daemon@ucbvax.UUCP (08/11/84)
From @MIT-MC:JLarson.PA@Xerox.ARPA Fri Aug 10 19:24:13 1984 Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 2 : Issue 51 Today's Topics: Shaped nuclear charge Goodbye Re: Robots Against War People ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 Aug 84 09:01:11 EDT From: sde@MITRE-BEDFORD.ARPA To: arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA Subject: Shaped nuclear charge If I recall correctly, since it's been a few years since I read the book, "The Curve of Binding Energy" (by Teller, I think) discussed such shaped charges in connection with using them to bore tunnels cheaply. From the sound of the thing, he made the idea seem quite feasible. David sde@mitre-bedford ------------------------------ Date: 4 Aug 1984 16:21-PDT From: dietz%USC-CSE@ECLA To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA, arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA, poli-sci@RUTGERS.ARPA Subject: Goodbye all I'm leaving the network, (sob) so goodbye, everyone. Paul Dietz dietz%usc-cse@usc-ecl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Aug 84 18:45 MST From: Jong@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA Subject: Re: Robots Against War To: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA The concept of warring automatons recalls Saberhagen's "Berserker" science-fiction series. In it, two warring galactic civilizations created huge, automated, planet-busting weapons. The weapons were so successful that both civilizations were destroyed, leaving the now-unguided weapons to carry out their original programming -- that is, to destroy anything that wasn't friendly. Unfortunately, no one was left to call them off. That's a simplistic counterexample (great reading, though!), but it does crystallize my concerns about robot warfare. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Aug 84 13:12:12 PDT From: Richard Foy <foy@AEROSPACE> To: ARMS-D@MIT-MC Subject: People I have been wondering why more people are not involved with the issues of nuclear weapons. Why don't more people do something even if it is just writing to Congress in support of or in opposition to a particular bill? In order to find answers to this question I have explored it with some of my friends who are not involved. So far I have three answers. One answer. Trying to do something about nuclear war is like trying to solve the problem of starvation in Africa. It is too big a problem and too remote for me to be effective. I would rather work to relieve suffering of those around me. Also I am not sure but that Washington is doing the right thing anyway. Another answer. I think that the probability of a nuclear war occurring is one. However I think that the probability of it occurring within a period to be concern is very low. So why bother. Incidentally, this persons estimate of the probability of his being killed in an automobile accident was about two orders of magnitude below the statistical probability based upon the automobile death rate and his amount of driving. A third answer. I believe in metaphysics. There are enough people sending out thought forms that say they don't want nuclear war that it won't happen. I suspect that these three answers almost cover the range of types of answers one would get to the question, Why aren't you active in working to [ prevent nuclear war. I believe that if we really want to prevent nuclear war we need to get far more people actively involved in searching for politically, economically, sociologically, psychologically, and technically sound solutions to the issues of nuclear war. I would appreciate any suggestions. richard ------------------------------ [End of ARMS-D Digest]