arms-d@ucbvax.ARPA (11/13/84)
From: Moderator <ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 2 : Issue 72
Today's Topics:
Nuclear winter (3 msgs)
Response to essay questions
Poison gas
Laser Isotope Separation
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 6 Nov 84 08:04:08 EST
From: DIETZ@RUTGERS.ARPA
Subject: More comments on nuclear winter
To: arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA
An additional comment I forgot to add to my nuclear winter message:
Although it is possible to attack with nuclear weapons to minimize fire,
you can't guarantee the enemy will not retaliate against your cities
with nuclear airbursts. Nuclear winter makes pseudo-doomsday devices
available to any large nuclear power.
-------
------------------------------
Date: 6 Nov 1984 0948-PST
From: Rem@IMSSS
Subject: Several replies in one message
To: ARMS-D%MIT-MC@SCORE
Date: 4 Nov 84 17:48:50 EST
From: DIETZ@RUTGERS.ARPA
Subject: Nuclear winter -- does it make war obsolete?
...
(3) impact velocity of the warhead is important, so ballistic missiles
are preferred to ground hugging cruise missiles or bombers (4) radiological
warfare moves to center stage.
Hmmm, maybe we've solved the problem. Everything except ICBMs and
maybe SLBMs are infeasible due to nuclear winter, while submarines and
ICBM silos can be monitored; thus a nuclear freeze and eventual
reduction in useful weaponry may be feasible.
Date: Mon 5 Nov 84 09:12:26-PST
From: DANTE@EDWARDS-2060.ARPA
Subject: Importance of Nuclear Freeze
To: arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA
First I don't agree that nuclear arms, freeze, disarmament, whatever,
is the central issue which should concern us. To me the central issue is
the avoidance of a global war. And I don't know of any war in history that
was fought or not fought because of the availability of a particular
weapon.
I disagree with both of you, Dante and Dante's straw man. Both issues
are important. We must have a multi-tiered survival strategy. We must
make nations not want or need war (probably by developing resources
and habitat in space). We must be sure deterrent is always stable so
nations who think they need war won't find it profitable and will
continue to hold back and try other means. We must decrease the total
number of nuclear weapons in the world, in a way that can be
monitored, so that when Murphy strikes and we have a world war it
won't destroy our civilization and possibly our species. After all
these precautions are made, something can still go wrong, an accident
can destroy ten or twenty large cities, so some defensive capability
may be desirable to further limit the worst-case loss.
At present nuclear weapons are the only thing we know of that might
destroy our whole civilization in less than a day, so we concentrate
on them now during peacetime, we can't wait until the day after.
Other things we have time to stop after they start. We generally think
about them now but not really work hard on them until they start to
kill people. Currently traffic accidents, cigarette smoking, coal
burning, general overpopulation & pollution & waste-dumping, and
crime, are killing lots of people and worth working on occasionally.
Chemical&biological warfare, disposal of nuclear waste, etc. don't
seem to be worth spending much time worrying about currently, at least
not compared to the really deadly problems we face.
Let's worry about short-range nuclear weapons which might trigger an
all-out war, and ICBMs & SLBMs which will probably destroy
civilization if the all-out war breaks out, plus ways of lessening the
likelihood of war as outlined above.
Date: 5-Nov-84 21:31 PST
From: Kirk Kelley <KIRK.TYM@OFFICE-2.ARPA>
Subject: Re: The Conscious game
To play, people would need to have computers and a knowledge of
what they're doing. Both items are in short supply. To play
seriously, they would need to neglect major parts of their
present lives. What chance does a game have to pull people
that hard?
I have another answer: Many people spend considerable portions of their
lives playing Dungeons&Dragons. Perhaps Kirk's game could be as popular?
I also have an alternative idea for consuming human labor: what in
this context might be called the "Golden-age game". It's sort of a
goverment work-welfare program like the Civilian Conservation Corps,
except instead of having masses of people do a few particular things
like cleaning litter or building bridges and dams, we have people
providing varied services for other people. Everyone submits a list of
ten things that person wants. The big information system then sorts
these into three classes:
(1) things already provided by existing services;
(2) things not provided but possible if people would just do it;
(3) infeasible;
Class 1 is handled by referring the person to an existing service,
mediating the arrangement to make sure there's a full match between
what is wanted and what is provided, and possibly providing funds if
the customer can't afford the service. Class 2 is handled by CCC-style
work, hiring people to provide the new service. Class 3 is handled by
hiring scientists and engineers to work on possible solutions that
might be created in the future.
With such a system we have 100% employment and no need to make war to
avoid unemployment.
-------
------------------------------
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.
Quite true. But without its weaponry, The US political system's days
would be numbered. The leaders of the Soviet Union have the stated
objective of world communist revolution - and they have never made
a secret of this objective. 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.
> 2. They also realize that all people in the world are human and have not only
> the same needs as they but also the same potential of intelligence and
> productivity.
This is not true. The potential of people is very dependent on the
type of social freedoms available to them. One of the reasons that
scientific advances are slower in the Soviet system is their lack of
the free communication of ideas that we take for granted.
> 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. Protesting, and demanding results,
won't suffice if the demands are contradictory of undirected. By
the same token, a well informed electorate will produce leaders who
can perform well without constant prodding (except by the ballot box).
Unfortunately, it's easier to complain than to learn, so most of our
electorate is easily swayed by rhetoric and propaganda - and our
leaders are selecter on charisma and image. (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. 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.
No 'darkhorse' candidates run in Soviet elections. The only way
a totalitarian government like that can become a 'fringe group' is
by force (unfortunately), and given the military strength involved,
it would be foolish to try to use such force.
> There are still conflicts but all know that they can and must be resolved
> without war. War is as obsolete now as is the Catholic inquisition and
> genocide are for the rectifying of "wrongs".
This hasn't proven true in the recent past, and probably won't become
true either. 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.
------------------------------
From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@Berkeley
Date: 8 Nov 84 00:30:12 CST (Thu)
To: arms-d@mit-mc.ARPA
Subject: poison gas
> 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. ...
Not quite true, and one must therefore be careful about drawing analogies
with nuclear weapons. The correct statement is "poison gas does not cause
a significant number of casualties among trained, prepared troops".
Against unprepared troops, gas attacks can be devastating. The Canadian
units which received the first gas attack in WWI basically fell back in
chaos, leaving a gaping hole in the Allied lines. It was pure luck that
the Germans weren't prepared to follow through on this success. By the
time they were, Allied units were being hastily equipped with gas masks.
There have been several examples in more recent years -- Italy in Ethiopia
before WWII, for example -- of advanced armies using gas against primitive
armies with considerable effect. And gas attacks against civilians would
be pure slaughter; there is no equipment readily available to civilians
that can stop modern war gases.
Furthermore, even though poison gas does not kill or disable well-prepared
troops, it is a tremendous inconvenience to them. It greatly reduces their
fighting effectiveness, particularly if the gas attack lasts several days.
Late in WWII, the Allies seriously considered using mustard gas to soften
up Japanese-held islands before amphibious invasions. Casualties in such
invasions were very high, and the Japanese troops would have been almost
completely incapacitated after a few days in gas masks and gas suits.
The reason gas was not used in WWII was not contempt for its supposed
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
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 84 09:31:17 PST
From: Leo Marcus <marcus@AEROSPACE>
To: arms-d@mit-mc.arpa
Subject: Retooling to avoid nuclear winter
Assuming that nuclear winter effects will make CURRENT nuclear war strategies
obsolete, the question remains whether these effects can be avoided by just
changing the doctrine, or must new weapons be designed. If the latter, then
this is another compelling argument for an immediate nuclear freeze.
(The P.R. possibilites of "freeze before winter" are many.)
------------------------------
Date: 12 Nov 84 09:36:42 EST
From: DIETZ@RUTGERS.ARPA
Subject: Laser Isotope Separation
To: arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA, physics@MIT-MC.ARPA
The latest issue of Endeavour (Vol. 8, No. 3, 1984) has an article on
laser isotope separation. According to the article, the US government
has decided to go with atomic vapor laser isotope separation (AVLIS).
This technique uses precisely tuned dye lasers to selectively excite and
ionize U-235 or Pu-239 atoms, which are then collected on charged plates.
Major technical problems were a vapor source for U (which vaporizes at
2600 K) and reliable and durable pumps for the dye lasers. The first
problem was solved with electron beam heating, the second with the
development at Lawrence Livermore of copper vapor pump lasers.
A test plant is being built at Lawrence Livermore, to be completed in 1985.
A prototype of a full-scale production system will be built at Oak Ridge
and is scheduled for completion in 1988.
Atomic vapor systems were selected over molecular vapor (uranium hexafluoride)
systems because the latter would not work with plutonium. The atomic
vapor system is quite general and should work with any element. The
government is very interested in plutonium enrichment, since a practical system
would allow the use of plutonium from commercial reactor waste in nuclear
weapons. This plutonium ordinarily cannot be used since it has too much
Pu-240 and Pu-241. Commercial reactor waste contains enough plutonium
(35 to 40 tonnes of Pu-239) to build 7000 to 8000 bombs. In addition,
weapon-grade plutonium can be improved by separating out Pu-240, allowing
smaller warheads to be built.
The atomic vapor scheme would seem ideally suited to enriching mercury-196
for fluorescent lamps, as was discussed earlier in the physics mailing list,
since atomic mercury vapor is trivial to make.
-------
------------------------------
[End of ARMS-D Digest]