arms-d@ucbvax.ARPA (10/28/84)
From: Moderator <ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 2 : Issue 67
Today's Topics:
Scientific American Starwars Critique
Ideas for peace? Where are they?
Gen. Daniel Graham
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 18 October 1984 22:43-EDT
From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Scientific American Starwars Critique
To: Carter @ RUTGERS
cc: ARMS-D @ MIT-MC,cgr%ucbpopuli.CC @ UCB-VAX
From: _Bob <Carter at RUTGERS.ARPA>
Without digging
out old magazines I cannot cite dates and titles, but I think
it is fair to say that almost every article has concluded that
the weapons system with which it deals is either unworkable
or destablilizing.
Ever consider the possibility that this might be true?
Also, two recent articles on precision guided weapons by Paul Walker
take the opposite position; PGM's are good, and will lead to more
stable situations. Of course, two articles out of 66 isn't a large
percentage, and they themselves don't invalidate your comment.
------------------------------
Date: 18 Oct 84 2026 PDT
From: Robert Maas <REM@SU-AI.ARPA>
To: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA
November 9, 1979 -- False indications of a mass raid caused by inadvertent
introduction of simulated data into the NORAD Computer System.
(Sounds like what was portrayed in the movie "War Games")
------------------------------
Date: 24 Oct 84 0325 PDT
From: Robert Maas <REM@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Ideas for peace? Where are they?
To: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA
Date: 9 Oct 1984 18:17:17EPDT
From: glenn at ll-vlsi
To: Arms-D@MIT-MC
Subject: Christian Science Monitor Peace Contest
OK, here is a chance for everyone who has good original ideas on how to
make a more peaceful world to get a wider exposure for their concepts.
We must reduce as much the possibility of a holocaust worse than the
Black Death (Bubonic Plague) of the 13th century which killed one
third of the population of Europe. At the present that means we have
to find ways to prevent nuclear war from killing virtually all the
human race, and we must keep our eyes/minds on AIDS, germ warfare,
overpopulation, Orwellian world-control, and other potential problems
which however don't presently threaten the end of life as we know it
in less than a day.
We need to avoid destabilizing thermonuclear deterrance, i.e. avoid as
much as possible any first-strike weapons (MX) or any short-flight
weapons (Pershings and SS-mumbles in Europe, SLBMs close to coast of
target, forward basing of bombers or space-based weapons). We need to
freeze the total weaponry as soon as we can, then try to reduce it to
a tolerable level where an accident won't be our extermination.
So how to do it? Do we figure out what would be good for everyone and
then convince both sides to adopt our plan (my usual approach)? Do we
get emotional and try to sway everybody's emotions to dislike the bomb
(Helen Caldicott's approach)? Do we become famous then present a grand
view of the Cosmos in which we would be ashamed to commit species
suicide (Carl Sagan's approach)? Do we write random letters to the
USSR begging them to take the first step? Do we flush Reagan from
office and hope Mondale will do better at promoting nuclear safety? Do
we pray to God to do the task for us or at least tell us what to do,
and do nothing ourselves until He answers us? Do we decide it's
hopeless and just get drunk and party until the end happens? Do we
commit suicide now so we don't have to face nuclear war in the future?
Do we move to Australia in the hope Sagan et al were wrong and nuclear
winter will spare us down there? Do we write stupid network message
proposing lots of old ideas in the hopes some reader will be spurred
into coming up with a new idea or the readership will pick one of the
old ideas and develop it until it's workable?
Why not have people in this discussion group who want to enter this contest
present some of their concepts on the net for the next few months.
How come I always have to be first to stick my hand in the flame?
How about seeing some expressions of positive ideas!
Rah rah rah, go to it team!
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 84 22:12:01 edt
From: Walter Hamscher <walter@mit-htvax>
To: arms-d@mc
Subject: Gen. Daniel Graham
Looking over some Arms-d mail from last May I came across some
stuff about Gen. Daniel Graham and his "High Frontier" lobby.
Ah, yes, Danny Graham. The guy's had an interesting career.
This is the same (then Lt. Col.) Daniel Graham who, as one of
Gen. Westmoreland's military intelligence analysts during the
Vietnam war, came up with the famous "crossover" analysis which
"proved" the US was winning the war.
Now, it later turned out, the statistics were bogus, and the
deception was maintained by placing arbitrary ceilings on
estimates of VC strength. CBS did a special report on the
whole thing, and the rest is..., well, the rest is current events.
Kinda makes ya wonder, eh?
[Another curious connection for you; Gen. Graham was also a member of the so
called "Team B" brought in by then CIA director Bush to reassess an internal CIA
report (Team A) on Soviet strength. The report prepared by Team B in 1976 turned out
to be a serious distortion of actual Soviet military spending (reported 11-13%
GNP as opposed to the actual ~3% GNP). Team B also argued that the Soviets
rejected Mutual Assured Destruction, were pushing for nuclear superiority, and
that the Soviets expected to win a nuclear war. The Team B conclusions underly
much of this administration's justification of the current arms buildup and
attitude towards the Soviets. Richard Pipes, who was chairman of the Team B
committee, is now the senior Soviet specialist on the National Security Council.
.. JnL]
------------------------------
[End of ARMS-D Digest]