arms-d@ucbvax.ARPA (03/26/85)
From: Moderator <ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 3 : Issue 17
Today's Topics:
Missile accuracy (3 msgs)
What is CPSR
SDI (2 msgs)
Launch on Warning Capability
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 23 Mar 85 10:05 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: missile accuracy
To: alice!wolit@UCB-VAX.ARPA
cc: ARMS-D@MIT-MC
Even if missiles are tested over all azimuths, unless they are tested
over the actual trajectories they will follow (hardly an experiment
the other side is likely to permit), it will be impossible to gauge
completely the effect of gravitational and magnetic anomalies on their
flight.
True. But the point is if we can measure anomalies well enough to
predict the trajectories over paths that have never been taken before.
The claim is that satellites do a pretty good job of mapping. I didn't
believe this at all before; I now have more confidence that they are
not so bad, given that we do do all-azimuth testing.
I agree entirely with your comments on an ICBM flight test ban.
------------------------------
Date: 23 Mar 85 10:06 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Polar ICBM Trajectories
To: OTA@S1-A.ARPA
cc: ARMSD@MIT-MC.ARPA
I always assumed that "they" had very carefully watched polar satellites
which are in virtually identical trajectories to the ICBMs and calculated
the location and magnitude of all the gravitational anomolies.
You're right.
------------------------------
Date: 23 Mar 85 17:28:30 EST
From: Hank.Walker@CMU-CS-UNH.ARPA
Subject: What is CPSR
To: Arms-D@MIT-MC
Lars's post contained some misconceptions about CPSR. First, CPSR started
out as a nuclear war mailing list at Xerox PARC. This blossomed into CPSR
when Severo Ornstein decided to make it his full-time cause. CPSR's primary
concern is the arms race, in particular computers and the arms race.
However Social Responsibility is a broad term that includes computers and
privacy and buying a computer for your kid. CPSR is most definitely not
just another anti-war group. CPSR members have written some papers
concerning the dependence of CS research on military funding. However, many
CPSR Pittsburgh members are funded by DARPA and aren't making a great effort
to find alternate funding. If CPSR becomes an advocate for political
policies, then they will fall into the bin with the rest of the peaceniks.
I think this will greatly reduce their credibility. To date CPSR has
restricted itself to saying things like "X is foolish for the following
technical reasons." For example, CPSR published an assessment of the
Strategic Computing Initiative (SCI) puncturing many of its overinflated
claims and goals.
P.S. New Zealand bans nuclear-powered ships as well as nuclear weapons.
------------------------------
Date: 23 Mar 85 17:39:22 EST
From: Hank.Walker@CMU-CS-UNH.ARPA
Subject: Will SDI Ever Work?
To: Arms-D@MIT-MC
It seems rather foolish to me to make statements like "technologically SDI
is foolishness of the highest magnitude." It is unlikely that an SDI system
can be made to work in 10 years, but what about 20, 30, or 50 years? By
saying that the SDI will never work for technological reasons, critics are
setting themselves up to get discredited if a technical solution is found.
Any legitimate non-technical points that may have been raised will be swept
away too. A sounder approach is to say that lots of research is needed
before an SDI system could possibly be built. Therefore doing development
(that $26 billion isn't all research) now is foolish and a waste of money.
And besides there are all these separate issues like cost and survivability.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 85 18:00:16 est
From: ericson@NYU-CSD1.ARPA (Lars Warren Ericson)
To: LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Re: Nuclear build-down/sharing technology
Cc: arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA
In the February 22, 1985 edition of the New York Times, page A13, reports
a comment of Fred Ikle, U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy on SDI:
Asked about the prospect of sharing defensive weapons with the
Soviet Union, as proposed by President Reagan in his re-election
campaign, Mr. Ikle said such a development was "unlikely" until
the Russians had agreed to abolish most of their offensive weapons.
(Until *what* freezes over?)
I believe this is a retraction of the policy. I also think I saw a clearer
retraction, but I can't find it. Note that the NY times ran a 6-part series
on Star Wars, from 3/3/85 to 3/8/85.
A colleague of mine just attended a (nonclassified) conference on the use of
the Denelcor HEP, a new parallel computer. An Air Force officer gave a
talk, in which he cited the uses of parallel processing for SDI. At the
bottom of the slide, which was taken from another talk, were listed the
benefits of SDI. One benefit: "Increased lethality." (The officer skipped
over that part of the slide.)
I repeat: sharing sensor data with the Russians and building down our
arsenal to levels realistically necessary would be positive steps. SDI
implemented Reagan-style will just be more ketchup-as-vegetables.
-- Lars
------------------------------
From: ihnp4!islenet!scott@UCB-VAX.ARPA
Date: 24 Mar 85 05:19:55 CST (Sun)
To: Arms-D@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V3 #14
Henry Spencer's worries about missile guidance near magnetic poles doesn't
seem relevant to modern missiles, which are inertially guided, some of them
with stellar guidance as well.
Scott Allen (ihnp4!dual) islenet!scott
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 85 09:03:18 PST
From: Charlie Crummer <crummer@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
Subject: FLASH! MX Demise would Strengthen Our Geneva Position
To: arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA
Call all Representatives. (Byrd, minority leader voted for MX. Jim Wright
voted against. For more see Christian Science Monitor of Thurs 3/22.)
Use the following argument:
The Russians are not afraid of individual Americans just as we are not
afraid of them as individuals. They fear us as a nation. They aren't sure
but that we can do anything we set our minds to. Even though their
intellectuals know that SDI is a ridiculous fiasco their militarists (whom
we support every time we build or deploy a weapons system) aren't so sure.
They have great respect for the power that confronts them and its source:
A DEMOCRATIC FORM OF GOVERNMENT!
Suppose that the House kills the MX. The people of the democracy have
spoken! Long live the people! Kampelman says: "Our people have spoken.
The world can see that the United States is a peace-loving nation by our
DEEDS. Now you, the Soviet Union, say you are a peace-loving nation. The
world is watching to see what you will do to prove it. Now is the time for
deeds, not just empty words. By the way, do not make a mistake like the
Japanese did at Pearl Harbor. Our nation is strong because our people are
united in their commitment to democracy. We have more than enough weapons
to insure our military superiority. Now it is time for our two great nations
to demonstrate our love of peace. The ball is in your court."
Our position in Geneva would actually be strengthened and a massively
wasteful first-strike system would have been eliminated from the defense
budget. Reagan says that the House can't cut the defense budget without
saying specifically what is to be cut. Here it is!
--Charlie
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 85 08:10 EST
From: sde@MITRE-BEDFORD.ARPA
To: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V3 #16
|(I read in the news yesterday that one member was filing suit against
|"Launch on Warning Capability", as a violation of the Constitution -- only
|a President can declare war, and Presidents are not computers, ergo...)
Doesn't the Constitution put the power to declare war into the hands of
Congress, rather than the President? And given that with only a few minutes to
respond to missile attack, Congress could clearly not meet, as Congress itself
recognized, didn't the Congress effectively grant the President, and therefore
his delegated subordinates, the power to defend the country with such means as
were to be considered by the latter to be appropriate, and do not such means
include computerized defense & retaliatory devices? If such a suit was filed,
it seems to me that its only possible argument would be that even in the event
of a nuclear attack, Congress would be obliged to meet, and as someone once
noted, "the Constitution ... is not a suicide pact."
David sde@mitre-bedford
------------------------------
[End of ARMS-D Digest]