arms-d@ucbvax.ARPA (01/05/85)
From: Moderator <ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 3 : Issue 2
Today's Topics:
Star Wars or Arms Control
Arms Control Scenario
Accidental launches (2 msgs)
Replies to Crummer on Tech. answer to Nuc. Winter (4 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ihnp4!islenet!scott@UCB-VAX.ARPA
Date: 2 Jan 85 17:45:57 CST (Wed)
To: Arms-D@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Star Wars or Arms Control
Ambassador (formerly General) Edward L. Rowney spoke in Hawaii Friday
about "Star Wars" ... and his position as one might expect of an Administration
negotiator, is that it can work. He is convinced scientists can make it
a reality, and that it does not violate the May 26, 1972, ABM Treaty.
Almost simultaneously with his arrival, Hawaii finally received the current
edition of 'Foreign Affairs,' which carries an impressive article by
McGeorge Bundy, George F. Kennan, Robt. S. McNamara, and Gerard Smith, titled:
'The President's Choice: Star Wars or Arms Control,' a well reasoned
presentation of why the President cannot avoid an arms race if he chooses
the Star Wars program of ABM defenses.
As we know, the arguments against Star Wars center around the necessities
of the MAD doctrine, and the Star Wars thesis requires abandonment of the
MAD doctrine.
Anti-defensive measures doctrines must presume that the other side will
perforce take measures to defeat them. The arguments presume such measures
will be taken, and from there it is a simple matter to show how additional
numbers of offensive missiles will be built to swamp any defense.
But what if the parties decide NOT to oppose the defensive measures, but to
take political and arms control measures to strengthen defenses? This is
precisely what happened at the 1922 Washington Naval Arms Limitations
Treaties, in which the then strategic armament, battleships, were limited
for 10 years by agreement, and the levels of arms were MADE adequate through
accompanying political agreements (Anglo/Japanese Treaty terminated,
along with agreements not to fortify bases in the Western Pacific).
It could happen again. Defensive measures could become a stabilizing factor
if the US and the USSR limit strategic weapons and agree to build space-based
defenseive weapons.
The MAD doctrine was born in the era of "two scorpions in a bottle" when
the United States and the USSR shared a virtual monopoly of nuclear weapons.
It is no longer true, and as more nations, some associated with terroristic
tendencies, obtain nuclear weapons, both nations need something better
than MAD. Positive defense cuold work as long as the US and USSR have the
preponderance of nuclear weapons.
------------------------------
Date: 3 Jan 85 07:15 PST
From: CAULKINS@USC-ECL.ARPA
Subject: Arms Control Scenario
To: arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA
From a possible scenario on progress toward nuclear arms ccontrol titled
"This Is How Peace Drew Near" by Green and Hartman, P19 in the 1 Jan 85
New York Times:
Early Jan 85
During the Geneva talks, the US and USSR signal their willingness to
slow thee arms race. The ppsychological tensions of the competition
and the strains on each side's economies have produced a parallel
national consensus or disarmament.
Late Jan 85
In his State of the Union Message, President Reagan startles friends
and critics alike by announcing a 180-day "moratorium" on nuclear
testing and production. In a symbolic act he orders destruction of a
dozen thermonuclear warheads (out of 25,0000), challenging the Russians
to "match this act of faith as a first step toward a nuclear-free
future for the children of this beautiful planet."
Feb 85
Tass denounce the President's Sadat-like gesture as "Hollywood arms
control", saying "The Americans began the arms race, and it will take
more than gestures to end it."
Mar 85
The Dutch Parliament votes against deployment of missiles in the Netherlands.
May 85
Konstantin Chernenko dies. Mikhail Gorbachev succeeds him.
18 July, 85
A week before the 180 day moratorium ends, Gorbachev announces that
the Soviet Union will also halt testing and production of nuclear
weapons. His Government dismantles a dozen missiles. "But if the
President is serious", adds the Soviet leader, "he cannot reverse and
accelerate the arms race simultaneously. He must stop the dangerous
'Star Wars' escalation"
19 July, 85
Reagan says he will consider stopping Star Wars research if the
Russians accept on-site inspection by a neutral authority to verify
their compliance with any negotiated treaty. The Kremlin that day
replies by challenging the United States to match its own
"no-first-use" pledge.
29 July 85
Led by Senator Jesse Helm and the Rev. Jerry Falwell, two dozen
leading conservatives present the White House with a petition signed
by two million citizens who object to "trusting faithless enemies who
never keep their word." New Right leaders Richard Viguerie and Paul
Weyrich begin talking about forming a third party. (of Reagan's
about-face on the freeze, or what the President calls his
"moratorium", columnist George Will writes: "If this conservative
President is able to tolerate huge deficits, embrace Social Security
increases and denounce South Africa, why should anyone now be
surprised that he now thinks more about history than Viguerie, more
about peace than Perle ?")
6 Aug 85
On the 40th anniversary of the first use o the atomic bomb on
Hiroshima, 10 million people in 20 rallies around the world
demonstrate for "No More Hiroshimas". Peace vigils begin in front of
American and Soviet embassies in major European capitals. The
Parliamentarians for World Order organize 15 world leaders, who offer
their "good offices" to help the two nuclear powers "complete their
historic journey".
Sept 85
As a result of the simmering "Flick Affair", with its revelations of
corruption in high places, the Kohl Government fails in West Germany.
The succeeding Social Democratic coalition asks the United States to
remove cruise missiles from West German territory and invites East
Germans to order all Soviet SS-20 missiles out of their country.
Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Belgium ban nuclear weapons from their
territories.
Nov 85
The "Stronger America" lobby, initiated and funded by military
contractors, launches a public-relations blitz in the national media
based on the slogan "We never lost a war because we were too strong".
Nuclear hawks Richard Perle and Edward Rowny resing from the
Administration, reportedly over disagreements about how accomodating
to be to the Soviet Union. A moderate, Elliot L. Richardson, is named
the nation's leading arms negotiator.
Jan 86
In a joint communique, Gorbachev and Reagan agree to extend their
mutual moratoriums until they meet in a June summit meeting for direct
negotiations. Reagan makes a "no-first-use" pledge. Gorbachev
dismantles another dozen missiles and pulls back the Siberian missiles
closest to Alaska and the West Coast.
May 86
Reagan's moratorium leads to the first layoffs in the arms industry.
The President orders an "economic conversion" study to show how arms
workers and facilities can be used instead to rebuild America's
declining infrastructure. The bipartisan governors' and mayors'
conferences applaud the moratorium and study. The Democratic Study
Group in the House agrees, saying, "National security abroad can only
be built on economic security at home."
June 86
At the summit meeting in Vienna, the two leaders fail to break their
deadlock on Satr Wars and verification but agree to meet in early
1987.
November 86
American mid-term elections add 19 democrats to the House and four
(enough for a majority) to the Senate, in each case defeating
opponents more critical of the moratorium and negotiations. House
Republican losses, however, fall well below the normal level for such
a second midterm election because so many moderate Republicans gain
popularity by supporting the arms talks
April 87
There are huge Easter week rallie around the world for nuclear
disarmament. The Pope makes an impassioned plea for more weapons to
be destroyed as soon as possible.
Oct 87
Consolidating his grip on the Kremlin after more than a year in power,
Gorbachev withdraws 20 SS-20's from East Germany and challenges
Washington to withdraw 20 Pershing II's rom West Germany.
Feb 88
The First Multilateral World Disarmament Conference convenes in
Geneva. Libya, Pakistan, and South Africa boycott the conference, but
the 83 participating nations agree to an international freeze on the
production of plutonium.
June 88
A Unietd Nations Nuclear Authority is established to act as the
guardian of nuclear arms technology. Separately, Moscow and
Washington create a monitoring center to guard against accidental war.
Nov 88
Reagan, with the full concurrence of the President Elect, agrees with
Gorbachev to cut back their nuclear arsenals to the minimum needed for
deterrence - mutually assured destruction - to work: roughly 400
single-warhead missiles per side. All Star Wars research is dropped.
The Russians agree to on-site inspection by representatives of the
United Nations Nuclear Authority. Pressure buils on the holdout
nations to give up their nuclear weapons.
10 Dec 88
A leading newspaper editorializes that "this is the most important day
in world history since the day the bomb went off in Los Alamos".
Dec 89
Reagan and Gorbachev share the Nobel Peace Prize. Says Reagan at the
Stockholm ceremony, "Not bad for an old warmonger."
-------
------------------------------
From: medin%ucbarpa@UCB-VAX.ARPA (Milo Medin)
Date: 3 Jan 85 08:26 PST (Thursday)
To: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V3 #1
From my knowledge of U.S. C^3 systems, I'd say it'd be very hard for
some sort of accident to launch anything less than a squadron
at a time, otherwise you have to override the 'default'
configuration. For a long time, you *couldn't* launch less than
a squadron at a time. For those who don't know, a squadron
is composed of 50 missiles, 3 squadrons to a wing. But I don't
really find the possibility of an accident leading to an actual
launch and detontation very large at all, for that you'd need 2
votes and the EAM, and all that stuff is built to be failsafe
anyways. I'd think that if we ever did decide to launch a strike,
it'd be hard for everything to get all the right info, especially
in a nuclear environment, to authorize and authenticate properly.
Milo
------------------------------
Date: 4 Jan 85 18:08 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Accidental launches..
To: medin@UCB-ARPA.ARPA
It is worth correcting a common misconception here. The EAM
(Emergency Action Message) is *NOT* a necessary condition for firing
in that it contains no information that is required to launch
strategic nuclear weapons. This is unlike tactical nuclear weapons
that require Permissive Action Link codes to arm the weapons physically.
------------------------------
Date: 3 Jan 85 01:10:46 EST
From: JoSH <JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Crummer: re: Deitz' Tech. answer to Nuc. Winter
To: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA
From: Charlie Crummer <crummer@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
Subject: Arms-D V2 #82: Deitz' Tech. answer to Nuc. Winter
... Any serious discussion of such a proposal
as cleaning the atmosphere after a large-scale nuclear exchange should be
held in the form of an exchange of papers addressing the difficult physical
problems that stand in its way. None of this is a matter of opinion and
must be supported, refuted, or relegated to the unknown by the careful,
meticulous work of competent professionals in atmospheric physics.
Please, let's keep the glib, smug high-tech palaver that is so popular
lately out of these discussions.
Aw come on!!! This applies at least much to Nuclear Winter itself as to
Deitz's ideas. Indeed, it applies to just about everything talked about
on this list, so why do you bother reading it? Leave it to those of us
who like to *think* instead of repeating the dogmas of the ideologues.
To wit:
Solutions to the problem of National Security are not to be found in the
realm of high-tech.
... As long as the spirit of US vs. THEM persists both sides will
apply high-tech or whatever the current fad is at the time to perpetuate
the dangerous escalation of threat.
This is not only wrong, but it misses the point. Suppose both sides had
a technological cure for NW. So much the better for everyone.
As for technological advancements having an impact on security, there
is a considerable impact on the political stability of any situation
by the technology of attack and defense. A common example is the feudal
system, the castle, the cannon, and the rise of the nation-state.
The stability of the nation-state is predicated on the balance of technology
wherein attack is pre-eminent, and based on mass armies. For the past
several centuries, the only way to defend against an army was another army.
So far, the only entities to have nuclear weapons have been those who
already had big armies, so not much change has occurred. My suspicion
is that that will change within the next century, and the world order
will undergo changes as profound as those of the Renaissance.
There is a possibility of a nuclear exchange, I'm sure you will admit.
Given that, there is a possibility of a "nuclear winter", I'm sure
you will also admit. The result is a physical problem. It is silly
not to search for a technological solution. Indeed, given our track
records for solving technological vs political problems, it may be the
more reasonable thing to do.
I urge all respondents to this list to forgo repetition of the dogmatic
"there is no technological solution". If you cannot, I will counter with
"there is no political solution", which is just as likely, if not more so,
to be true.
--JoSH
-------
------------------------------
Date: 3 Jan 85 09:11:34 EST
From: DIETZ@RUTGERS.ARPA
Subject: Your Flame
To: crummer@AEROSPACE.ARPA
A response to Crummer's flame:
I hope Crummer didn't mean to suggest that all scientific discussions
should be in the form of papers in refereed journals (so scientists may not
discuss science at other times, I suppose), nor meant that only
qualified atmospheric scientists should discuss nuclear winter.
I resent Crummer's labelling my speculations as "matters of opinion".
They are matters of SPECULATION. At this point they should be judged
by their plausibility, and shot down by rational arguments, not by
observing that they are "glib" or "smug", or by calling them "high tech
palaver".
P. Dietz
-------
------------------------------
From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@UCB-VAX.ARPA
Date: 3 Jan 85 23:59:48 CST (Thu)
To: arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Re: undoing nuclear winter and techno-fixes
(Counterflame)
> Solutions to the problem of National Security are not to be found in the
> realm of high-tech. This is so because no country has a corner on human
> creativity. As long as the spirit of US vs. THEM persists both sides will
> apply high-tech or whatever the current fad is at the time to perpetuate
> the dangerous escalation of threat.
There are two fundamental mistakes one can make: "technology will solve
all our problems", and "technology can't solve any of our problems". The
latter mistake is more fashionable than the former these days, but it is
no less a mistake. Technology, specifically nuclear weapons, got us into
this mess ("this mess" defined not as international rivalry and hatred,
but as the dire consequences of major warfare today). The notion that
technology might get us out of it is not self-evidently true, but it is
not ridiculous or preposterous either. Claiming that technology is
fundamentally incapable of resolving the situation is technophobic
propaganda, not a statement of self-evident fact.
Note that I am not (necessarily) claiming that technology *will* get us
out of this mess, or that one should rely on such a development. But
the possibility exists, and should not be belittled.
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
------------------------------
Date: 4 Jan 85 18:01 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Arms-D V2 #82: Deitz' Tech. answer to Nuc. Winter
To: crummer@AEROSPACE.ARPA
From: Charlie Crummer <crummer at AEROSPACE.ARPA>
Any serious discussion of such a proposal
as cleaning the atmosphere after a large-scale nuclear exchange should be
held in the form of an exchange of papers addressing the difficult physical
problems that stand in its way. None of this is a matter of opinion..
Depends on what you mean by opinion. Assumptions and opinion are
awfully hard to distinguish.
Please, let's keep
the glib, smug high-tech palaver that is so popular lately out of these
discussions.
I agree, but I didn't find Deitz's suggestions to be totally
worthless; they prompt thought, as do most of his comments, even if I
may not like the ideas expressed. I want people to keep on expressing
their "palaver"; if I find one useful idea in a hundred, it's worth it.
Solutions to the problem of National Security are not to be found in the
realm of high-tech. This is so because no country has a corner on human
creativity.
I agree with your first statement; I agree with your second statement.
I don't see what the first has to do with the second.
As long as the spirit of US vs. THEM persists both sides will
apply high-tech or whatever the current fad is at the time to perpetuate
the dangerous escalation of threat.
Why? I believe (opinion) that is *is* US vs THEM. Why does that mean
that we cannot cooperate on some things?
------------------------------
[End of ARMS-D Digest]