daemon@ucbvax.UUCP (06/25/84)
From @MIT-MC:JLarson.PA@Xerox.ARPA Sun Jun 24 14:45:54 1984
Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 2 : Issue 42
Today's Topics:
CENSORSHIP
High Frontier, nuclear terrorism, and other fun things
Successful intercept of incoming missile
Protecting Ourselves Against Libya
The KAL 007 Spy Mission (?) Revisited
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[Sorry about this delayed distribution. Overload of both this moderator
and an Arpanet gateway has slowed things down lately. The crunch seems
to be over now, so hopefully things should get better. Thanks for your
patience... JnL]
------------------------------
Date: 9 Jun 84 19:32:40 PDT (Saturday)
From: John Larson <JLarson.pa@Xerox>
Subject: Re: NET CENSORSHIP
In-reply-to: <[BBNG.ARPA] 8-Jun-84 09:14:09.WDOHERTY>
To: WDOHERTY@BBNG.ARPA
Will,
In my opinion, Arms-D and Poli-Sci would have run a substantial risk of being
shut down by DCA if they had published the nuclear freeze chain letter intact.
DCA has cracked down hard on chain letter senders in the past. The "censorship"
that occured in this case was simply an attempt to make it difficult to
propagate the chain letter on the Arpanet; the message remained essentially
intact. Incidentally, this "censorship" had a side effect of protecting the
sender from almost certain retribution from DCA.
Do you really think that free speech is an absolute right? Do you have the
right to maliciously yell fire in a crowded hall ? If what you REALLY want to do
is to dispute the military governance of this net, do it directly. I would
probably support you in THAT cause.
John Larson - Co-moderator, Arms Discussion Digest
------------------------------
Date: 9 Jun 1984 22:52-EDT
Subject: Re: NET CENSORSHIP
From: WDOHERTY@BBNG.ARPA
To: JLarson.PA@XEROX.ARPA
Cc: prog-d@MIT-MC.ARPA, arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA, poli-sci@RUTGERS.ARPA
In-Reply-To: The message of 9 Jun 84 19:32:40 PDT (Saturday) from
JLarson.PA@XEROX.ARPA
From: JLarson.PA@XEROX.ARPA
Do you really think that free speech is an absolute
right? Do you have the right to maliciously yell fire in
a crowded hall ?
Do you really think there is any connection between the act of
distributing a letter urging people to contact their
Congressional representatives in an attempt to avert nuclear
haulocaust and the act of yelling fire in a crowded hall? The only
way this analogy is appropriate is if there really is a fire
in that crowded hall.
As to the letter being a chain letter--I consider this to be a
technicality. How often do we net-users forward messages to
other users of the net en masse or otherwise? Is there really a
substantial difference between a "chain letter" and any other
bits that happen to get forwarded all over the net? I believe
the actual motivation is that of ARPANET maintainers who seek to
enforce a prohibition on messages that present an
alternative to their own current political assumptions.
If what you REALLY want to do is to dispute the military
governance of this net, do it directly. I would probably
support you in THAT cause.
I do so directly--as a first step, I believe that the ARPANET
should be run by a non-military governmental organization. Does
this declaration mean that you will no longer censor my messages
to arms-d?
Will Doherty
[We are also concerned about the possibility of nuclear holocaust Will,
but we feel it would be counterproductive to distribute messages which
clearly endanger this Digest .. JnL, DCC]
------------------------------
Date: 15 Jun 1984 13:33-EDT
Subject: MORE ON CENSORSHIP
From: WDOHERTY@BBNG.ARPA
To: JLarson.PA, JOSH@RUTGERS.ARPA
Cc: prog-d@MIT-MC.ARPA, arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA, poli-sci@RUTGERS.ARPA
JLarson and JoSH:
As far as publication of the nuclear freeze "chain letter" goes-- Ron
Newman pointed out to me recently that the more appropriate reaction
to the message would be a choice of one of the following:
1) Outright refusal to add the message to the digest, with a
message telling the sender of your decision, and hopefully
explaining the reasons for the decision.
2) Refusal to add the message to the digest unless the sender
agrees to make certain alterations to it--giving the sender
an opportunity to review any editing you suggest.
3) Putting the message up as is.
I would like to suggest this as the future policy for all you
digest maintainers out there.
Please note, however, that I continue to reject the notion of
any removal or alteration of net mail--this proposed policy
is simply a preferable way (in my opinion) to deal with the
existing imperfect situation.
Will Doherty
[This message went through process 2 above because the original version
contained information which had been cut from the chain letter. JnL]
------------------------------
Date: 15 Jun 1984 13:37-EDT
Subject: ADDENDUM TO CENSORSHIP DISCUSSION
From: WDOHERTY@BBNG.ARPA
To: JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA
Cc: wdoherty@BBNG.ARPA, newman.es@XEROX.ARPA, JLarson.pa@XEROX.ARPA,
poli-sci@RUTGERS.ARPA, arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA
I would also propose that whenever this issue comes up, and
digest maintainers decide to refuse to print or to alter a
message, that they inform the readership of the digest about
these decisions.
Will Doherty
[Fair enough .. JnL]
------------------------------
Date: 10 June 1984 20:50-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: High Frontier, nuclear terrorism, and other fun things
To: hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!floyd!whuxle!spuxll!ech @ UCB-VAX
cc: ARMS-D @ MIT-MC
[Reply to another message mistakenly posted to SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS.]
If we make it clear that (1) we aren't building BMD against Libya
(because Libya doesn't have ICBMs), (2) we aren't building BMD against
all-out thermonuclear exchange with the USSR (because even 10% failure
would totally destroy our way of life), (3) the BMD system won't use
orbiting weapons that attack ICBMs during boost phase (it's impossible
to distinguish peaceful space launches from ICBM launches, and
furthermore I object to advanced basing on general principles), (4)
some neutral nation such as Switzerland as your propose will actually
run the BMD system, and then it may have some merit. Would R.Reagan be
willing to tone down his gung-ho attitude to admit we can't physically
prevent armageddan but we can prevent accidental launches from
necessarily provoking retaliation that might lead to armageddan?
I'm not sure I like the proposal that Switzerland agree to knock down
the ICBMs only from the side that launches first. I see scenerios
where one side provokes a one-missile launch by interfering with that
side's command&control, then launches a "retaliatory" strike; the
victim whose CCC is interfered-with is then the one whose cities are
destroyed, while the evil side that started the whole mess is undamaged.
------------------------------
Date: 11 Jun 84 1206 PDT
From: Robert Maas <REM@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Successful intercept of incoming missile (long news story)
To: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA
a200 0922 11 Jun 84
PM-Missile Intercept,110
URGENT
By FRED S. HOFFMAN
AP Military Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - An experimental Army missile Sunday scored what is
believed to be the world's first successful intercept of an oncoming
ballistic missile warhead, Pentagon officials said today.
The Army missile, fired from an island in the mid-Pacific, hit a
dummy warhead carried by a U.S. Minuteman intercontinental ballistic
missile from Vandenberg Air Force Base on the California coast,
officials said.
The intercept, of a non-nuclear device outside the atmosphere, was
disclosed by the Pentagon in a brief announcement of plans for a news
conference later in the day to discuss what it called a ''successful
... intercept of a re-entry vehicle'' in a program called the Homing
Overlay Experiment.
MORE
ap-ny-06-11 1222EDT
- - - - - -
a202 0927 11 Jun 84
PM-Missile Intercept, 1st Add, a200,130
URGENT
WASHN: Overlay Experiment.
Three previous attempts failed to destroy targets.
Maj. Gen. Lyle Barker, Army chief of information, told a reporter
this was the first known missile intercept, not only for the United
States, but for the world.
The homing overlay experiment, so named because it involves
intercepts above the atmosphere, is one of several concepts being
explored by the Reagan administration as part of its plan for a
defense of the United States against possible missile attack. It is
called a multi-layered system because it contemplates countering
attacking missiles in different phases of their courses from shortly
after launch to near impact.
A major part of the administration plan, and the one that has become
highly controversial, involves possible development of space-based
laser and beam weapon devices, possibly by the end of this century.
ap-ny-06-11 1226EDT
- - - - - -
a205 0948 11 Jun 84
PM-Missile Intercept, 2nd Add,a202,130
URGENT
WASHN: this century.
The experiment, called HOE for short, is an outgrowth of about a
decade of Army research.
''The HOE program is designed to validate the optical homing
technology needed to develop a near-term, non-nuclear capability for
destroying an attacker's strategic nuclear ballistic missiles outside
the atmosphere,'' said today's brief announcement.
According to officials, the intercepting missile was launched from
Meck Island, part of the Kwajalein complex. Once above the atmosphere,
the interceptor separated from its booster rocket and its long-wave
infra-red sensor and guidance computer locked onto the target warhead.
The infra-red sensor can detect heat equivalent to that of a human
body more than a thousand miles away when operating against the cold
background of space, officials said.
ap-ny-06-11 1248EDT
- - - - - -
a206 0949 11 Jun 84
PM-Missile Intercept, 3rd Add, a205,50
URGENT
WASHN: officials said.
Just seconds before impact, officials said, a metal device shaped
somewhat like the frame of an umbrella unfurled from the neck of the
interceptor vehicle. This device has ribs studded with weights, the
officials said, and is designed to result in what was termed a
''shattering collision.''
ap-ny-06-11 1249EDT
***************
------------------------------
Received: from HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA by CISL-SERVICE-MULTICS.ARPA dial;
11-Jun-1984 17:59:33-edt
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 84 05:18 MST
From: Jong@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject: Protecting Ourselves Against Libya
To: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA
Before I considered rebuilding our cities linearly, as a defense
against a madman running a Third-World dictatorship, I think it would be
incumbent upon me, in the interest of arms control and security, to have
the little pipsqueak killed.
------------------------------
Received: from HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA by CISL-SERVICE-MULTICS.ARPA dial;
18-Jun-1984 10:10:39-edt
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 84 07:07 MST
From: Jong@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject: The KAL 007 Spy Mission (?) Revisited
To: arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA
Does anyone have access to "Defense Attache," a British magazine? The
network news reports the current issue contains an article claiming KAL
Flight 007 was part of "an elaborate spy mission" involving the Space
Shuttle. Someone is practicing The Big Lie here.
------------------------------
[End of ARMS-D Digest]