arms-d (03/26/83)
>From The-Moderator@MIT-MC Sat Mar 26 00:06:41 1983 Received: by UCBVAX.ARPA (3.331/3.17) id AA00605; 26 Mar 83 00:08:40 PST (Sat) Sender: FFM@MIT-MC To: ARMS-D-DIST@MIT-MC Subject: Arms-Discussion Digest V1 #9 To: ARMS-D-DIST@MC Reply-To: ARMS-D at MIT-MC Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 1 : Issue 9 Today's Topics: Charleston, "Special Bulletin", Reagan for true defense instead of deterrent?, Is this REALLY a commitment to high technology in defense ?, CoEvolution article on global gamesmanship and nuclear freeze, Reagan's ABM, Reagan's speech of 3/23, A Modest Proposal |--------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Mar 83 7:48:44 EST (Tue) From: Earl Weaver (VLD/VMB) <earl@Brl-Bmd.ARPA> To: arms-d@Mit-Mc.ARPA Subject: Charleston I started to watch it but fell asleep. The plot was interesting, but the first part of it didn't seem real to me--"too smooth" as REM described it. Especially that reporter who was trying to do the piece on the union and then running right into the middle of the 'firefight', automatic weapons blazing away, people dropping (getting shot), and then the reporter asks, "What's going on here?" (or something to that effect.) Maybe when it's rerun, I'll tune in the second part. Oh, there was one small thing that was realistic: after the two Coast Guardsmen were released, the news commentator still referred to the (current) four hostages rather than the two. A few sentences later the correct number (2) was used. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 1983 10:58-PST From: dietz%usc-cse@USC-ECL To: arms-d@mit-mc Subject: "Special Bulletin" Via: Usc-Cse; 22 Mar 83 13:49:39 I have some quibbles with the movie's accuracy: (1) The bomb (24 kilotons) would not have contaminated the Charleston area as severly as was stated. True, it was a ground burst, but fallout is washed away/burried/blown away pretty quickly. Anyone have a time constant for htis process? (2) The NEST team would NOT have tried to disarm the bomb. It was a plutonium implosion device. The yield in these bombs are very sensitive to the symmetry of the implosion. Any gross damage done to the plutonium or the surrounding charges would so disrupt this symmetry that the bomb would at best fizzle. The team would set up some sort of explosive device (shaped charges, a high velocity cannon, etc.) to shoot something through the explosive lenses or the plutonium. Even if the bomb went off in the process the explosion would be much smaller (less than a kiloton). At the very least they could have set this up and set it off when the bomb got away from them. ------------------------------ REM@MIT-MC 03/23/83 20:33:11 Re: Reagan for true defense instead of deterrent? To: ARMS-D at MIT-MC President Reagan today gave lip service to true defense, intercepting ICBMs en route (probably with lasers); but he says it won't be available until the end of the century, so I doubt he's really serious about defense in the near future. ------------------------------ Date: Wed 23 Mar 83 23:44:43-PST From: Jim McGrath <CSD.MCGRATH@SU-SCORE.ARPA> Subject: Reagan's Defense Message To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA cc: arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA, poli-sci@RUTGERS.ARPA Is this REALLY a commitment to high technology in defense? That is, is Reagan really going to put his political muscle and government funds behind the effort? Anyone read his defense budget for clues? Jim ------------------------------ Date: 25 Mar 83 01:37:37 PST (Fri) From: sun!gnu@Berkeley (John Gilmore) Subject: CoEvolution article on global gamesmanship and nuclear freeze Message-Id: <8303250937.10337@sun.uucp> Received: by sun.uucp (3.320/3.1) id AA10337; 25 Mar 83 01:37:37 PST (Fri) Received: by UCBARPA.ARPA (3.327/3.17) id AA09816; 25 Mar 83 02:03:07 PST (Fri) Received: from UCBARPA.ARPA by UCBVAX.ARPA (3.331/3.17) id AA05799; 25 Mar 83 01:59:54 PST (Fri) To: arms-d@mit-mc.ARPA To: gnu@sun.UUCP@Berkeley Check the Spring 1983 issue of CoEvolution Quarterly, page 126, for an article by an "anonymous author [who] works in strategic planning for a very large very multinational corporation". I found it very readable and credible. An excerpt: While a moral sensibility undoubtedly informs the nuclear freeze movement, its aims must be achieved in the political arena, and so a political perspective must inform it as well. Politics has many similarities to game playing. The problem in politics, however, is that most of the players want to win different prizes and play by different rules. Successful politics therefore requires redefining the game: seeing your own game as it will be affected by the play of the other intersecting games. Imagine trying to get a soccer ball downfield while at least two other teams are playing football and lacrosse. For the nuclear freeze movement to be more than merely a further exercise of self- expression of moral outrage, it must see the game of games within which it is playing. S/he then goes on to describe some of the relevant strategies of assorted major powers and how they can interact with the freeze movement. Well worth reading. If you don't subscribe to CoEvolution, consider it. It's a good source of well-thought-out articles on an amazing variety of topics. (This is not an ad but a personal reccommendation. Any resemblance to an ad, living or dead, is purely in your head.) $14/yr from Box 428, Sausolito, CA 94966. They also sell back issues for $3; this is #37. SausAlito, sigh. John Gilmore, Sun Microsystems ------------------------------- Date: 23 Mar 1983 0727-PST From: CAULKINS@USC-ECL Subject: Reagan's ABM To: armsd at MIT-MC I've just finished reading the text of Reagan's 23 March ABM speech. Alas, it looks like another piece of his designing-at-the-microphone. The economics of hydrogen bombs are still overwhelming; in terms of area-subject-to-10PSI-overpressure/$, corpses/$, etc. they represent irresistable power. Even a spectacularly successful 97.5% kill ratio by an ABM system against the existing 8,000 Soviet warheads lets 200 get through; more than enough to devastate our or any society. Reagan's proposals are (to put it kindly) vague. He mentions the possible destabilizing effects of ABMs, but proposes no solutions to the problem. He said that an ABM R&D program would be ... "consistent with our obligations under the ABM treaty" ... but made no mention of how deployment of an ABM would be carried out without treaty violation. He said the ABM R&D program would ... "begin to achieve our ultimate goal of eliminating the threat posed by strategic nuclear missiles." ..... He ignores the fact that this would just be another step in the arms race. He made no mention of reducing expenditure on offensive nuclear weapons and devoting the money saved to defensive systems, a cooperative venture with the Soviets in building the ABM, or any other scheme which might indeed make the ABM a truly defensive and stabilizing force. Some excerpts from the S.F. Chronicle of 25 March 83: "... several White House and Pentagon aides suggested the idea had not been carefully studied ... Among the fundemental questions raised by Reagan's challenge to the scientific community to find a way of protecting the United States from a nuclear attack: o Will the proposed strategy violate ... the 1972 agreement limiting Soviet and US anti-missile systems and their development ? o Can a defensive system be devised that cannot be overcome by the offense ? o Will deterrence be enhanced or undermined by such a system which would allow one side to strike first and limit the effects of a retaliatory blow ? This last question is especially important because such a system could be developed by the Soviet Union as well as the United States. ..." ------------------------------ Date: 25 March 1983 1332-PST (Friday) From: crummer at AEROSPACE (Charlie Crummer) Subject: Reagan's speech of 3/23 To: arms-d at mit-mc The president's speech should be read carefully by anyone concerned with our national safety. (These days defense may not imply safety; viz. the survivable, winnable 6 mo. nuclear war.) There are inappropriate generalizations, exclusions, and inconsistencies that mar the whole fabric. Some thoughts... 1. If the U.S. is really weaker than the Soviet Union, why haven't they moved missiles into Cuba instead of just surveillance equipment? The spy plane pictures that Reagan displayed were rather pale in contrast to the photos that Kennedy had in 1962. If we are truly in a defensive posture it is to our advantage to have them know this; it might prevent their trigger finger from getting itchy. For the president to continually avow our weakness might actually strengthen the Soviet position; it could turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy. 2. Suppose we begin development and/or deployment of a space-based nuclear powered laser, quantum chromodynamic particle beam weapon, electrogravitational tractor beam, subspace warp transmitter, or other such obvious defensive system. The Russians will find out about it before it is completed, of course. The problem arises because there is some lack of agreement as to who the "bad guys" are. They think we are out to get them and as a consequence might think that we are actually planning a first strike and are preparing to defend ourselves against a retaliatory strike. In this case they might feel forced to cut their losses by hitting us first. Hardware and new systems are no substitute for establishing a relationship with the Soviets that works to the benefit of each. The human mind is senior to anything it creates so all systems can be countered. We must insist that our government produce the results that it is hired by us to produce. Negotiate for tough, mutually beneficial, verifiable agreements and quit thinking that we are "playing poker" or Pac Man with the lives of human beings. ------------------------------- Date: 25 March 1983 1401-PST (Friday) From: crummer at AEROSPACE (Charlie Crummer) Subject: A Modest Proposal To: arms-d at mit-mc Apropos the laser-nuke: how about positioning a laser in orbit, accurately aimed at the Russkies and pump it by triggering a supernova in the sun? That would certainly teach them not to trifle with us! ------------------------------- [End of Arms-D Digest]