arms-d@ucbvax.ARPA (10/18/84)
From: Moderator <ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA> Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 2 : Issue 66 Today's Topics: Reliability of Nuclear Deterrent (2 msgs) Scientific American Starwars Critique (4 msgs) Resolution of Surveillance Satellites ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Oct 84 05:37:27 CDT (Tue) To: LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA Subject: Reliability of Nuclear Deterrent Cc: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA > I'm confused; the source you cited in your first msg (Fallows) doesn't > address the issue at all except to say that MM has not been fired from > an operational silo. Your second msg says they did build an > operational silo at Vandenburg, where they tried and gave up. Please > state your source for this statement. It's deduction rather than positive knowledge, but not very complex or uncertain deduction. Vandenberg and Cape Canaveral are the sites for ICBM test launches; such tests would be carried out at one of those two places. Cape Canaveral seems unlikely, because I don't believe they've ever built silos there; it's too low and wet for much deep-underground construction. The operational Minuteman fields are too far inland to put the lower stages into the ocean, and could not possibly meet range-safety requirements for that reason and others. Fallows states quite explicitly that repeated attempts to launch from an operational silo (as opposed to the special test silos) failed. I would be very surprised if those attempts had been made anywhere but Vandenberg, whence my comments. ------------------------------ Date: 16 October 1984 19:23-EDT From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-MC> Subject: Reliability of Nuclear Deterrent To: ihnp4!utzoo!henry @ UCB-VAX cc: LIN @ MIT-MC, ARMS-D @ MIT-MC I see the disagreement. The tests made were not ot supposed to be actual full range tests; rather, they were "7 second burn tests" in which the warhead was removed; the first stage was to have burned for 7 seconds, and then the whole business would come crashing down to earth in a controlled and planned way. These events (or should I say non-events?) actually took place in the fields of Nebraska (or whereever). Vandenburg has no operational silos at all. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Oct 84 07:36:17 PDT (Tue) To: cgr%ucbpopuli.CC@ucb-vax cc: ARMS-D@mit-mc Subject: Re: Scientific American Starwars Critique (bias) From: Martin D. Katz <katz@uci-750a> Sorry, I was not trying to argue that we should discredit Scientific American because it is biased -- I consider it of very high quality. I was responding to an earlier message in which an author said he takes everything in Scientific American with an ocean of salt. My argument was that one must read every publication about a controvertial topic in which much of the information is held secret with a high degree of care. Thank you for stating the situation so well. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Oct 1984 0730-PDT From: Richard M. King <KING@KESTREL.ARPA> Subject: proof of bias in SA article on SW To: arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA Proof of bias you want? If an article demonstrably ignores an obvious, reasonably promising technology (physical interception) while providing thorough coverage of troubled technologies, if it overstates the cost of an important component of a SW defense (intermittently used power station) by a factor of ten, you want further proof of bias? I claim bias in this article, and there have been enough similarly biased article to make an SA bias apparent. Dick ------- ------------------------------ Date: 16 Oct 84 13:09 EDT (Tue) From: _Bob <Carter@RUTGERS.ARPA> To: cgr%ucbpopuli.CC@Berkeley Cc: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA Subject: Scientific American Starwars Critique I'd also like to see some evidence as to the nature of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN's "bias". John Hevelin ucbvax!cgr@ucbpopuli Well, over the last fifteen years or so, the Scientific American has run a large number of pieces dealing with weapons systems. These articles almost always lead the book. 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. It is clear from the tone of other parts of the magazine (items in Science and the Citizen, book reviews) that the publisher believes passionately in arms limitation; I suspect he would be the first to tell you so. There are a few other issues upon which Scientific American takes what might be called a clearly-defined political position: Gun control, environmental concerns and creationism are the examples that come to mind. But on none of these is it as insistent as on issues of arms control. The remainder of the magazine is remarkable for its scrupulously balanced presentation of matters about which there is dispute, particularly scientific dispute. This makes its identification with arms control positions even clearer by contrast. I seriously doubt that many long-time readers (whatever their feelings on the substance) would argue that Scientific American does not take a clear arms-control posture. It's perfectly entitled to do that. But readers are perfectly entitled to take it as a less than unbiased source. _Bob ------------------------------ Date: 16 October 1984 19:09-EDT From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-MC> Subject: Scientific American Starwars Critique To: cgr%ucbpopuli.CC @ UCB-VAX cc: LIN @ MIT-MC, ARMS-D @ MIT-MC From: cgr%ucbpopuli.CC at Berkeley Katz and Lin seem to be saying that SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN is "biased". I say, so what? The question is not whether SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN is biased, the question is whether the authors of the article in question know what they're talking about. Nattering about "bias" seems a shabby way of discrediting the article without having to confront the hard issues raised by the authors. Hmmm. I guess I misstated myself if you believe that bias prevents me from confronting the hard issues raised by Bethe et al. I think their analysis is competent -- indeed, I have had many private discussion with some of the authors of the report, and I even recognize some points that I myself have made in these discussions (though I don't think I can take original credit for them). Nevertheless, it is true that Scientific American takes a position that can be generally identified as a "liberal establishment" one. There are many identifying characteristics of this group, just as there are many identifying characteristics of other groups, such as that of the "far-right" position. For example, a L.E. position (I count myself among these, by the way) would hold that threats to the U.S. are often rather exaggerated, that unilateral technical measures do not hold the ultimate key to our security, and that the U.S. military position is generally better than stated. A F.R. position would deny these premises. When I wrote about "bias", this is what I meant. If the critics can show that the authors' "bias" has slanted the authors' conclusions, I would like to see their (the critics') proofs (preferably with some concrete and practical alternatives). What you assume shapes what you can conclude. I can't *prove* that the U.S. will or will not face a threat of a certain magnitude in the year 2000. Yet this threat drives *all* analyses of what type of defensive system should be proposed (if at all). What I can do is point out alternative assumptions and their consequences, and leave it to my audience to determine what is or is not reasonable. I'd also like to see some evidence as to the nature of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN's "bias". Take a look at any article on arms control or weapons in the last 20 years published in S.A. and tell me if any one of them does not fit within the L.E. framework described above. Herb BTW, what did I actually say that made you conclude I was complaining about "bias"? I can't find anything in my review of the last month's Arms-D's. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Oct 84 06:48 MST From: Jong@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA Subject: On the Resolution of Surveillance Satellites To: arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA A tidbit on the capabilities of surveillance equipment (which allegedly cannot verify arms-control agreements): I heard Jack Anderson interviewed on NBC News recently, and he mentioned in passing that he had seen U.S. satellite photos of the Soviet Union. He said that the photos were so detailed that he could see a Soviet tank, a Soviet soldier on the tank, and the soldier's face. "I could tell," Anderson said, "that he hadn't shaved that morning." Watch the skies! They get a better look at your face that way. Incidently, my anonymous co-worker, who claims to be In The Know, believes the statement, and added that he always felt the photos released by the U.S. government during the Cuban Missile Crisis had to be de-enhanced before being de-classified. ------------------------------ [End of ARMS-D Digest]