arms-d@ucbvax.ARPA (01/03/85)
From: Moderator <ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 3 : Issue 1
Today's Topics:
Space Weapons Question
Nuclear Winter countermeasures (4 msgs)
biases, references (3 msgs)
economic freedom (end)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 29 Dec 84 11:38 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Space Weapons Question
To: pur-ee!malcolm@UCB-VAX.ARPA
I've heard a number of sources claim that the most likely cause of a
nuclear exchange is an accident by one of the two sides. It seems to
me that this first would involve only a few missiles.
(Sounds an awful lot like the book Failsafe.)
Wouldn't this scenario be a good reason to have a small number of space
based weapons? If an accident occured then both sides would be able to
try to shoot it down. As it is now we are sort of stuck.
I too have hear this claim, but I don't find it credible. An
accident might precipitate a nuclear exchange, but in that case it
isn't a small number of weapons that you're talking about. One
accidental launch (if it can be limited to one) just won't start
WWIII; the worst that could happen is what Failsafe depicted - an
exchange of targets).
Now, what about a defense to shoot down that one stray missile? Sure,
it if is for free, but more importantly, if it is not a "foot in the
door" for future expansion. Policy makers worry not only about where
we are now, but how now might lead to the future. If you agree that
defense in a nuclear age is fundamentally mistaken, then you want to
prevent feet in the door.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 84 22:58:28 est
From: decvax!utcs!ian@UCB-VAX.ARPA (Ian F. Darwin)
To: decvax!ucbvax!arms-d@UCB-VAX.ARPA
Subject: re: Active countermeasures against nuclear winter?
I don't know if the technical potential (pun intended) to do as
Dietz@Rutgers suggests. I suspect it probably is.
What is more in question is whether there would be any sufficiently
organized industrial society with all the necessary conditions
to mount such a salvation effort. These would include the technical
knowledge, the industrial resources, and perhaps most importantly,
the will to continue operating as a society in the short term after
a medium- or full-scale nuclear exchange.
At that time, as in a previous time of crisis, please remember Franklin's
line to the effect that we must hang together or we shall certainly hang
separately.
Ian Darwin | `Merely adding features does not make it easier for
{ihnp4|decvax}!utcs!ian | users... -- it just makes the manual thicker.''
Toronto, Canada | -- Kernighan & Pike, bltj
------------------------------
From: KYLE.WBST@Xerox.ARPA
Date: 30 Dec 84 21:12:26 EST
Subject: Re: nuke winter fixes
To: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA
What happens to the eye sight of any survivors
who happen to look up when your nukes go off?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 84 08:46:10 PST
From: Richard Foy <foy@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
To: jig@LANL.ARPA
CC: arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: biases
Your discussion with Herb Lin on biases prompts me to respond. There is a
technique which I have become aware of which can help one to discover ones
own biases. I find it useful but difficult to apply, even though it is simple.
It is: Find at least one thing that you can agree with it something that
generally opposed your viewpoint, and find at least one thing that you can
disagree with in something that generally supports your viewpoint. If nothing
else it is an interesting thing to do.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 84 08:58:10 PST
From: Richard Foy <foy@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
To: katz@UCI-ICSE.ARPA
Subject: references
I concurr with your comments regarding references. I find the digest quite
valuable in helping to understang the larger issues related to war and nuclear
war in particular. Just becuase something is written in a book dosen't
necessarily make it more factual that an unsupported statement by someone on
this net.
------------------------------
Date: 31 Dec 84 09:42:11 PST (Mon)
To: jlg@LANL.ARPA
cc: arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA, poli-sci@RUTGERS.ARPA
Subject: Liberalism and Socialism (Re: Cuba, references, biases, etc.)
From: Martin D. Katz <katz@UCI-ICSE.ARPA>
From Jim Giles (Dec. 20) in Arms-D V2 #82, Dec. 28, 1984
(I always wondered how an educated person could develope a liberal bias
in the first place. Personal and, especially, economic freedoms tend
to disappear in direct proportion to the degree to which a country
socializes. What is there about liberalism that people find attractive
enough to uncritically embrace it?)
The following is personal opinion (I assume that references are not needed):
I think you may be confused by stereotypes. Those who take the Soviet side
of an arms discussion are not necessarilly liberals, or socialists. In this
list, people often will take the Soviet position in order to better
understand the Soviet point of view -- even if they do not believe that the
Soviet actions are necessarily correct.
Even if people didn't take hypothetical positions, to assume that a person
who justifies a Soviet action or who takes Reagan to task for his "Evil
empire" phrase is a supporter of Soviet idiology is unfair. There are many
reasons, other than personal bias, for supporting a particular ethical
position on a particular question. Certain actions on the part of the U.S.
government can be questioned on the basis of assumptions which are widely
(although not universally) shared. Such unstated assumptions include:
a) Direct (or at least nuclear) confrontation with the Soviet Union is not
in the best interests of the U.S.
b) Military strategy should avoid the loss of more friendly lives than enemy
lives.
c) Soviet take-over of friendly countries is greatly undesireable. On the
other hand, take-over of countries which are friendly, but not directly
aligned, might not be worth direct retaliation against the Soviets.
The threshold is nebulous.
The list goes on and on.
I also wish to draw attention to your connection of "Liberal" with
"Socialize." Strictly speaking, a socialist economic system is one in
which the government owns all means of production and service, and in which
all citizens are employed by the government. Socialism is NOT a "Liberal"
goal. Rather, it is an "Egalitarian" goal.
Strictly speaking, liberal means "Not restricted" (Webster's New Collegiate
Dictionary), and its political meaning derives from this goal of liberty.
Egalitarianism is best described by the motto "All men are created equal,"
and therefore supports equal opportunity (some people would say equal
achievement) for everybody. A third social force involved is the concept
that "Each man is responsible for the life of his neighbor," meaning that
one should not let ones neighbor starve. When emergency maintenance becomes
the role of the government, this becomes "Social welfare," but this should
not be confused with "Socialism."
Many who support one of these positions also support the others to some
extent. Liberals include radical liberals (who support socialism as a
mechanism to achieve social welfare, and egalitarianism). But, liberals also
include libertarians (who support liberty and to some extent egalitarianism,
but do not strongly support social welfare).
It is my opinion that these economic positions can be distinguished from
Soviet idiology. Soviet idiology may be historically based on the liberal,
egalitarian, and social welfare goals of Marx and Lenin, but is strongly
affected by many other factors (conservatism, personal needs and goals of
leaders, preservation of position, physical security, distribution of
idiology, etc.). Thus, ones support or attack of a position or action in
international politics should not be confused with ones positions on
national politics. Of course, people (and party platforms) may tend to
form clusters of opinion (e.g., those who believe that physical take-over of
the U.S. is an active objective of the Soviet Union may tend to oppose
social welfare programs) -- in fact, I would think that current stereotyping
tends to encourage this clustering of opinion).
In summary, it is my opinion that we should try to avoid confusion of
positions on the national level when discussing international issues. It
might be helpful to try to identify the implicit assumptions when writing
(and reading) about ideological and international issues.
------------------------------
From: Eugene Miya <eugene@AMES-NAS.ARPA>
Date: 2 Jan 85 10:29 PST (Wednesday)
To: arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Two short things
To: DIETZ@RUTGERS and the rest of the net. The postings on counter
measures to nuclear winter are interesting. I have forwarded them
to Tom Ackerman to give to the rest of the study. Have you thought
about going into the weather modification business? I wonder if the
people at NCAR are reading this. Don't forget, you have to put as
much energy (and probably more) to scrub atmosphere as you took to
put it up there (WW III). Still it's interesting.
Did anybody else see the NATO ads on Good Morning America? Another
interesting phenomena of our time.
--eugene miya
NASA Ames Research Center
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 85 12:11:56 PST
From: Charlie Crummer <crummer@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
To: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Arms-D V2 #82: Deitz' Tech. answer to Nuc. Winter
(Flame)
I am reminded of a comment made by a wag about hand-waving discussions on
the renormalization of field theories: "Just because a term is infinite
doesn't mean you can just throw it away!" To paraphrase this: "Just because
you have an outrageously wild hypothesis, e.g. nuclear winter is really not
such a big deal, doesn't mean that a lot of super high-tech words can be
thrown together to support it." 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.
(Flame off)
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.
--Charlie
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 84 08:28:12 PST
From: Richard Foy <foy@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
To: lin@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: economic freedom
I am sorry that you want to move your discussion on the ecomomics and polotics
of China to a private discussion. Though I haven`t responded. I hae followed it
with interest and believe that I am learning from it.
Richard Foy
------------------------------
Date: 2 Jan 85 17:41 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: economic freedom
To: foy@AEROSPACE.ARPA
i'll be glad to cc to anyone on this topic, but i don't think it's appropriate
for arms-d.
[The Moderator agrees. Poli-Sci would be a more appropriate place for this
discussion. Thanks. JnL]
------------------------------
[End of ARMS-D Digest]arms-d@ucbvax.ARPA (01/03/85)
From: medin@ucbarpa (Milo Medin) 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