arms-d@ucbvax.ARPA (04/05/85)
From: Moderator <ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 3 : Issue 21
Today's Topics:
Missle Guidance
Jastrow's calculation
SDI economic drain
Liberal reaction to the SDI proposal
Request for info about Soviet computers
Technical vs. political solutions
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 3 Apr 85 10:40 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Missle Guidance
To: Spitzer%pco@CISL-SERVICE-MULTICS.ARPA
cc: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA
Surely the powers-that-be have investigated laser-ring gyros. As far as
I know they aren't affected by magnetic anomolies.
They are doing so. LRG's have high drift rates, so that they're not
currently much good for pinpoint accuracy.
------------------------------
Date: 3 Apr 85 9:36 EST
From: Samuel McCracken <oth104%BOSTONU.bitnet@WISCVM.ARPA>
Subject: Jastrow's calculation
To: lin@MIT-MC.ARPA
Cc: arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA
-----
I confess myself generally impressed by Jastrow, and so am especially
interested in arguments that his calculations are incompetent. Could
you specify further? Thanks.
-----
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 85 08:42:44 PST
From: Richard Foy <foy@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
To: arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Numbers
I find Henrys calculations showing that Star Wars would cut the number of
warheads hitting targets in the US to 100 very interesting. When I think
of the damage done to the world during WWII by my friends and my enemies,
perhaps in a pseudorandom manner I don't find 100 nukes getting through
very acceptable. Remember there won't be any undamaged equivalentr of the
U. S. around to have a Marshall plan to rebuild.
richard
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 85 05:49:38 CST
From: Don Stuart <ICS.STUART@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V3 #20
To: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA
From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@UCB-VAX.ARPA
>... Many critiques of SDI use approximately the following
>line of reasoning:
>
> SDI is ridiculous, because if we assume that it is done in
> such-and-such a way... I have yet
>to see an "SDI cannot work" proof that does not rely on major assumptions
>about the nature of the implementation.
Perhaps not, except for gee-whiz "arguments" such as "It's like shooting
an orange on top of the Empire State Building from Washington." But
there are a finite number of proposed implementation strategies. If
specific arguments can be made against each (class) of them, that is
sufficent. I have not prepared such a checklist, but I suspect it
could be done. Has anyone else?
From: sde@MITRE-BEDFORD.ARPA
>But tell me, don't you all get the feeling that the anti-SDI argument are:
> "1) I never borrowed your pot;
> 2) I returned it in good condition; and
> 3) it was dented before I got it"? (Punch line to a law joke.)
People make all kinds of silly arguments. Just because I think of a
silly justification for (say) Medicare doesn't diminish the reasonable
justifications. There is a superficially similar organization of the
reasonable arguments against SDI that goes like this:
1) It probably won't achieve its tactical goal of stopping
most ICBMs.
2) Even if it does, it probably won't achieve its strategic
goal of protecting our population.
3) Even if it does, it may not achieve its political goal of
preventing a nuclear war.
Talk about your layered defense...
Don
-------
------------------------------
Date: 3 Apr 85 12:00:41 PST
Subject: SDI economic drain
From: David Booth <DBOOTH@USC-ISIF.ARPA>
To: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA
[JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA] If you're worrying about
spending money, consider this: If SDI really doesn't work,
then the program consists essentially of a non-means-tested
income redistribution program, like 95% of the DHHS budget
already is, and which liberals seem to love.
Bear in mind that weapons expenditures are an inherent and
direct drain on the economy: capital and labor invested in machinery and
services improves our productivity and standard of living, whereas
capital and labor invested in weapons is lost. The same dollar could
be spent on the latest weapon or on the latest assembly-line robot.
Which expenditure improves our productivity? Or the same dollar
could be spent cracking cancer versus developing a space-based
laser weapon. Which one improves our standard of living?
This is just a fact of economics, and it is one reason why it is preposterous
to justify a weapons expenditure by its contribution to the economy or
the number of jobs it creates. In considering a weapons expenditure,
the essential questions are: (1) whether it will increase our security;
and (2) if so, whether the increased security is worth the inherent drain
on our productivity and standard of living.
-------
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 85 13:56:17 pst
From: knutsen@SRI-UNIX.ARPA (Andrew Knutsen)
To: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V3 #20
One thing that bugs me about the issue of costs and classification
is "what weapons have been currently judged feasible but are not included
in SDI scenarios?" (ie, rocks vs guns).
The example I have in mind now is the nuke-pumped quartz laser
which (I seem to recall) was developed at LLL by Wood (for the most part)
and is classified (Aviation Leak level). I also seem to recall (no refs) that
these are being left out of all SDI scenarios because no-one wants to
advocate nukes in space (publicly).
Now its my understanding that these kinds of lasers, in some
applications, would be lighter, cheaper and more reliable than electric
or chemical ones (with the possible exception of Forward's ionosphere-driven
one). Putting nukes in space aint too hot, but then the idea of knocking
out Russias satellite system and nailing them with the MX is a little
wacky too (I dont mean wacky like it couldnt/wouldnt be done; I mean
morally wacky). So why not put everything on the scales?
I think that the inevitable two-facedness of the whole concept
makes any kind of judgement, fiscal or moral, damn near impossible.
But then, the days of MAD working are running out (due to proliferation
and possibly unilateral fear of nuclear winter), so something *has* to be
done...
Andrew <Knutsen@sri-unix>
PS Anybody care to speculate on the effects of the recent Politburo
changes? Is the naming of the agricultural rather than the
military portfolio-holder a signal or a deception?
------------------------------
Date: 3 Apr 85 16:59:58 EST
From: JoSH <JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Subject: Re: liberal reaction to the SDI proposal
To: LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA, ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA
... the program consists essentially of a non-means-tested
income redistribution program, like 95% of the DHHS budget
already is, and which liberals seem to love.
Ad hominem arguments don't help. My objection to spending lots of
money on something that doesn't work is that it is being sold on the
basis that it will work. At least people don't lie about the DHHS
budget.
The intent was not to be ad hominem, but to point out a logical
inconsistency.
If it does work, then it would seem to be a good idea, and if
the Russians build one too, that would also seem to be a good idea.
Then why are we not offering to develop defenses jointly? Might it be
that our military and political establishment has something else in
mind?
Sure might. Many people think that one goal of the arms race, from our
position, is to ruin the Russian economy by making them spend themselves
into bankruptcy. I'm not saying it would work, mind you, or even that
it would be a good idea if it did...
And if it can't work and is such a stupid idea, why would the Russians
be so gung-ho to build one themselves?
For the same reason that they build air defenses that can't find 747's
at high altitude for two hours. They are built for psychological
effect on the Soviet people; the only claim to domestic legitimacy
that the Soviet gov't has is that it defends the Soviet people, as the
WWII experience indicates. They can't afford to not build defenses.
If this is a valid reason for the Soviet Gov't to build them, why
not for ours? Defense is quite a strong component of our own government's
claim to "domestic legitimacy".
--JoSH
-------
------------------------------
Date: 3 Apr 85 17:30:04 EST
From: JoSH <JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Subject: Re: SDI economic drain
To: DBOOTH@USC-ISIF.ARPA, ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA
DBooth:
Bear in mind that weapons expenditures are an inherent and
direct drain on the economy: capital and labor invested in machinery and
services improves our productivity and standard of living, whereas
capital and labor invested in weapons is lost.
On the contrary, "Star Wars" more than most defense expenditures would
direct efforts in a direction I'm all for, namely "exploitation" of
space. True, that's not the best way to do it; but that's not the point.
Nobody pays money to a missile. Every single dollar spent on SDI goes
to a *person*, just as much as a welfare dollar does. What difference
does it make whether he is paid the dollar for doing "useless" space
research (SDI), or for doing nothing (welfare)? In either case the
government is paying him not to take part in the productive economy.
--JoSH
-------
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 85 17:26:01 est
From: nikhil@MIT-NEWTOWNE-VARIETY.ARPA (Rishiyur S. Nikhil)
To: arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Request for info.
I'm looking for information about Soviet computers: their capabilities and
limitations; reliability; hardware and software state of the art; civilian
and military; ....
So far, I've found
"The Soviet Bloc's Unified System of Computers",
ACM Computing Surveys 1978
Soviet Cybernetic Review
Edited by W.B.Holland, published by Rand Corporation
I believe it terminated publication in 1974.
I'd be interested in receiving any other pointers to knowledgeable people
or articles in journals/books/magazines/newspapers, preferably more recent
than the above two citations.
Please reply to me directly. Thank you in advance.
Rishiyur Nikhil
( NIKHIL@MIT-XX.ARPA )
------------------------------
Date: 3 Apr 85 15:20:37 PST
Subject: Re: SDI economic drain
From: David Booth <DBOOTH@USC-ISIF.ARPA>
To: JoSH <JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA>
cc: arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA
[JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA:] On the contrary, "Star Wars" more than
most defense expenditures would direct efforts in a direction
I'm all for, namely "exploitation" of space. True, that's not
the best way to do it; but that's not the point.
That *is* the point I was making.
-------
------------------------------
From: joel@DECWRL.ARPA (Joel McCormack)
Date: 3 Apr 85 15:39 PST (Wednesday)
To: arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Technical vs. political solutions
Much of the arguments raging back and forth about Star Wars defense has
been based on the technical merits of the system. Freeman Dyson, in
Weapons and Hope (highly suggested reading), believes that most of the
problems of nuclear disarmament are political, not technical. Further,
there are no technical solutions, only political solutions. I concur
completely.
It is my suspicion (especially with recent estimates on what it takes
to get a nuclear winter started) that if either the US or USSR really
was in a pinch, they wouldn't have to launch any weapons at the other
country; much easier just to blow them up over your own country, and
ruin the world. Defense systems wouldn't have a big impact on that.
Today one of the major negotiation stumbling blocks seems to be a
difference of nuclear philosophy: the US stategy is base on Mutually
Assured Destruction, while (as near as anyone can figure out) the USSR
believes in the survival of the USSR, no matter what. Trying to
negotiate arms limitations when each player has different goals only
adds to the difficulties.
Look what Star Wars does to such positions. Assume (unrealistically, I
believe) that it is pretty effective (> 99%). The US position is now
one of "we survive an attack, no matter what." The USSR position,
WHETHER OR NOT they build a similar defense system, can be Mutually
Assured Destruction. Much better to blow up Russia (and the world)
than have your missles shot down over America. Or maybe blow up other,
closer countries, in the hopes they can survive a nuclear winter better
than us.
So what has changed? Only the philosophies of the two major players,
and they have merely swapped philosophies with each other.
In the meantime, there are sure to be MORE offensive weapons.
I'm supposed to feel better ?
The arms race will not be stopped by one contestant. Before spending
untold billions on YAMSS (yet another military spending spree), I'd
like to see what this administration can about mutually agreeable cuts.
Until few enough nuclear weapons exist in the world to keep it from
being destroyed, no amount of scientific hocus-pocus will make us safe.
- Joel McCormack {ihnp4 decvax ucbvax allegra}!decwrl!joel
joel@decwrl.arpa
------------------------------
Date: 3 Apr 85 19:25 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Jastrow's calculation
To: oth104%BOSTONU.bitnet@WISCVM.ARPA
cc: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA
I have one calculation from Jastrow in which he states that 4 tons of
shielding against laser beams spread over an SS-18 results in a 4 ton
decrease in its payload. This is true for a single stage rocket, but
quite false for a multi-stage rocket. (In his letter to me, he
specifically acknowleges that the SS-18 is a multi-stage rocket.) The
reason for this is the same as the reason for staging of rockets; you
don't have to accelerate the first stages to the velocity at burnout.
His second claim in the Commentary piece on Star Wars on the way to
distinguish between decoys and warheads by tapping it with lasers
asserts that a warhead has a small response, but a balloon has a large
response. This is also quite absurd, unless (1) you don't enclose the
warhead with a balloon, or (2) enclose the warhead but you attach the
balloon rigidly to the warhead (much harder to do than to simply
deploy the balloon around the warhead).
These are the only two I have specifically taken apart. He also makes
some genuinely cheap shots at the OTA report in his paper, taking it
to task for insisting that every target in the US should be able to
withstand a full Soviet attack, claiming that this is an absurd
assumption that inflates the defensive requirements enormously (and
improperly). He fails to note that the OTA report says "It will take
the President's goal as articulated in his March 23 speech literally."
and in that case, it is EXACTLY what is required. If he is not
willing to take as the President's statement as the statement of the
goal, he should say so, and he does not.
------------------------------
Date: 3 Apr 85 19:45 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: liberal reaction to the SDI proposal
To: JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA
cc: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA
... the program consists essentially of a non-means-tested
income redistribution program, like 95% of the DHHS budget
already is, and which liberals seem to love.
Ad hominem arguments don't help. My objection to spending lots of
money on something that doesn't work is that it is being sold on the
basis that it will work. At least people don't lie about the DHHS
budget.
The intent was not to be ad hominem, but to point out a logical
inconsistency.
I'm not sure what you see as the inconsistency: that it is also an
income redistribution program? That's not inconsistent if you believe
that people without easily marketable skills *should* get some
redistributed income, and those with such skills should not. I don't
defend it or reject it here; I simply point out that it is not
necessarily inconsistent.
If it does work, then it would seem to be a good idea, and if
the Russians build one too, that would also seem to be a good idea.
Then why are we not offering to develop defenses jointly? Might it be
that our military and political establishment has something else in
mind?
Sure might. Many people think that one goal of the arms race, from our
position, is to ruin the Russian economy by making them spend themselves
into bankruptcy. I'm not saying it would work, mind you, or even that
it would be a good idea if it did...
Indeed; I think that's a pretty bad reason myself. But the original
question stands: why not develop defenses jointly? Besides, most DoD
people seem to think that Soviet development of SDI weapons would be a
*bad* thing. If they are ahead of us, then why don't *we* propose
joint development?
And if it can't work and is such a stupid idea, why would the Russians
be so gung-ho to build one themselves?
For the same reason that they build air defenses that can't find 747's
at high altitude for two hours. They are built for psychological
effect on the Soviet people; the only claim to domestic legitimacy
that the Soviet gov't has is that it defends the Soviet people, as the
WWII experience indicates. They can't afford to not build defenses.
If this is a valid reason for the Soviet Gov't to build them, why
not for ours? Defense is quite a strong component of our own government's
claim to "domestic legitimacy".
Note that I said the *only* claim. Our gov't has some claim to
legitimacy because we elect people to office, provides services other
than defense, and so on. They don't. I agree that the US gov't must
provide for defense; that doesn't mean it can call every asinine thing
defense and then claim a public mandate. Is SDI in this category?
That is another discussion, but I can certainly provide other examples.
------------------------------
[End of ARMS-D Digest]