arms-d@ucbvax.ARPA (10/10/84)
From: Moderator <ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 2 : Issue 63
Today's Topics:
Scientific American SW article (2 msgs)
Reliability of Nuclear Deterrent
Christian Science Monitor Peace Contest
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 3 October 1984 18:16-EDT
From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-MC>
Subject: your message about Scientific American SW article
To: katz @ UCI-750A
cc: ARMS-D @ MIT-MC
From: Martin D. Katz <katz at uci-750a>
I tend to take all Scientific American articles concerning arms
policy with a dose of salt -- enough to salinate a small ocean.
As well you should; these articles are at least in part editorializing by
the authors (as any politically loaded articles tend to be).One must also
realize that S.A. doesn't have a science staff which researches these
articles to insure that they are totally factual (this would not be
reasonable given the breadth of their publication), but rather publishes
articles written by outside "experts." The problem is that there is
no such thing as an unbiased expert in Military Weaponry, let alone
such a volatile field as Space Based Weaponry.
On the other hand, they do send out papers for peer review. If you
don't like *that* system, then pls propose another. Peer review has
its faults (including lack of objectivity), but this is true for any
journal.
------------------------------
Date: 03 Oct 84 16:12:39 PDT (Wed)
To: Herb Lin <LIN@mit-mc>
cc: arms-d@mit-mc
Subject: Re: your message about Scientific American SW article
From: Martin D. Katz <katz@uci-750a>
On the other hand, they do send out papers for peer review. If you
don't like *that* system, then pls propose another. Peer review has
its faults (including lack of objectivity), but this is true for any
journal.
I was merely stating that I would agree with those who take articles in
controvertial areas (such as SW) published in even the best popular
publications with a grain of salt. Between editorial bias and the inability
of peer reviewers to deal with the details without attention to the social
aspects (when these may be the most salient), I would find it hard to
believe that the articles could come out complete and balanced. At present,
there appears to be too little (publically) known about SW, and too much
ambiguity to permit objectively, precisely, and completely discuss the issue.
I consider Scientific American to be one of the finest magazines available,
and its objectivity and precision is quite high. I just would not trust any
publication such as that sited because of the loaded and ambiguous nature of
the material.
------------------------------
From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@Berkeley
Date: 5 Oct 84 13:59:03 CDT (Fri)
To: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Reliability of Nuclear Deterrent
> ... (or, at least, that it is about as likely
> to work as our deterrent is. The latter hasn't been tested under battle
> conditions, either!)...
In fact, much of it hasn't been tested under any sort of terribly realistic
conditions. One of the most striking observations in James Fallows's book
"National Defense" (definitely required reading, by the way...) was that
the USAF has *never* successfully fired a Minuteman missile from a normal
operational silo. They fire them all the time from special test silos at
Vandenberg, but they had so many failures trying to test-fire from a
standard silo that they gave up on it!!! Good Ghod...
Fallows observes that the biggest argument for keeping a manned bomber
force as part of the nuclear deterrent is that we know bombers do work
reasonably reliably. We do *not* have such assurance for *any* of the
unmanned systems.
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
------------------------------
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.
The Christian Science Monitor is sponsoring a contest for the essays on ways
to achieve peace. The articles must be less than 3000 words long and
"describe from the point of view of someone in the year 2010 how a lasting
peace came to the Earth during the preceding 25 years". One may suggest
mechanism of any reasonable type: economic, political, moral leadership
etc. which will bring this about. Essays will be judged partially on their
literary qualities, but mostly on the quality of ideas presented in them.
The prize is that the 3 best article get published in the Monitor.
Deadline for the contest is Dec. 31, 1984.
Address submissions to
Peace Contest
The Christian Science Monitor
One Norway Street
Boston, Ma 02115
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. That
will give them a chance to get some feedback. Lately Arms-d has consisted
mostly of disagreements over such things a the "Star Wars" defense system.
How about seeing some expressions of positive ideas!
Glenn Chapman
------------------------------
[End of ARMS-D Digest]