I'm afraid the US will be reluctant to yield its inflence over world affairs as it weakens, and may resort to propping up its influence by military might. Ironically, Japan and China's rise as world powers can probably be attributed to the fact that they don't waste so many of their technological resources on military pursuits, as does the Soviet Union and the United States. Congress cannot act if there are no experts to testify for corrective legislation. You forget that Congress has its own experts, that often take quite adversarial roles. Last week in Washington I met with some of these experts -- congressional aides who, as you say, were taking adversarial positions regarding the arms race. But their position is extremely weak; Congress itself is one of the major sources of liberal sentiment, and no matter what a Congressman thinks, he must base most of his decisions on the sentiment of his constituents. While what a congressman hears from inside congress is important, it must be echoed from the outside in order for him to act. One congressman we talked to received 1000 letters from constituents at a defense plant begging the congressman to vote for a weapons system that would save that person's job. Under such hostile conditions, a congressman will need substantial OUTSIDE backing from experts who can justify a defense cut in order to vote against such a system. And unless a view is widely held OUTSIDE as well as INSIDE congress, the president can just go on TV and rally his cause, creating enough outside pressure to nullify the adversarial roles of Congressional aides. -Rich ------- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Apr 85 00:20:19 EST From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA> Subject: SDI and welfare To: COWAN@MIT-XX.ARPA cc: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA, LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA From: Richard A. Cowan <COWAN at MIT-XX.ARPA> >From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA> I suspect that we will always be arming, and that military research will always be necessary. That doesn't change my belief that we have to find political accomodations, but that's a fact of the world. Sustained military buildup -- depending on its definition -- is not necessarily a pure evil. While sustained military research may be a fact of life in the eighties, and it may have obvious positive in addition to negative effects, I think we'd all agree that there's a point of military dominance in society which we would not tolerate. I think Nazi Germany in 1939 reached such a point. I agree. The fact that we have lots of military research today isn't such a big deal. The fact that this can lead to a dangerously militarized state which commits atrocities, even in a democratic country such as the United States, scares me. I don't know what you mean by "dangerously militarized" state. We do not glorify the military life, and even the military believes strongly in civilian control. Atrocities scare me too, but I don't know about the correlation between militarism and atrocity. I believe South Africa commits atrocities, but I'm not sure I would call them militarized in the sense that I think you're arguing. They don't have global imperialistic designs. Congress cannot act if there are no experts to testify for corrective legislation. You forget that Congress has its own experts, that often take quite adversarial roles. Last week in Washington I met with some of these experts -- congressional aides who, as you say, were taking adversarial positions regarding the arms race. But their position is extremely weak; Congress itself is one of the major sources of liberal sentiment, and no matter what a Congressman thinks, he must base most of his decisions on the sentiment of his constituents. But so must a President. In the long run, we get whom we elect. If we can't maintain a consistent policy, then we lose, and non-elected bureaucrats get the power; sometimes that's good, other times that's bad. While what a congressman hears from inside congress is important, it must be echoed from the outside in order for him to act... Under such hostile conditions, a congressman will need substantial OUTSIDE backing from experts who can justify a defense cut in order to vote against such a system. It helps, but I have yet to see outside experts alone be decisive. ------------------------------ [End of ARMS-D Digest]