daemon@ucbvax.UUCP (05/21/84)
From @MIT-MC:JLarson.pa@Xerox.ARPA Mon May 21 10:09:43 1984
Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 2 : Issue 38
Today's Topics:
comments re: REM's proposal
Nuclear Power; Political Solutions to the Arms race
comments re: REM's proposal / why also BMD?
Technological vs Political Solutions
bmd debate vs 'MEDIA-bmd-debate
Late TV Recommendation (PBS -- FRONTLINE)
request for info: NATO support for Star Wars?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 13 May 1984 03:16-EDT
From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-MC>
Subject: comments re: REM's proposal
To: WATERMAN @ USC-ECL
cc: ARMS-DISCUSSION @ MIT-MC, REM @ MIT-MC
In-reply-to: Msg of Thu 3 May 84 09:48:22-PDT from WATERMAN at USC-ECL.ARPA
From: WATERMAN at USC-ECL.ARPA
I think your proposal contains a very valuable synthesis which can
appeal both to those focusing upon a freeze AND to those focusing upon
BMD. By first reducing numbers of missiles etc. and by pulling them
back we would THEN be at a point where a manageable, feasible,
bearable-cost BMD system could contribute to stratgeic stabilization.
By insisting first on massive reductions, we insure that any efforts
spent on BMD would in fact be 'aimed' at strategic-stabilization,
not strategic-superiority.
For more stuff on this, try a recent Foreign Policy article by Alvin
Weinberg and Jack Barkenbus, on a defense-protected build-down.
My onw trouble with it is that to get massive reductions, we would be
in cooperation mode with the Soviets, in which case BMD is unnecessary
anyway.
------------------------------
Date: 13 May 1984 10:09-PDT
From: dietz%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA
To: Josh@RUTGERS.ARPA
Cc: arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Nuclear Power; Political Solutions to the Arms race
Josh: it's rather strange for a libertarian to be a big booster of
nuclear power. Nuclear power would be embryonic today (and rightly so)
were it not for government intervention in and control of the electric
power industry. What would we have instead? Assuming the Clean Air
Act had still been passed and energy prices deregulated, probably
natural gas powered generating plants. Back during the energy crisis,
Prez Carter was encouraging everyone to stop using gas, but government
geologists were reporting vast untapped supplies (and were being fired
for doing so). Recent drilling supports the theory that there is
nonbiogenic deep gas almost everywhere. Some estimates put the amount
of gas in the US at levels sufficient to power the country for a
thousand years.
Recent work in fuel-cell power plants makes gas especially promising.
These plants produce about 10 MW of power, produce no combustion
pollutants (CO, NOx), are very quiet and are highly efficient (40+ %).
Fuel cells may place gas utilities in direct competition with electric
utilities, which should gladden the heart of any free marketeer.
Political Solutions to Nuclear War: I agree with Josh. Politicians the
world over are not idiots. The arms race is not advancing because of
some incredible coincidence that has continually placed fools in the
seats of power. Rather, politicians have different sets of goals than
you or I. In the context of their aims and aspirations, building
nuclear weapons is a rational action, not a result of ignorance. For
this reason I have little faith in those who would convert politicians
to a policy of disarmament. About the only thing I could think of that
could change the culture sufficiently for nuclear disarmament to take
place would be several centuries of nuclear war.
------------------------------
Date: 13 May 1984 17:12-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: comments re: REM's proposal / why also BMD?
To: LIN @ MIT-MC
cc: ARMS-DISCUSSION @ MIT-MC
Date: 13 May 1984 03:16-EDT
From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-MC>
My onw trouble with it is that to get massive reductions, we would be
in cooperation mode with the Soviets, in which case BMD is unnecessary
anyway.
Au contraire. We'll still have to worry about Libya and PLO getting a
few ICBMs, or USSR holding out a few ICBMs, and so a way to protect
against this residual threat seems useful. We don't trust the USSR to
follow treaty without any verification, that's why we go for a
verifiable treaty; but since verification isn't 100% effective, we may
need defense too. It's to our (USA&USSR) mutual interest to have a
verifiable treaty, which is why it may still happen despite our mutual
distrust, but it's to our (USA, USSR) individual advantages to hold out
a few ICBMs as long as we can, so we (USSR, USA respectively) need
defense. 99% reduction by agreement plus 90% effective BMD against
that residual 1% yields 99.9% effective reduction in doomsday
capability. A direct 99.9% reduction may be impossible while the
combination of reduction and defense possible.
------------------------------
Date: 14 May 84 02:40:34 EDT
From: JoSH <JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Subject: Technological vs Political Solutions
To: poli-sci@RUTGERS.ARPA, arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA
From: CAULKINS@USC-ECL.ARPA
Subject: Real Technical Solutions
JoSH: ... This is the stuff of fairy tales.
"Josh then proceeds to advocate [lots of science-fiction stuff]
These are the "real" (non fairy tale) technological solutions ?
It is Caulkins who brought up, and keeps repeating, that destructive
capabilities have increased by six orders of magnitude. It wouldn't
take near six orders of magnitude improvement of peaceful technology
to do the things I'm talking about.
"I don't believe that it requires a fundemental turnaround in the makeup
of the human mind to realize that making ever more weapons that threaten
civilization and the species is a bad idea, and that new political
approaches are needed.
Do you think that the political leaders of the world over the past 40
years cannot see this obviously simple fact? Do you think it really
makes a difference in the political arena? The very nature of politics
assures you that the people without the scruples will get ahead.
The day may come when as a matter of social morality (Not political)
the use of nuclear (or CBW) weapons on a planet's surface will be
seen in the same light as slavery or cannibalism. It may even happen
in the next century. But it won't happen before the first nuclear war.
And I'm not holding my breath.
"Destructive capabilties... have outrun the others by six orders
of magnitude. ... I would very much like to hear about the new
discoveries which will redress the balance by strengthening defense by
the same factor of 1,000,000.
In terms of pure energy released, yes. But Mt St Helens released
roughly that much energy each time it erupted, and Krakatoa and
Tambora released some 1000 times *that*. In terms of number of
people killed, you can't get more than roughly 1000 times better
than WWII (non-nuclear) technology--there just aren't that many
people to kill!
If you can imagine a population living in an asteroid belt in family
sized units, you will see a situation where the destructive proportions
of your nuclear threat have dwindled to pre-WWII conditions (ie, one
family per warhead). I'm not holding this up as a solution so much as
a direction. I'd still say undersea habitations look pretty safe
from indirect effects--and the sea is a marvelous, untapped source
of materials, food, energy, and so forth.
Let us use Sagan's picturesque image: "Two implacable enemies are
standing in a room awash in gasoline. One has 7000 matches, the other
has 9000." The solution is not to freeze the number of matches each
holds; it is not for each to provide himself with 10,000 fire
extinguishers; it is not to place mirrors so each can see whether the
other has extra matches in his back pocket; the solution is simply to
*get out of the damn room*.
"The development of fission and fusion weapons represents an absolutely
unprecedented change ...
... a historical change of major proportions.
Oh, I wouldn't say completely unprecedented. The discovery of [control of]
fire might be considered comparable. (It probably happened many times
in many places.) Suddenly, (if you live in a wooded area) one man has
the capability of releasing a holocaust that could destroy an entire tribe.
But there were no great national states which kept fire top secret and
allowed only forest-fire technology to be developed. Instead cooking,
heating, treating clay and later metals, developed.
Fire was of course used as a weapon of war and continues to be to the
current time. But the peaceful uses of fire have predominated and it
is looked on as generally a boon rather than a bane.
"I am far from being a nuclear physicist, but I do know that the
technology for releasing energy via nuclear explosions is vastly
different from and less expensive than that required for power
reactors.
I believe the Canadians are building small power reactors for less than
$10 million. Furthermore the processing for weapons-grade fissionables
exceeds that for fuel by "orders of magnitude". And again realize that
nuclear generating plants are built much larger than bombs.
However, this all misses the point. The same basic principle powers
a gun and a car. The car is, indeed, more expensive. This is no reason
not to build cars.
"If the experience of American utility companies is any guide, nuclear
reactors have not led to the utopia of low-cost energy that was hoped
for ten years ago. In spite of large expenditures of public and
private money, power reactor technology looks less and less viable as
a cost-effective source of electricity.
This is pure poppycock but a detailed argument would take us far afield
of the point. It is sufficient to note, however, that the government
completely controls the development of power reactors down to the
tiniest detail, and that my basic thesis is that government control
of technology is our basic problem. A good sense of the kind of
bureaucratic ateriosclerosis that overtook peaceful nuclear technological
development can be found in the appropriate section of Dyson's
Disturbing the Universe.
JoSH: In my mind, the imperative is to spread out.
"How does occupying an area that it takes nuclear missiles minutes or
hours to cross save us ?
You've missed the point entirely. I'm referring to getting off this
tiny little planet. Nuclear rockets would make most the solar system
accessible but still remote--it would take years to cross. Once settled,
the prospect of a single national dispute destroying all humanity would
be as unlikely as in Magellan's time. A long-term goal, surely, but one
worth working for, I think.
--JoSH
-------
------------------------------
Date: Mon 14 May 84 10:17:01-PDT
From: NETSW.MARK@USC-ECLB.ARPA
Subject: bmd debate vs 'MEDIA-bmd-debate
To: arms-discussion@MIT-MC.ARPA
I hope that those of you who may be considered 'interviewable' by the 'media'
will be able to blunt some of the propagandistic rhetoric and to emphasize
consistent facts in support of whatever positions. Today, in l.a. on
the talk-radio station, art linkletter had ed davis (former l.a. police
chief) babbling about how we cannot forswear a this 'bullet-proof-vest', then
gen. graham called in carfeully sowing inconsustencies by acknowledging
that bmd cannot screen against all incoming and that it could stop
wayward mistakenly fired missiles, then he got back on the point of
suggesting that bmd is some kind of area wide defense capability for the
people in time of nuclear war (i.e. the suggestion that this system
'means' that we are syaing to 'them' that they 'can't get away with it
now) ....
more importantly, the mad-dog-bmd'ers imply to the public (even state
explicitly) that bmd is 'purely defensive' and so how could anyone
be against it. That kind of misrepresentation is among the worst
obviuously bmd is just a possible part of the whole strategic systems
panoply and has some clearly offensive applications.
These points should be clearde up in the media otherwise it will all
be decided by bombast and slight of hand and a tv performance by the
prez.
I hope REM is honing his proposal and pushing the point that bmd advocacy
which does not subordinate bmd to joint-arms-control-efforts is just
a front for seekers after strategic superiority.
-------
------------------------------
Date: 15-May-84 22:56 PDT
From: William Daul SoftMark/McDonnell Douglas <WBD.TYM@OFFICE-2.ARPA>
Subject: Late TV Recommendation (PBS -- FRONTLINE)
To: arms-d@mit-mc.arpa
Cc: PAMV.TYM@OFFICE-2.ARPA, KIRK.TYM@OFFICE-2.ARPA
Cc: SKH.TYM@OFFICE-2.ARPA, DIA.TYM@OFFICE-2.ARPA
Cc: ELEN.TYM@OFFICE-2.ARPA, PHIL.TYM@OFFICE-2.ARPA
From TV guide: "Return Of the Great White Fleet" An investigation into Navy
Secretary John Lehman's construction of a 600-ship, carrier based force and the
fleet's fighting capabilities.
SORRY this is late. If any of you have a chance to see it on your local PBS
station, I recommend it...I found it very interesting. I notice that it is on
the SF Bay Area at least Wed. channel 54 at 11:30 pm. and Sat. channel 32 at
8:00 pm. I suspect that it may be on on Sunday, but I don't have a TV guide
here to check.
------------------------------
Date: 19 May 1984 18:18-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: I am beginning to question General Graham's (&company) reputation
To: ARMS-D @ MIT-MC
cc: REM @ MIT-MC
A few weeks ago (I'm swamped, catching up on outgoing mail) I received
another plea for money from General Graham's "High Frontier" group,
but this time it was camoflaged as a "birthday wish". The return
address was just "Mrs. Daniel O. Graham" (on the back in fine print:
"1010 Vermont Ave., N.W., Washington, DC"). Below is some of the text
of the letter, with my comments in [brackets]:
Dear Mr. Maas,
Because you have been such a strong and loyal friend [I've met
him only once, briefly, never talked about anything personal] and
supporter [I've never sent him a penney, and have been opposing his
ideas lately because I think he's pushing for BMD before reducing
warheads, thus asking for nuclear winter despite BMD] of my husband, I
thought I could write you this letter to ask a personal favor.
You see, in just a few days, on April 13, [same as birthday of
my girlfriend from last summer, day before mine] my husband Danny will
celebrate his 59th birthday. [big deal, he was only 56 when I started
asking him for details of his plan, and all I get is back is newspaper
clippings and a newsletter about how his plan is coming in Congress
how he needs more money from me; three birthdays have gone by and I
still haven't gotten the details he said I'd get if I wrote to his
High-Frontier address; what's so special about #59?; this seems to be
just a gimmick they didn't think of the first two years.]
As a surprise on his birthday I'd like to present him with the
enclosed birthday card from you. [I received this appeal AFTER his
birthday, so this part is rather moot.] Will you please sign and
return it to me along with any personal message you may wish to add?
[Should I include a listing of this message?] ...
He recently told me, Mr. Maas, about you and your support of
his "High Frontier" program for a sound national defense against
Soviet missile attacks. [Yeah, sure, was he putting you on? No, I
suspect you're "lying through your teeth", he told you nothing about me
because he doesn't even remember meeting me.]
<Two pages of drivel about how he's away from so much of the time
working hard to promote his way to save our nation from attack, and
how Mrs. Graham plans to give him a private (family only) celebration
to get his mind off his work, including presenting all the 590 cards
we send in.>
The key element of his campaign so far has been to distribute
more than 1,000,000 copies of his book "We Must Defend America". ...
But Danny is worried that he may not be able to circulate as
many copies as he must.
On his birthday, I'd like to give him another very big surprise.
Along with the 590 birthday cards, I'd like to present him
with 59,000 copies of his book to distribute.
That would be one thousand copies for each year of his life.
And, he would so much like to get out more copies of this important
book.
But to print 59,000 books will cost $24,000.
So for Danny's birthday, I've made it my goal to raise that
$24,000 for High Frontier to pay for the 59,000 books.
In honor of Danny's birthday, will you help me make him happy
by doing two things?
...
First, I'd like you to sign and mail the enclosed birthday
card along with any personal message you may wish to add.
Second, I'd like you to help me raise the $24,000 to pay for
the 59,000 copies of his book.
...
Mr. Maas, could you help me raise this $24,000 to pay for
59,000 books for Danny's birthday?
Your tax-deductible check for as much as $50 or even just $25
would go a long way toward helping me reach this important goal. [I
think it's important to discuss the issues, as we have done on this
mailing list; I think it's utterly unimportant whether Mrs. Graham's
stupid goal of giving her husband 59,000 books for his birthday is
achieved. There's a sucker born every minute, but I'm not this one. I
have no desire whatsoever to help with her stupid goal.]
I know that in the past you've sent me as much as $25, and for
this I am grateful. [Boy are their records screwed up, I've sent not a
penney yet; more likely, she's lying through her teeth again.]
...
[Final note. I don't think ad hominum arguments are valid for
rebutting somebody's arguments, thus Graham may still have some valid
ideas, or at least the ideas he shares may be valid in some other
context. I have my reasons for disagreeing with his present pushing of
BMD, and I'm not using the above letter to change my mind on that. But
I do think the above appeal for funds for birthday is asinine and is a
valid reason to totally give up on the High Frontier group he's
affilated with and with him and his wife personally, and never send
them any funds, and mock them every time they do something as asinine
as this appeal for funds. Furthermore, Mrs. Graham's implicit argument
that we shoud help him push his book to make him feel good on his
birthday is totally fallacious. We should help her distribute 59,000
(or 1,000,000) copies of the book only if we believe such distribution
will promote world peace and avoid nuclear war. My personal belief is
distributing 1,000,000 copies of such a book will brainwash about
500,000 people into blindly favoring BMD or into feeling an obligation
to repay General Graham for the free copy of the book, pushing our
nation blindly into a destabilizing arms race whereby we bankrupt our
economy to create a defense against 80% of incoming missiles, leaving
the remaining 80% (4,000 warheads) to anihilate our cities and
environment, creating the doomsday scenerios we've been discussing lately.]
/EndFlame/
Yeah, I know I'm rude tactless and gross. But any rebuttal to my
analysis of Graham's latest appeal for funds? I think Mrs. Graham is
tacky.
------------------------------
Date: 20 May 1984 00:49-EDT
From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-MC>
Subject: request for info: NATO support for Star Wars?
To: ARMS-D @ MIT-MC
I seem to recall a NATO communique just after Reagan's Star Wars speech
that expressed general suuport for the idea. Anyone able to give me a
reference?
tnx.
------------------------------
[End of ARMS-D Digest]