daemon@ucbvax.UUCP (04/24/84)
From @MIT-MC:JLarson.PA@Xerox.ARPA Sun Apr 22 23:26:03 1984 Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 2 : Issue 37 Today's Topics: Political/Technical Solutions (3 msgs) BMD again MX ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 9 May 84 08:46:56 PDT From: Richard Foy <foy@AEROSPACE> To: ARMS-D@MIT-MC Subject: Political Solutions There has been a lot of discussion lately about the relative feasibility of political and technological solutions to the problem of nulclear war. The argumentts against politcal solutions seem to be that we can't change human nature. I believe that this overlooks a major fact. That fact is that human nature is widely variable. In some situations it is human nature to get angry, to kill, to destroy. Under other circumstances it is human nature to be generous, to be compassionate, to be loving. I know that this is true of everyone that I know well. I assume that it is true of those that I don't. We know that people act out of the perception of reality as much as they do out of the fact of reality. Advertizing, charismatic leaders, dynamic speakers all convince me of that. It seems to me that what we need is a combined solution that uses technology in such a way that it induces people to find political solutions that are workable and in accord with human nature. I think that REM's proposal of orders of magnitude reduction in nuclear weopons combined with a BMD technology goes a long way in this direction. I hope that during the course of this election year it becomes more politically feasible. ------------------------------ Date: 9 May 84 16:24:34 EDT From: Robert Frederking@CMU-CS-A Subject: Technological/Political solutions To: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA (1) If one believes it is necessary to end war in order to end the threat of global annihilation, then we are all indeed doomed. This is not necessary, however. All that is needed is a realization by the various governments involved that a nuclear war cannot benefit either side in any reasonable scenario. This should lead to a reduction of nuclear arsenals on each side to a more sane level. Consider that other nuclear powers don't feel a need for tens of thousands of warheads, only the US and USSR, who are each wildly paranoid of the other. Other universally-recognized evils *have* vanished, slavery being a case in point (nowhere in the world is the sale of human beings tolerated, whereas once it was common, even here). (2) I don't want a reactor in my garden, and there is no reason to believe that there is any reasonable place to move to besides the surface of the earth. I would give my right arm for a space flight or two, but I would not want to live permanently in space. This might be a solution for some people, but I suspect the vast majority of humankind is going to remain on the surface of the earth for a very long time. I consider it ridiculously immoral to consign all of nature and the third world to a radioactive death while the high-tech world survives in space and under the ground. No thanks. ------------------------------ Date: 11 May 1984 0618-PDT From: CAULKINS@USC-ECL.ARPA Subject: Real Technical Solutions To: armsd@MIT-MC, poli-sci@RUTGERS The next round in the dispute between JoSH and myself about ways to end the arms race: JoSH: ... he [Caulkins] hopes for some significant, thoroughgoing sea change to occur in the political psychology of the human race in the next few years. This is the stuff of fairy tales. Josh then proceeds to advocate emptying the world's cities, providing cheap energy from nuclear reactors, a better popular understanding and ability to handle radiation hazards, use of nuclear powered rockets to build space colonies, and possibly moving people into undersea habitations. These are the "real" (non fairy tale) technological solutions ? JoSH: He spends no time exploring the issue of the required fundamental turnaround in the makeup of the human mind. 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. JoSH: However, in the past half-century, the destructive capabilities would seem to have outrun the others to some extent. My basic thesis is that there is in general a balance between the destructive capability of which technology is capable at a given level of scientific knowlege, and the other capabilities at that level which tend to offset the destructive. Destructive capabilties 'seem' to have outrun the others by six orders of magnitude. Not two, or three, or four, but six ! 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. The development of fission and fusion weapons represents an absolutely unprecedented change in mankind's ability to release very large amounts of energy from very small objects. To view this as just another swing in the oscillation between offense and defense is to overlook a historical change of major proportions. JoSH: [Please note that most of the nasty effects of a nuclear war could be achieved by WWII style incendiary bombing, including enough smoke to satisfy Sagan's wildest fantasy. However, it would be prohibitively expensive.] The same nasty effects could also be achieved with kitchen matches; the fact that these or incendiary bombs would be 'prohibitively expensive' is precisely why we are not concerned with the growth in the match or incendiary bomb arsenals of the world. JoSH: Were nuclear technology in the non-military realm as advanced as in the military, I believe that the prospect of nuclear war, while still daunting, would not be as apocalyptic as it now seems to be. 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. 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. JoSH: In my mind, the imperative is to spread out. Four hundred years ago, it took years to sail around the world. It was inconceivable that a single national force might wipe out all humanity. For humanity to be as safe again, we must again occupy an area that it takes years to cross. How does occupying an area that it takes nuclear missiles minutes or hours to cross save us ? Even if all human constructs and living places were so distributed as to make them bad targets for the thermal and blast effects of nuclear bombs, fallout from ground bursts could still wreak havoc. And it would be both expensive and very difficult to build industrial installations like oil refineries, steel mills, power plants, etc. that would not be attractive and cost-effective targets for single nuclear weapons. ------- ------------------------------ Date: 12 May 1984 12:12-PDT From: dietz%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA To: arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA Subject: BMD again Here are some arguments against BMD I don't remember seeing in this list. Any BMD system can be overwhelmed by throwing enough targets at it. An enemy planning an attack will be conservative and build enough missiles so that, in the worst case, enough get through. The worst case (to the attacker) probably won't happen, though, because the BMD system will be complex and untested. As a result, many more warheads will get through than would have been fired had no BMD system been installed. One can also imagine far more cost effective ways of delivering nuclear weapons through space than by ICBM. Nuclear weapons are actually quite inexpensive, at least compared to the boosters they are propelled by. How about propelling nuclear warheads by electromagnetic accelerator? The fragile and expensive part of this weapon is the accelerator itself, which would be safely on the ground, in one's own country. Assuming one could launch one light-weight low-yield warhead from an accelerator every second, one could launch 10,000 warheads from 100 accelerators in under two minutes. In practice, one would also launch decoys, chaff dispensers, etc. The cost of launching additional warheads would just be the cost of the warhead (a few million dollars, perhaps; much less for decoys) plus the cost of the electricity to run the accelerator (insignificant). One would expect the accuracy of this weapon to be inferior to modern ICBMs, but that could be fixed by launching enough warheads or by using homing reentry vehicles. It would be fine for nuclear saturation bombing of cities. Unlike ICBM's, the incremental cost of expanding this weapon would be the cost of building a nuclear weapon/reentry vehicle. Extremely simple fission warheads could designed. Such warheads could have two subcritical masses of U-235 at opposite ends of the RV; upon impact with the ground the aft mass would detach and join the forward mass, causing an explosion. No explosives, no fusing, no electronics. I see no way to defend against this weapon, except to destroy the launchers. ------------------------------ Date: 12 May 1984 1834-PDT From: CAULKINS@USC-ECL.ARPA Subject: MX To: armsd@MIT-MC Recent front page stories in the 11 and 12 May issues of the New York Times cast doubt on the military capability and readiness of the MX; some quotes: 11 May story, by Steven V. Roberts "Recent advacnces in Soviet technology cast doubt on the ability of the MX missile to accomplish its objective of destroying the Soviet land-based missile force, a new report from the General ccounting Office says. But a Pentagon spokesman said today that the report was in error, and that the MX was fully able to hold 'the hard Soviet targets at risk'. ... The key finding in the report concerns the ability of the Soviet Union's silos to protect its misile force. ... according to information supplied by the Air Force, the Soviet Union has increased the 'hardness' of its silos threefold since the MX missile ... entered full development ... in 1979... 'We foresaw the increase in hardness', the Pentagon spokesman said, 'We set our requirements for the MX accordingly'. Therefore, the spokesman added, ... no further modifications of the weapon are required. ... The report also suggests that the Pentagon is taking 'a major risk' by starting production of some components of the missile before they are fully tested. ... deployment is scheduled to begin in 1986, before the entire system is subject to thorough flight-testing. ... 'We seem to be building weapons systems that haven't been adequately tested', he [Rep Stark] said. 'They may be trying to get this thing into production so we can't stop it.' ... 12 May story by Wayne Biddle "The Air Force changed its basing plans for the MX missile last year to make up for shortcomings in its range, according to a General Accounting Office report and Pentagon sources. ... when the original warhead, the MK-12A, was replaced by the heavier MK-21, 'not all of the wieght increase could be accomodated by the throw weight limits established by the unratified SALT II treaty.' ... Pentagon sources said that the Air Force decided to use the new warhead because its design offered a saving on scarce materials needed to create a nuclear explosion. It is also thought to be more accurate ... Maneuverable warheads similar to those used on the Army's Pershing 2 missiles in Europe have the theoretical potential to provide near-bull's-eye accuracy, making all silo-basing of strategic missiles essentially obsolete." So we are sinking $30 billion into an ineffective, provocative, and obsolete missile system. Just what you've always wanted - something that combines the best features of dangerousness, stupidity, and high cost. ------- ------------------------------ [End of ARMS-D Digest]