arms-d@ucbvax.ARPA (03/17/85)
From: Moderator <ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 3 : Issue 14
Today's Topics:
Stanford Computer Scientist sues DOD
Re: US, USSR nuclear arsenal strengths
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 85 18:35:48 pst
From: Bill Croft <croft@SU-SAFE.ARPA>
Subject: Stanford Computer Scientist sues DOD!
To: ca.cjj@SU-FORSYTHE.ARPA, su-bboards@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
ReSent-Date: Wed 13 Mar 85 19:56:31-PST
ReSent-From: Geoff Goodfellow <G.GEOFF@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
ReSent-To: arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA, neumann@SRI-CSL.ARPA
This article was in last week's Times Tribune. I certainly admire
author of the lawsuit, Clifford Johnson (ca.cjj@forsythe)
for having the courage to try such an approach. Perhaps he
will keep us posted of his progress.
----
LAWSUIT: COMPUTERS CANNOT DECLARE WAR
By Mary Madison, Times Tribune staff
A computer manager at Stanford University has filed a lawsuit
against Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger charging that a
purported plan allowing a computer to launch a US attack on the
Soviet Union is unconstitutional.
Clifford Johnson, a British citizen, is challenging the concept
of a Launch on Warning Capability (LOWC) system, which his complaint
says can usurp the constitutional authority of the president and
Congress to declare war by starting an attack of its own.
The suit argues that neither the president nor Congress may
delegate their authority without limits under the constitution
and certainly not to "error-prone" machines.
Johnson said he learned about LOWC from stories in the New York
Times and from communicating with government officials in other
countries.
"I'm a regular person who kept distantly abreast of the news on
nuclear deployment until they put a missile in London, my
hometown," he said. "Then I did some research."
The suit was filed by Johnson in the 9th US Circuit Court of
Appeals in San Francisco, according to the Associated Press.
Johnson is supported by a Palo Alto group called Computer
Professionals for Social Responsibility.
Johnson is manager of performance evaluation and capacity planning
for Stanford's [ITS] computer.
His lawsuit is an appeal from a decision in US District Court
where a judge ruled earlier that the judiciary should not
intervene in foreign policy. However the district court judge
said that the case might be reviewed in a court with "greater
wisdom".
The government is to reply March 20 to the brief. Federal
authorities have refused to confirm or deny that LOWC exists,
but Johnson claims such a system is part of the Pershing missile
deployment in Europe and the proposed "Star Wars" plan.
If he wins his case against Weinberger, the secretary of defense
would be required to ensure that no American land-based missiles
could be launched prior to human confirmation.
"This is an attempt to undo the very first screw in the armaments
race," Johnson said, "the very fact that this screw might be undone
through the law would be highly significant."
Johnson's complaint describes a scenario in which a North American
Defense Command computer could detect something suspicous in
the Soviet Union and interpret the data as indicating an imminent
nuclear attack on the United States.
With just minutes [6 minutes] to decide, the computer could order
America's land-based nuclear arsenal to retaliate, Johnson said.
Humans, following a mandatory checklist, would then press buttons
and launch missiles.
"My lawsuit is intended to stop (the government) from plugging
LOWC into nuclear missiles."
Johnson, who is acting as his own lawyer in the case, filed
a 50-page brief in the case. His support group, the Computer
Professionals for Social Responsibility, was founded by former
employees of Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center who participated
in military computer research.
Johnson and his group believe the Pentagon is placing too much
emphasis and reliance on computers and that the technology isn't
trustworthy.
If "flaky chips" launch missles, "you've surrendered political
power," he said.
----
------------------------------
From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@UCB-VAX.ARPA
Date: 14 Mar 85 02:15:56 CST (Thu)
To: arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Re: US, USSR nuclear arsenal strengths
One thing that would be worth adding to this list is a note about
reliability and dependability. As James Fallows pointed out in
"National Defence", the single strongest reason for hanging onto
the manned bomber force is that manned bombers are known to work
reliably and accurately even in severe conditions. The unmanned
systems are much less certain. (How many ICBMs would fly more-or-less
North-South trajectories near the North Magnetic Pole in a real war?
Almost all of them. How many have been tested for accuracy under
such conditions? None. No ICBM has ever been tested on a North-
South trajectory at all, never mind the North Magnetic Pole. All
the test ranges, both American and Soviet, run East-West.)
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
------------------------------
[End of ARMS-D Digest]