[fa.arms-d] ARMS-D Vol 1 #8

arms-d (03/22/83)

>From The-Moderator@MIT-MC  Mon Mar 21 22:27:48 1983
Received: by UCBVAX.ARPA (3.331/3.17)
	id AA00665; 21 Mar 83 22:29:17 PST (Mon)
Sender: FFM@MIT-MC
To: ARMS-D-DIST@MIT-MC

Subject: Arms-Discussion Digest V1 #8
To: ARMS-D-DIST@MC
Reply-To: ARMS-D at MIT-MC

Arms-Discussion Digest                            Volume 1 : Issue 8

Today's Topics:

Strategic nuclear weapons forum of experts..., economics of strategic
nuclear weapons, sufi principles, What's going on in El Salvador?,
Charleston SC destroyed by nuclear detonation

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 17 March 1983 02:42 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-MC>
Subject:  Strategic nuclear weapons forum of experts...
To: STERNLIGHT @ USC-ECL
cc: ARMS-D @ MIT-MC
In-reply-to: The message of 11 Mar 1983 1046-PST from STERNLIGHT at USC-ECL

Two comments on this forum:

1. I don't know what it means to say that we are "stuck"in our
negotiations with the Soviets.  Some would argue that we are not.
Please define.

2. I object strongly to the lack of information about who these
experts are; some would argue that some of these experts are part of
the problem.  In any case, I feel that knowing who these people are
and what their positions are is essential in knowing what I should
say, because the problem of nuclear war is as much political as
anything else, and I would frame my comments differently if I were
speaking to one person over another.  I might also emphasize different
things.

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

Date: 17 March 1983 03:07 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-MC>
Subject:  economics of strategic nuclear weapons
To: BEELER @ BBNF
cc: ARMS-D @ MIT-MC, sternlight @ USC-ECL
In-reply-to: The message of 16 Mar 1983 1337-EST from BEELER at BBNF

the US spends about 15% of its defense budget on strategic nuclear
weapons and delivery systems.  tactical systems are much harder to
quantify, because of dual capable weapons systems - do you count an
F-16 fighter, which is certified as nuclear capable?

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

REM@MIT-MC 03/19/83 03:55:27 Re: sufi
To: ARMS-D at MIT-MC
One way to apply the sufi principle would be to require that all the
top government officials of each nation physically reside in the
other, with family of course, telecommunicating to work. I'm not sure
when this will become practical.

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

Date: 19 March 1983 20:37 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: Sufi; + computers
To: CAULKINS @ USC-ECL
cc: ARMS-D @ MIT-MC

    Date: 19 Mar 1983 0819-PST
    From: CAULKINS@USC-ECL
[We would have incentive to design the satellite-based ABM system so
it'd have a weak spot, and we'd then arrange that many of our ICBMs
use that weak spot to get thru undamaged.
    I don't think so.  Any reasonable space ABM system design involves
    low earth orbit satellites; since these pass alternately over
    US and USSR ICBM launchers it would be difficult to design something
    that clandestinely ignored one flavor or another of launch vehicle.
    This is especially true if the ABM is built around X-ray lasers.
The method of attacking ICBMs once identified as such, and the method
of deciding which targets to attack, are pretty much independent.
Suppose we design the target-tracking&control system for the ABM so
that whenever between 15 and 17 missiles are traveling in convoy at an
angle of between +45 and +55 degrees from horizontal at an altitude of
30 miles, they are marked as "conventional aircraft, don't attack".
Then we reprogram our IBCMs to travel in convoys of size 16 and
arrange the trajectory to satisfy the special rule. Of course we don't
tell the Soviets, and we make the program bug (feature from our point
of view) so obscure that they don't figure it out by reading the code
we submit for approval. -- Try to tell us Reagan wouldn't authorize
such a trick, huh? Somebody has to write the code, then the other side
has to approve it. Would you rather they write it and we approve it?

 -- Devil's advocatedly yours,
    Robert Maas, presently residing 5 miles from ground-zero at Moffet
      Field naval air station, a likely 5-megaton target...

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

Return-Path: <@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA:Schauble.HDSA@M.PCO.LISD.HIS>
Received: from M.PCO.LISD.HIS by MIT-MULTICS.ARPA dial; 20-Mar-1983 02:51:15-est
Date:  20 March 1983 00:42 mst
From:  Schauble.HDSA at M.PCO.LISD.HIS
Subject:  What's going on in El Salvador?
Reply-To:  Schauble%PCO-Multics at MIT-MULTICS
To:  Arms-D at MIT-MC, Poli-Sci at RUTGERS

I have a friend who is a former US Army intelligence officer. He is
trained in counter-intelligence and jungle warfare from Viet Nam.

He just recently got a call from Army Intelligence asking him to do a
one year tour in El Salvador.

I wonder why they are looking for that combination.

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

REM@MIT-ML 03/21/83 02:24:42 Re: Charleston SC destroyed by nuclear detonation
To: ARMS-D at MIT-MC
<MIT-MC crashed while I was typing this message, but MIT-ML is up so I
guess Boston wasn't destroyed by nuclear detonation while I was typing
the message; Retyping here on MIT-ML now>

How many of you saw the TV movie tonight about terrorists threatening
to set off a nuclear bomb if the USA didn't dismantle all our nuclear
missiles in the Charleston SC area, the government took the terrorists
by force then tried to dismantle the bomb, but failed and in fact set
it off, destroying downtown Charleston and leaving the whole city and
an area downwind uninhabitable due to fallout? What did you think of
its accuracy/realism?

I thought some of the network news personnel were overly smooth when
reporting the early events, while some of the on-the-spot coverage was
unprofessional, but the facts seemed to be reasonable. I was impressed
with the point they made at the end, that the number of burn cases
from that one very small (60 kilotons I think it was) detonation was
twice as many as the total number of people who could be treated in
burn units in the entire nation. Sounds like these movie makers have
been listening to PSR (Physicians for Social Responsibility). The
footage of the actual detonation from a distance was good up to the
point where the shock wave "knocked over the camera", but it was
apparent the camera was smoothly but quickly lowered to the floor, and
when it "hit the floor" it didn't bounce or anything, obviously poor
special effect, perhaps they were too cheap to risk actually damaging
their camera during filming? But overall the movie was done moderately
well. They had some great footage of entire buildings on fire,
although in the first shot of that area I saw many buildings in the
background that were not in the slightest damaged or on fire.

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

[End of Arms-D Digest]