[fa.arms-d] ARMS-d Vol 1 #11

arms-d (04/04/83)

>From The-Moderator@MIT-MC  Mon Apr  4 01:38:44 1983
Received: by UCBVAX.ARPA (3.332/3.20)
	id AA01595; 4 Apr 83 01:42:29 PST (Mon)
Sender: FFM@MIT-MC
To: ARMS-D-DIST@MIT-MC

Subject: Arms-Discussion Digest V1 #11
To: ARMS-D-DIST@MC
Reply-To: ARMS-D at MIT-MC

Arms-Discussion Digest                            Volume 1 : Issue 11

Today's Topics:

Reagan IS in charge, re your comment on human mental seniority,
missile platforms in orbit, reagan's missile defense.., McGeorge Bundy,
Comment by REM at MC on "... human mind is senior ...",
Soviet treaty violations ?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tuesday, 29 March 1983, 02:29-EST
From: David Vinayak Wallace <Gumby at MIT-OZ>
Reply-to: Gumby at mc
Subject: ARMS-D Vol 1 #10
To: crummer at AEROSPACE
CC: ARMS-D at MIT-MC

    Date: 28 March 1983 1101-PST (Monday)
    From: crummer at AEROSPACE
    Subject: Which game to play: Pac Man or Negotiation?

    Mc George Bundy had an interesting idea: The President should "take charge"
    of the Geneva negotiations and actually produce results there. He should
    also take the initiative by ceasing the "U.S. is weak" rhetoric and create
    a strong position.

In a sense, Reagan IS in charge.  I used to believe the president was
just a figurehead, but it's not that simple.  Roger Fisher commented
that no beaurocrat will make a decision s/he thinks will be vetoed from
above.  This really appears to be true (hence the minimal origionality
in the government, or ANY beaurocracy).  Reagan leads the Geneva talks
in that the negotiators won't agree to anything their bosses won't --
otherwise they'll lose their jobs.

The advantage to having negotiators is that they can accept untenable
positions initially, and "home in" on some agreement without having to
posture for the media as does Reagan, or any major political figure.

The rhetoric is, of course, just a defensive tactic.  He has no
intention of going out on a limb he can't back out of.  If the people
who support the ultra-conservative positions really saw what
implimentation would entail, they'd back out in a hurry, and Reagan
would be out on his backside.
---
Date: 29 Mar 1983 12:50:17-EST
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
To: rem at mit-mc
Subject: re your comment on human mental seniority
Cc: arms-d at mit-mc

   Do you think that bearing children is an act of mental creation? Seems
to me you're extending the statement beyond its given bounds.
   Granted, there is one exception the original doesn't make; so far we
haven't succeeded in "creating" an ]intelligent[ "system". If we ever
create a machine with broad inductive reasoning powers, look out!

-------------------------------
---
Date: 29 March 1983 19:44 EST
From: Steven A. Swernofsky <SASW @ MIT-MC>
Subject:  missile platforms in orbit
To: ARMS-D @ MIT-MC
cc: SASW @ MIT-MC
In-reply-to: Msg of 03/26/83 02:17:12 from REM

Someone aksed earlier what treaty limitations might apply to this recent
proposal by Mr. Reagan.  SALT I allows us (and the USSR) two ABM sites,
one to protect the national capital and one to protect a designated ICBM
concentration.  I don't know if the wording of the treaty restricts all
missile systems or just those which are ground-based.  Of course, other
international conventions prohibit the use of nuclear weapons (or other
"weapons of mass destruction") in orbit, so any space-based platform
would have to use conventional warheads.

    From: Zigurd R. Mednieks <ZRM @ MIT-MC>
    ``If ships at sea can be defended from IRBMs and cruise missiles
    then our ability to defend Europe by conventional means is better
    assured.''

I have yet to see a serious proposal to use IRBMs or strategic cruise
missiles against naval targets.  Ships move, and (IRBMs at least) take
much too long to retarget.  It is very unlikely that any strategic
defense will have any effect on conventional defense of Europe.

    From: Zigurd R. Mednieks <ZRM @ MIT-MC>
    ``If cities can be defended then accidental nuclear war becomes much
    less likely -- we can then put aside any "launch on warning"
    posture.''

Possibly accidental nuclear war would become more likely, as national
leaders would feel less pressure to prefer the telephone to just pushing
buttons.  On the other hand, if cities can really be defended the
prospect of accidental nuclear war becomes less scary.  (I don't think
we have a launch-on-warning posture anyway.)

-- Steve

-------------------------------

Date: 30 March 1983 01:00 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-MC>
Subject:  reagan's missile defense..
To: CSD.MCGRATHORE.ARPA @ MIT-MC
cc: ARMS-D @ MIT-MC

  reports indicate increased funding will be in the works.  the
current budget hasabout $1 B for laser/particle beam/non-nulcear ABM
stuff..

-------------------------------

Date: 30 March 1983 01:02 EST
From: Zigurd R. Mednieks <ZRM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: McGeorge Bundy
To: ARMS-D @ MIT-MC

If you look at the history of peace negotiations and disarmament
negotiations, you will find a history of failure: The failure of arms
limitation talks to prevent the buildup of staggeringly huge navies
before the First World War; The failure to prevent the Second World
War through the negotiations that followed the First World War; The
failure of the negotiations at Yalta to bring a democratically elected
government to Poland -- not to mention all the countries that got
shafted outright at Yalta; The failure of Camp David to prevent war in
the Mideast; The utter, complete, and total failure of the Vietnam
peace talks; and so on all through history.

The ONLY thing that will rid us of the threat of nuclear weapons is
their obsolecence, and an effective deterrent.

McGeorge Bundy is a professional negotiator. He has devoted his life
to the art of "getting to yes". Unfortunatly, the only way that we
will get there at Geneva is to place ourselves at a permanent and
dangerous disadvantage. The reason for this is simple: The Soviet
negotiators do not operate in an environment where they are exposed to
any pressure at all from the populace that would be sacrificed in the
event of a war. What makes this all the more dangerous is that Soviet
leaders operate in the same vacuum when making decisions to make war.
They have none of the forces of restraint keeping them in line that we
take for granted in a free society.

Mr. Bundy is, by vocation, blind to differences which make getting to
yes fundamentally impossible.

Cheers,
Zig

-------------------------------

Date: 1 April 1983 1514-PST (Friday)
From: crummer at AEROSPACE (Charlie Crummer)
Subject: Comment by REM at MC on "... human mind is senior ..."
To: arms-d at mit-mc

What I mean by the human mind being "senior" to anything it creates is this.
There is no evidence to support the idea that there is an ultimate weapon,
that is a weapon for which there is no possible escape. Remember, Teller
thought that the H-bomb was the ultimate weapon. A corollary is that there is
no ultimate defense. Someone will always think up some way to penetrate  
This is the heart of the argument against the idea that the world's
problems will be solved by hardware or software (man's creations).
 
I don't consider man as being created by man so evolution proceeds to ever
higher levels. My point is just that the problem of U.S. and indeed world
security will not be solved by creating more "things". What I am saying is
just something to think about. I think you'll agree that our conversations
here are not in the realm of mathematical theorems and proofs anyway.

-------------------------------

Date: 3 Apr 1983 1742-PST
From: CAULKINS@USC-ECL
Subject: Soviet treaty violations ?
To:   armsd at MIT-MC

>From a front page AP story by Fred Hoffman in the 3 Apr Peninsula
Times Tribune:

"An interagency study group is likely to report soon to President Reagan
that the Soviet Union has violated the terms of the unratified SALT II
treaty ...

The panel also intends to raise 'serious questions' about Soviet compliance
with the 1974 treaty limiting underground nuclear tests ...

..... a Feb 8 test of a new solid-fueled Soviet missile at Plesetsk 'brought
to a head' US concerns about Soviet compliance with the terms of SALT II.
That test constitutes a violation, in the panel's thinking ...

On Saturday Harold M. Agnew ... an adviser to the Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency from 1974 to 1981, said U.S. scientists had data 
from a Soviet nuclear test on July 4 '1976 or 1978' that indicated
a test ... with an explosive yield of 400,000 tons of TNT - far above
the treaty limit of 150,000 tons. ...

Though U.S. scientists say the uncertainty in the signals is such that
a,test at the 150,000 ton limit might register as 300,000 tons, Agnew
said there had been further Soviet tests registering beyond 300,000 tons.

It was not immediately clear just what about the Feb 8 Soviet missile
test would be in violation of SALT II.  The treaty permits each side
to develop one new missile - the MX missile is the U.S. version of
the new one. ..."

On page 6 of the 2 April San Francisco Chronicle the following story
appeared:

"The Soviet Union, which has suggested in the past that it would place
new missiles close to the United States if the deployment of U.S.
medium- range missiles takes place in Europe at the end of this year,
will not install such missiles in Cuba ...

Vadim V. Zagladin, first deputy chief of the international department
of the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party, told a
correspondent of the newspaper Le Monde in Moscow that the
installation of Soviet missiles in Cuba is excluded because 'there was
an agreement on this subject, and we do not intend to violate it.'
....."

I find the leak about supposed Soviet treaty violations ominous,
especially since the supposed violations seem to be based on events of
76 or 78.  Curious that we have waited for 5 years before raising the
issue.  This is particularly strange in view of the statement by two
eminent seismologists (Drs. Lynn R. Sykes and Jack F. Evernden) on
page 54 of the October 1982 issue of Scientific American: "... In
recent years there have been reports that the U.S.S.R. may have
repeatedly violated the 1976 treaty by testing devices with a yield
greater that the 150-kiloton limit. ...  On the basis of our analysis
we conclude that the reports are erroneous; they are based on a
miscalibration of one of the curves that relates measured seismic
magnitude to explosive yield. ..."

The relationship between leakage of stories about Soviet treaty
violations and possible Administration defeats on the pending
nuclear freeze resolution and the arms budget appears more than
coincidental.

-------------------------------
[End of Arms-D Digest]