arms-d@ucbvax.ARPA (04/03/85)
From: Moderator <ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 3 : Issue 20
Today's Topics:
On rebutting Jastrow
Liberal reaction to the SDI proposal
SDI Foolishness
Missle Guidance
Proof
Offensive use of SDI
Space launch costs and SDI pricetag
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2 Apr 85 02:09 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: on rebutting Jastrow...
To: sde@MITRE-BEDFORD.ARPA
cc: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA
In Commentary (prev issue) there was an article by Robert Jastrow entitled,
"The War Against 'Star Wars'." The current issue has replies by
Hans Bethe, et alii, but Jastrow and someone
from Lawr. Liv. Nat'l Lab. (Wood, I think) assert that the Bethe confreres:
1) were explicitly rebutted in classified meetings; and
2) offered no countervailing argument in such meetings; and
3) thereafter presented their case to the public w/o stating (1).
that's the standard argument of people who can't sustain their
arguments in public. it may or may not be true, but in light of the
uses to hich classification has been put, I am personally skeptical.
The most likely explanation of what happened is that Bethe et al and
Wood et al set forth their respective positions (based on different
assumptions), were unconvinced by the other side, and therefore saw no
merit in the other side's case. So, Wood et al think that they
rebutted Bethe et al, and Bethe et al think that Wood's case is not
worth mentioning.
In view of such assertions, is it not appropriate that either:
1) Bethe, et al., should immediately initiate a libel suit
How would it be decided? On whatggrounds?
2) the rest of us should consider that Bethe, et al., be viewed as
commiting a grave disservice.
Why? If you believe Bethe's arguments, then go with them. If you
don't, then counter them. In either case, why is he committing a
disservice? Indeed, I would assert thatWood et al are committing the
disservice by basing their argument on classified arguments, thereby
shielding them from public view. As to the argument that they lobby
for lower security, maybe so, ut tthey sure take advantage of it. I
would expect that they understand the physics enough to make a
convincing unclassified case, since the classification in most cases
doesn't buy you very much.
BTW, I think that Jastrow's arguments are not worth much comment. I
can document calculations of his that are so much in error that a good
high school physics student would notice.
------------------------------
Date: 2 Apr 85 02:16 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
It would seem that if it really doesn't work, why worry about
whether the Russians will do it too?
I am personally not particularly worried that the Soviets will do it
too. It is the Administration that asserts that the Soviets are
working on it.
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.
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.
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?
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.
------------------------------
Date: 2 Apr 85 02:23 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: SDI Foolishness
To: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@UCB-VAX.ARPA
cc: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA
> There has been some discussion about the time-translation
> invariance of the
> laws of physics. If the laws of physics do change then maybe SDI can be
> made to work.
The laws of physics do not change, but new ways of applying them are
found constantly.
Does Murphy's Law count as a law of physics? Probably not, but I
think it is a law nevertheless. Larger things are more complex, and
have more ways to go wrong. More effort has to be expended to keep
things going right. In the long run, which one wins? I think the
former.
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, then it is easy to show that it is
[pick one or more]:
1. Impossible
2. Ineffective
3. Enormously expensive
Of course, those three key words "if we assume" are never spelled out
explicitly, and in fact they are usually carefully hidden. I have yet
to see an "SDI cannot work" proof that does not rely on major assumptions
about the nature of the implementation.
...But I see nothing in the laws of physics which
firmly states that defence against ballistic missiles is a contradiction
in terms, or that it is intrinsically very expensive.
How about the notion that SDI should provide a comprehensive
population defense that is 100% effective? Nothing in physics says
that is impossible, yet I don't believe it can ever happen. Do you?
... There is a
proposal, made in the context of space propulsion rather than
SDI, for using the Earth's ionosphere as a laser cavity with
orbiting mirrors. Laser action has been detected in the upper
atmospheres of several other planets, and is probably present
in the Earth's atmosphere too.
This sounds interesting. Can you provide a reference so we can learn
more about it?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 85 11:55 MST
From: Charlie Spitzer <Spitzer@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA>
Subject: Missle Guidance
Reply-To: Spitzer%pco@CISL-SERVICE-MULTICS.ARPA
To: 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.
Charlie
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 85 08:58:15 PST
From: Richard Foy <foy@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
To: arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Proof
It seems to me that proof is almost illrelavent. People make up their minds,
at least on important things, based on their feelings not their logic. We can
always find logic to support our opinions.
Charlie Crummer's comments about persuasion are most pertinant. What do we
need to persuade those in Washington that there is a better course. The
first thing we need is their attention.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 85 09:55:28 pst
From: alice!wolit@UCB-VAX.ARPA
To: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Offensive use of SDI, liberal reaction to the SDI proposal
We must remember that the SDI organization has an extremely broad
charter; it's not just lasers. For example the proposed SDI budget
for the coming fiscal year includes funds for the development of
penetration aids for the current generation of ICBMs -- chaff,
decoys, balloons, etc. The administration apparently considers
*ANYTHING* new that is both "strategic" (i.e., nuclear and of greater
than intermediate range) and "defensive" (i.e., anything done by the
Defense Department, which covers everything that is strategic, of
course) to come properly under the jurisdiction of the SDI office.
Not that penetration aids have anything to do with making nuclear
weapons "impotent and obsolete" . . . .
As for JoSH's not worrying about SDI sparking a new round of the arms
race, the worry is not so much that both sides will start pouring more
and more money into Star Wars weapons -- something the economy of
neither can afford -- but that one of the most cost-effective way of
countering an opponent's Star Wars system is by swamping it with
additional offensive weapons: it's a lot cheaper for the Soviets to
keep the SS-18 production lines open a bit longer than for us to
research, develop, and deploy the technology to try to shoot them
down. It is *THIS* arms race that is destabilizing and frightening.
-----
Jan Wolitzky, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ (for identification only)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 85 14:19 EST
From: sde@MITRE-BEDFORD.ARPA
To: LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA
Cc: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Re: Re: on rebutting Jastrow...
| In Commentary (prev issue) there was an article by Robert Jastrow
entitled,
| "The War Against 'Star Wars'."
| ...assert that the Bethe confreres:
|
| 1) were explicitly rebutted in classified meetings; and
| 2) offered no countervailing argument in such meetings; and
| 3) thereafter presented their case to the public w/o stating (1).
|
|that's the standard argument of people who can't sustain their
|arguments in public.
But Bethe, et al. have not thus far dared to make a similar assertion about
Wood, and moreover, Wood/Jastrow asserts specifically that Bethe, et al.,
IGNORE direct statements e.g., to the effect that certain weapons are capable
of
penetrating the atmosphere beyond what Bethe, et al., have claimed. By analogy,
it is as though Wood has asserted that he had a firearm to stop armored cavalry
and Bethe, ignoring this, persisted in calculating how many rocks is would
take. One need not reveal classified figures to take issue with the individual
capabilities, which must be done before making assertions as to system
capabilities. Therefore, it is logical to require Bethe, et al., to respond. If
you still think this too nebulous, read the articles.
| In view of such assertions, is it not appropriate that either:
| 1) Bethe, et al., should immediately initiate a libel suit
|
|How would it be decided? On whatggrounds?
|
It would presumably be decided the way the Sharon vs. Time case was decided,
by examination of witnesses and (secret) evidence.
| 2) the rest of us should consider that Bethe, et al., be viewed as
| commiting a grave disservice.
|
|Why? If you believe Bethe's arguments, then go with them. If you
|don't, then counter them. In either case, why is he committing a
|disservice? Indeed, I would assert thatWood et al are committing the
|disservice by basing their argument on classified arguments, thereby
|shielding them from public view. As to the argument that they lobby
|for lower security, maybe so, ut tthey sure take advantage of it. I
|would expect that they understand the physics enough to make a
|convincing unclassified case, since the classification in most cases
|doesn't buy you very much.
|
Note, too, that in the face of Jastrow, et al.'s attacks, the Bethe group has
been forced to drop its estimates from ~2400 to ~160, more than an order of
magnitude, and fairly close to the Jastrow crowd's original estimate of ~100.
To some of us, that gives the pro-SDI crowd a lot more credibility than the
anti-SDI crowd.
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.)
David Eisenberg sde@mitre-bedford
------------------------------
From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@UCB-VAX.ARPA
Date: 2 Apr 85 14:32:43 CST (Tue)
To: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: SDI "Foolishness"
> Does Murphy's Law count as a law of physics? Probably nt, but I
> think it is a law nevertheless. Larger things are more complex, and
> have more ways to go wrong. More effort has to be expended to keep
> things going right. In the long run, which one wins? I think the
> former.
ICBMs are large, complex objects, much more so than many of the proposed
defensive systems. Incidentally, the reliability of ICBMs is unproven,
and the official estimates are almost certainly much too high.
> > ...But I see nothing in the laws of physics which
> > firmly states that defence against ballistic missiles is a
contradiction
> > in terms, or that it is intrinsically very expensive.
>
> How about the notion that SDI should provide a comprehensive
> population defense that is 100% effective? Nothing in physics says
> that is impossible, yet I don't believe it can ever happen. Do you?
Random failures probably prevent absolutely 100% effectiveness, no matter
how good the system is. So what? The notion that SDI is worthless unless
it is 100.000000% effective is utter garbage, another ridiculous argument
advanced by people who don't care whether they lie so long as they win.
Three defence layers, each 90% effective, reduce a 100,000-warhead attack
(this is about the level that has been proposed as what the Soviets might
build up to as an SDI countermeasure) to 100 warheads. Note that these
are 100 *randomly* *chosen* warheads. Maybe half of them will hit isolated
military targets like ICBM silos. The remaining 50 will hit randomly-
chosen military targets (that's what the Soviets aim their missiles at)
near or in populated areas. The result will be great destruction in the
specific target areas, but (barring severe nuclear winter) probably not
social collapse. Remember, you are not allowed to assume that these 50
warheads will hit the 50 most important places; they will hit random
places, many of them relatively minor.
Contrast this with the effect of 10,000 warheads, hitting every significant
target and most of the minor ones. Sounds worthwhile to me.
> ... There is a
> proposal, made in the context of space propulsion rather than
> SDI, for using the Earth's ionosphere as a laser cavity with
> orbiting mirrors. Laser action has been detected in the upper
> atmospheres of several other planets, and is probably present
> in the Earth's atmosphere too.
>
> This sounds interesting. Can you provide a reference so we can learn
> more about it?
I heard it from Robert Forward, in a talk given last summer. If you
can dig out such things, look for copies of his progress reports to the
USAF as a consultant on advanced space propulsion. Some specifics,
from my notes:
Venus and Mars lase at 10 um, from CO2. Earth may too, from
O2 rather than CO2, but nobody is really sure of that yet.
Put 1-meter mirrors 1000 km apart, with 1-us pulses at 8 kHz.
There is lots of gain, a one-way trip may suffice. Power is
5 GW instantaneous, 40 MW average. There is no exhaustion
problem, since orbital motion of the mirrors is constantly
bringing new gas into the beam path. You might be able to
get a global ring laser going, for continuous power output
up in the gigawatts.
Eight thousand pulses per second, each packing about five kilojoules,
continuously with no worries about running out of fuel, sounds like a
useful anti-ICBM device to me.
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
------------------------------
Date: 2 Apr 85 16:56 EST
From: Oded Anoaf Feingold <OAF@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Whether Bethe should instigate a libel suit
cc: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA
From sde@mitre-bedford
--------------------------------------------------
"... assert that the Bethe confreres:
1) were explicitly rebutted in classified meetings; and
2) offered no countervailing argument in such meetings; and
3) thereafter presented their case to the public w/o stating (1).
In view of such assertions, is it not appropriate that either:
1) Bethe, et al., should immediately initiate a libel suit;
2) the rest of us should consider that Bethe, et al., be viewed as
commiting a grave disservice.
--------------------------------------------------
Presumably the evidence may not be brought out, since the meetings were
classified. That makes it strategically difficult to press a libel suit,
since you're not allowed to present the evidence that you've been wronged.
If the case were like that against FBI informers or suchlike it wouldn't be
so hard, since then only the exculpatory evidence would be inadmissible
(compromise other informers) and the government could accept a directed
verdict.
Hence I doubt it's appropriate that the choice of [libel suit/disservice] be
posed. I'm also unhappy that these issues are discussed in the context of
people calling each other malicious liars. It's important to find what
truth is known to exist and what further truth can be developed.
Oded
------------------------------
From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@UCB-VAX.ARPA
Date: 2 Apr 85 14:31:42 CST (Tue)
To: arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: space launch costs and SDI pricetag
In an earlier posting, I mentioned that multi-trillion-dollar estimates
of the SDI pricetag assume (among other things!) current Shuttle launch
costs, and that several private-space-launch outfits would class this
assumption as ridiculous. Something else has occurred to me since.
1% of 2-6 terabucks is 20-60 gigabucks. This is several times the
total development bill for the Shuttle. In other words, those huge
estimates assume that not even a tiny fraction of that money will be
spent on newer and cheaper space-launch systems. Since most of that
money is launch costs, this is preposterous.
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
------------------------------
Date: 2 Apr 85 19:58 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: on rebutting Jastrow...
To: sde@MITRE-BEDFORD.ARPA
cc: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA
| In Commentary (prev issue) there was an article by Robert
Jastrow entitled,
| "The War Against 'Star Wars'."
| ...assert that the Bethe confreres:
|
| 1) were explicitly rebutted in classified meetings; and
| 2) offered no countervailing argument in such meetings; and
| 3) thereafter presented their case to the public w/o stating
(1).
|
|that's the standard argument of people who can't sustain their
|arguments in public.
But Bethe, et al. have not thus far dared to make a similar assertion about
Wood,
"Dared" may be too strong a word. It is also possible that he doesn't
want to drag the whole business down into the classified arena. Once
both sides start invoking classification, you get a "TIS SO, TAIN'T
SO" kind of shouting match.
Wood/Jastrow asserts specifically that Bethe, et al.,
IGNORE direct statements e.g., to the effect that certain weapons
are capable of
penetrating the atmosphere beyond what Bethe, et al., have claimed.
Wood/Jastrow have the last word in replying to letters to the editor.
I *have* heard people in the Bethe et al crowd argue about this
specific statement (about penetration depth), saying that it the
estimates of longer length are wrong. Problem is that no one is
willing/able to release their calculations for public inspection. The
one time I did request it during a Jastrow/Garwin debate at AAAS, I
did get each of their respective calculations, and I found Jastrow
wasn't even in the ball park.
By analogy,
it is as though Wood has asserted that he had a firearm to stop
armored cavalry
and Bethe, ignoring this, persisted in calculating how many rocks is would
take.
I am sorry; I don't follow this analogy. If you don't believe that a
firearm is possible, then you ought to calculate the number of rocks.
One need not reveal classified figures to take issue with the individual
capabilities, which must be done before making assertions as to system
capabilities.
I wish that were true, but that is certainly not how the
classification systems works. I have heard stories of things like
charts of the electromagnetic spectrum classified. What we need are
the detailed calculations from ech side.
| In view of such assertions, is it not appropriate that either:
| 1) Bethe, et al., should immediately initiate a libel suit
|
|How would it be decided? On whatggrounds?
|
It would presumably be decided the way the Sharon vs. Time case
was decided,
by examination of witnesses and (secret) evidence.
Who would serve as the judge to the calculations of intense laser beam
penetration into the atmosphere? Actually, there will be a forum on
this issue in May of this year at Dartmouth. Garwin and Canavan (a
pro-SDI person) will be debating the physics of lasers/beams before a
panel of experts chosen to be technically knowledgeable but
politically neutral (and agreeable to both sides). I look forward to
the outcome of that debate with interest.
| 2) the rest of us should consider that Bethe, et al.,
be viewed as
| commiting a grave disservice.
|
|Why? If you believe Bethe's arguments, then go with them. If you
|don't, then counter them. In either case, why is he committing a
|disservice? Indeed, I would assert thatWood et al are committing the
|disservice by basing their argument on classified arguments, thereby
|shielding them from public view. As to the argument that they lobby
|for lower security, maybe so, ut tthey sure take advantage of it. I
|would expect that they understand the physics enough to make a
|convincing unclassified case, since the classification in most cases
|doesn't buy you very much.
|
Note, too, that in the face of Jastrow, et al.'s attacks, the
Bethe group has
been forced to drop its estimates from ~2400 to ~160, more than an order of
magnitude, and fairly close to the Jastrow crowd's original
estimate of ~100.
I do not object to having people like Wood around, though Jastrow I
find to be generally sloppy in the results that I have seen, precisely
because they do find errors from time to time. The Bethe et al group
has also been pretty good in raising issues that DoD has to consider
too. I repeat, why are Bethe et al doing a disservice?
To some of us, that gives the pro-SDI crowd a lot more credibility than the
anti-SDI crowd.
Believe what you like, on the basis of one mistake by one side. But
to be fair, you have to look at the mistakes on both sides, and if youu
look at Jastrow alone, I think you'd have to say that the anti-SDI
crowd has much more credibility than the pro-SDI crowd.
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.)
This is indeed something I have noticed. But it happens on both
sides. I find it utterly amazing that, with few exceptions, the
pro-SDI people say that everything will work and that the anti-SDI
people say that nothing will work. Of course, for SDI to work, indeed
everything *must* work, and only one thing must not work for it to not
work (where "thing" refers to major function, not specific
technology).
------------------------------
[End of ARMS-D Digest]