arms-d@ucbvax.ARPA (11/18/84)
From: Moderator <ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA> Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 2 : Issue 73 Today's Topics: Electronuclear Breeders Misc responses The need to bear arms: two ideologies ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Nov 84 08:19:29 EST From: DIETZ@RUTGERS.ARPA Subject: Electronuclear Breeders To: arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA, physics@MIT-MC.ARPA I saw an interesting proposal the other day that may have nuclear proliferation consequences. The idea is to breed fissile material using neutrons produced from a high current particle accelerator. This device would be seen as competition for conventional breeder reactors and for fusion-fission hybrid reactors. It works this way: a proton linear accelerator produces a high current beam of 1.5 GeV protons. At these energies the protons deposit energy in matter primarily through nuclear collisions. Directed against a target of high atomic number (uranium, say), the protons will undergo multiple scatterings in the U-238 nuclei, emitting fast protons and neutrons. The remaining nuclei will be highly excited and will emit more evaporation neutrons. The net result is 30 - 40 neutrons per incoming proton. The neutrons are captured by U-238 nuclei, breeding Pu-239. Alternatively, thorium can be used as a target, breeding U-233. High currents (tens or hundreds of milliamps) are needed to get respectable yields. A ten milliamp current of 1.5 GeV protons has a power of about 40 megawatts, much of which could be recovered from the target as heat. If the neutrons produced by this machine were captured with 100% efficiency it could make about 5 kg of plutonium a month. There is currently some work being done in high-current, high-energy particle beams for star-wars type weapons. The Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility (LAMPF) has a 1 milliamp beam of 800 MeV protons. A commericial electronuclear breeder would be more reliable than a fission/fusion hybrid (since the high tech part, the accelerator, would not be exposed to the neutron flux) and safer than a conventional fast breeder (since no critical masses are used). Since the target atoms in the e-breeder are shattered and hence greatly reduced in mass, the e-breeder could be used to destroy long-lived actinide waste products. ------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Nov 84 19:36 GMT From: FAILOR%LLL@LLL-MFE.ARPA Subject: response to Jim Giles response To: arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA > The leaders of the Soviet Union have the stated > objective of world communist revolution - and they have never made > a secret of this objective. What type of communism will the world be under after this revolution-- Russian, Chinese, or Vietnamese? There is no longer any monolithic communist movement, just as there is not any monolithic capitalistic movement. The main goal of the Soviet Union is the social and economical survival of the Russian people in the face of threats from mainly China and the United States. > 3. The American people see that the democratic system only holds the POTENTIAL > for the salvation of the world from nuclear holocaust. It is up to the > people to lead and demand that the officials in whatever administration > produce results. The confusion between results and reasons for no results > is ended. > In order for this to work, the people of the free world need to be > much better educated and informed - so that they can recognize a > path to peace if they see it. I completely agree with this. It is important for the people of the world to know what the big picture is, not only with respect to the arms race, but also economics and culture. For example, if we understood more about Russian history and culture, we would have a higher regard for them as a people-- and would not be so easily swayed by rhetoric and hyperbole. > 4. The US becomes the true leader in the evolution beyond war by affecting > Soviet policy; by playing to the positive forces in the Soviet Union and > thus giving them power. The power residing in the dangerous hawks > naturally dies out and they (as well as our own fear-ridden crazies) > gradually become a harmless fringe group. > > It is a particularly dangerous idea to regard Soviet leadership as > similar to our own. Refering to 'positive forces' in the Soviet Union > is like talking about cold spots on the sun. To be sure, there are > some Soviet leaders who are less 'hawkish' than others, but ALL Soviet > leaders are 'dangerous hawks' on any scale americans would be familiar > with. This is no surprise - Soviet leaders are chosen as leaders only > after the have proven themselves time and again as being TOTALLY > commited to the communist party and to the stated goals thereof. Is the Soviet leadership that dogmatic? I think they are pragmatic, and becoming more so each day. Again, I think economic survival is their primary goal. The Chinese communists have changed the party line quite often since Mao, and most recently have begun an experiment in capitalism just outside of Hong Kong which is having great success. Also, communism does not have a monopoly on ruthlessness and despotism. I think the ruthlessness of the Soviet government may be due more to the history and culture of the Russian people than to the type of economic system they are professing at this time. > The issue of arms control can't be solved by spreading false hope, > or by debating philosophical or ethical considerations. The only > solution is cold, rational inquiry into the potential causes and > effects of present policies and how they might be improved. If > you go into this discussion with preconcieved ideas about solutions, > you should be willing to change your mind - there is no room for > sentiment or dogma. And because we have to live with the situation > indefinitely, we will almost certainly have to change policies and > resort, on occasion, to policies which are expensive or unpleasant. > Among the sentimental ideas we will have to discard are some of the > statements in the note I quoted above, the issues just aren't that > straightforward. You can have detailed discussions and negotiations about the size and number of warheads, etc., and this may have some short term benefits, but you are not really striking at the root of the problem. We may be able to buy time with negotiations and defensive weapons, and this is very important, but I think they will not provide a permanent solution. The most destabling influence now is the economic and social inequalities that exist between peoples. As I understand it, there are sufficient resources to feed the population of the earth, and yet people are starving. People in comparatively affluent nations, such as the USA, need to share expertise and resources with the less well off. We also need to understand and appreciate their social system and culture. Without an acceptance of their right to existence there can be no progress. Basically, selfishness, ethnocentricism, and insensitivity will lead to further destabilization, while benevolence, acceptance, and compassion will reduce tensions. The quality and temperment of the people will determine their survival. ------- ------------------------------ Date: 13 November 1984 19:17-EST From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-MC> Subject: Response to essay questions To: jlg @ LANL cc: ARMS-D @ MIT-MC, ARMS-DISCUSSION @ MIT-MC From: jlg at LANL (Jim Giles) Refering to 'positive forces' in the Soviet Union is like talking about cold spots on the sun. To be sure, there are some Soviet leaders who are less 'hawkish' than others, but ALL Soviet leaders are 'dangerous hawks' on any scale americans would be familiar with. This is just false. Khruschev (sp?) was rather atypical, and from all the available evidence was, by my assessment, a positive force for change in the SU. True, he was deposed, most likely because of disagreements with the system in which he operated. But that would be true of ANY leader operating in a large system (bureaucracy) with much inertia. The DoD has a huge institutional memory, as do the U.S. armed forces, and even (!) here only incremental changes are possible. As the Rockwell people were saying about the B-1 bomber, even Mondale couldn't kill off the B-1 even if he were elected. ------------------------------ From: aurora!eugene@RIACS.ARPA (Eugene miya) Date: 16 Nov 1984 1407-PST (Friday) To: ames!riacs!arms-d@mit-mc.ARPA Subject: Overkill and gas [leq: We begin bombing in five minutes.] The views expressed within are not necessarily those of my employer. > Date: Wed, 7 Nov 84 19:29:57 mst > From: jlg@LANL (Jim Giles) > To: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA > Subject: Response to essay questions > > > 1. American people wake up and realize that the power of the US lies in its > > political system, not in its weaponry. > > Unless the soviet government can be removed > from power, the US will always have to maintain a military that is not > only sufficient for real defensive needs, but is also percieved as > sufficient by the Soviet leadership. This sometimes means some 'over- > kill' capability. > > > 3. The American people see that the democratic system only holds the > POTENTIAL > > for the salvation of the world from nuclear holocaust. It is up to the > > people to lead and demand that the officials in whatever administration > > produce results. The confusion between results and reasons for no results > > is ended. > > In order for this to work, the people of the free world need to be > much better educated and informed - so that they can recognize a > path to peace if they see it. > . . . (That's the hazard of > freedom - we are free NOT to uphold our responsibilities and to > trust others to make policy in our absence.) > > > 4. The US becomes the true leader in the evolution beyond war by affecting > > Soviet policy; by playing to the positive forces in the Soviet Union and > > thus giving them power. > > It is a particularly dangerous idea to regard Soviet leadership as > similar to our own. Refering to 'positive forces' in the Soviet Union > is like talking about cold spots on the sun. > > The only kind of war that is obsolete is full scale > nuclear war. Conventional wars have been raging around the world > for years, and continue to do so. In future, there will probably > even be small nuclear exchanges as the third world acquires the > capability. Non-proliferation is a joke - anyone can build nuclear > weapons with the strength of a (even small) government behind them, > it's just a matter of time. > > The issue of arms control can't be solved by spreading false hope, > or by debating philosophical or ethical considerations. The only > solution is cold, rational inquiry into the potential causes and > effects of present policies and how they might be improved. If > you go into this discussion with preconcieved ideas about solutions, > you should be willing to change your mind - there is no room for > sentiment or dogma. And because we have to live with the situation > indefinitely, we will almost certainly have to change policies and > resort, on occasion, to policies which are expensive or unpleasant. > Among the sentimental ideas we will have to discard are some of the > statements in the note I quoted above, the issues just aren't that > straightforward. Perhaps, I had it all wrong. Maybe what the US should do is expand it's empire. We had better start taking over territory as quickly as we can! And, maybe if we could hit the Soviets fast enough and hard enough, our casualties could be kept to a minimum. We had better step up the insurgent operations throughout the world. This way we can rid the world of the Soviet threat [their people don't like their government, right?] and become the true leader of the world. After all, our 'thinking' is better than their thinking. [Pardon the paragraph of satire.] ------------------------------ > > When poison gas was used in WWI it was seen to be a disaster for all > > sides. Its utility as a weapon, on balance, was minimal. ... > > > > ... Poison gas was not a factor in WWII not because it > > was outlawed but because it was not seen as effective. ... > > ineffectiveness, but fear of retaliation. Early in the war, the Germans > saw it as unnecessary and the Allies feared retaliation against England. > Later on, the Germans held off on using gas (perhaps because Hitler, who > was a common soldier in WWI, had an aversion to gas warfare) until a time > when Allied retaliation would have been impossible to stop. The Allies > in turn had reversed position, seeing gas warfare as largely unnecessary. > Residual fear of German retaliation against England was what killed the > idea of using gas against Japanese-held islands. Gas was not a factor > in WWII because neither side saw the effects as worth the risk. > > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry Actually, this is only part of the picture. The Germans had just developed nerve gases for which the Allies had no defense at the time. The Allies did have a new gas (I believe based on phosgene: D??? which used DMSO for skin penetration), but it was no where near as effective at Tabun [GA]. There were large stockpiles of Tabun near Normandy to cover the area for troops moved to Calais, but the real reason why Tabun was not used is because both German and Allied generals look upon the use of gas as `poor man's' warfare (not sporting). Even to this day, gas weapontry is looked down upon (and feared) by NATO and Soviet planners although both sides play games with gas. --eugene miya ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Nov 84 23:10:08 pst To: arms-d@MIT-MC From: Paul@Berkeley, S.@Berkeley, R.@Berkeley, Chisholm@Berkeley Subject: The need to bear arms: two ideologies A point I've noticed in recent discussions: People seem to have two beliefs on *why* we have a Department of Defense and a strong military force. There are two reasons; both are influencial, which is kinda strange, when I think about it. Note I'm not defending either of these points of view. I just want to identify them, and how they color people's opinions on arms control and the avoidance of war (nuclear or otherwise). The first belief is that armed force is (still) an important tool in diplomacy, and we need armies (et al) to play the game. This one has two faces: we need to defend ourselves against aggressors (e.g., the Soviets and their nuclear armada), and that we need to be able to fight countries to inflict our will upon them (which, for better or worse, we tried to to in Vietnam, we successfully did in Grenada, and may yet do in Central America). This is the "real", "right" reason for being a military power. (Whether you want to bully other powers, or just defend yourself, is an important question in another discussion.) The *other* reason people think we have weapons (& etc) is quite different: we play at the game of war because we like the game. This one has a few flavors, too. Some say we have a military-industrial complex for the benefit of the military-based industries, who convince us to spend money on them, and who care more about their bottom line than our front line. Then there's the "War is a male chauvinist plot to drain our society and keep women in their place" theory; see, for example, Doris Lessing's Canopus novels, or Kathrine Ann Porter's "Pale Horse, Pale Rider". There's also the variation that explains war as a side effect of not having our heads on right, and our priorities straight. The point is this: if two people take these two different stands, and then try to argue arms control, they're not going to understand each other. One will talk about how bad the Russkies are, and how they wanna kill our men, rape our women (that's right, Mark, they want our women:-), and loot our cities . . . and the other will explain that we're all basically alike, and if we could just sit down and understand each other, we could beat our swords into plowshares and be much happier. One thinks war is a necessary evil; the other thinks it's an *un*necessary evil. If you think *that* discussion is bad, consider the one between the guy who wants to nuke Iran if they don't send us oil, and the guy who wants to nuke the Pentagon, the Rand Corporation, and most of Long Island and Washington state (the super American chauvinist vs. the Big Business conspiracy rebel). And the funny thing is, none of these fundamental beliefs are really wrong. We *should* be able to defend ourselves. We *should* be able to influence other countries to let us live in the world something like the way we want to. The big war companies *do* encourage spending big bucks on big systems. And the brutalities of war *are* insane. (As to the feminists: I think Lessing is overly idealistic, but basically a good writer and a sound thinker. However, I'll let my comments on Porter stand. Her character in "Pale Horse, Pale Rider" really did seem to think that World War II was a hoax by the government to make life for women on the home front uncomfortable, and to kill off all the good looking bachelors. If this is literary scorn, let us make the most of it.) Conclusion (what I tell you three times is true): you and I will have a tough time understanding each others comments on arms control if our underlying beliefs in why we have war are fundamentally (and silently) different. Comments welcome. -Paul S. R. Chisholm ...!hogpd!pegasus!lzmi!psc The above opinions are my own, ...!cbosg!lzmi!psc and do not necessarily represent ...!ucbvax!ihnp4!lznv!psc those of anyone else. ------------------------------ [End of ARMS-D Digest]