[fa.arms-d] id AA07836; 30 Jan 83 23:24:23 PST

arms-d (01/31/83)

>From FFM@MIT-MC  Sun Jan 30 23:25:27 1983
Received: from UCBARPA.BERKELEY.ARPA by UCBVAX.BERKELEY.ARPA (3.300 [1/17/83])
	id AA23473; 30 Jan 83 23:25:27 PST (Sun)
Received: by UCBVAX.BERKELEY.ARPA (3.300 [1/17/83])
	id AA23499; 30 Jan 83 23:27:23 PST (Sun)
To: ARMS-D-DIST@MIT-MC

Subject: Arms-Discussion Digest V1 #001
To: ARMS-D-DIST@MC
Reply-To: ARMS-D at MIT-MC

Arms-Discussion Digest                            Volume 1 : Issue 001

Today's Topics: Fuller Nukes, Solar; The Pentagon; DOD Grants at Univ
                of Washington; More on Isrealis vs. Syrians; A New Dark
                Age?; Laser Bombs at Port Stanley; ARMSD list (yes it lives);
                Battleship New Jersey; Do-it yourself fratricide; ARMSD
		restarting message; Nova Show on Feb 15.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Moderation Messages:

Dear Patient ARMSD readers;

   Yes as promised nearly a month ago; here is the revived ARMS-D
Digest. I hope you like it. If there are any comments, questions
etc. please send them to me (FFM@MC) 

		Thanks and Have fun
		Sends Steve
------------------------------
------------------------------

Date:     4 Nov 82 12:48:31-MST (Thu)
From:     Tom Slone <tom@arizona>
To:       oaf at Mit-Mc, hga at Mit-Mc
Subject:  Fuller, nukes, solar
Via:  arizona; 4 Nov 82 20:10-PDT

Buckminster Fuller recently made the insightful observation that if arms
production were halted world-wide, there would be ample energy from the
sun alone to meet any future, peaceful energy needs due to the massive
decrease in wasteful energy use.  Let's here it for a global village!
--Tom Slone
gi!arizona!tom (USENET)

 
Date:     5 Dec 82 22:37:42-MST (Sun)
From:     Tom Slone <tom@arizona>
To:       josh at Rutgers, hga at Mit-Mc
Subject:  The Pentagon
Via:  arizona; 5 Dec 82 23:29-PDT

The Pentagon has $1,500,000,000,000 in assets, a value far exceeding that
of all the corporations on the N.Y. Stock Exchange.  It has 3970 installations
(an average of 80 per site) in the U.S. covering nearly 25 million acres, or
an area 5 times the size of the state of Massachusetts.  Outside our own
borders, it has more than 400 major bases and nearly 3000 lesser ones
located in almost every region in the world.  More than 350 of these are in
countries that border the U.S.S.R.

The Pentagon is the largest single consumer of capital and technology in the
world.  It absorbs either directly or indirectly more than 1/3 of all
scientific and engineering personnel.  More than 60% of government research
and development funds are devoted to the military.

The Pentagon accounts for nearly 2/3 of the national debt which is now
approaching 1 trillion dollars.  The interest alone on this debt in 1981 was
some $95 billion.  It is the largest single consumer of energy - about
450,000 barrels of fuel a day.  It exercises profound control over the
whole economy - with 5 million people on its immediate payroll; and effecting
the payroll of some 20,000 prime contractors and almost 100,000 sub-
contractors.
(Taken from Con$cience & Military Tax Campaign - U.S. Newsletter #9
44 Bellhaven Rd.
Bellport, NY 11713)

Date: 11 Nov 1982 1008-PST
From: Alan Borning <Borning at WASHINGTON>
Subject: Re: DOD grants
To: Tom.arizona at UDEL-RELAY
cc: ARMS-D at MIT-MC, Borning at WASHINGTON

You asked about DOD funding at the Univ. of Washington Computer
Science Dept.  It is not the case that the department is heavily
DOD-oriented.  There is one project, the Northwest VLSI Consortium,
that has ARPA funding, along with funding from the corporate members
of the consortium.  However, most of the research grants in the
department are from NSF.
-------

Date: 13 November 1982 02:04-EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN at MIT-MC>
Subject:  more info on Israelis vs Syrians
To: ARMS-D at MIT-MC

my sources in the air force now tell me that the primary reason for
the large kill ratio in favor of the Israelis comes from the
following: apparently both the MiG 21 and MiG 23 have an indicator
light which comes on in the cockpit when a radar-guided missle is
homing on them.  Rather than taking evasive action, I am told that
most Syrian pilots simply bailed out.

Mail-from: DECNET site ECLA rcvd at 15-Nov-82 1312-PST
Date: 15 Nov 1982 10:41-PST
From: dietz at usc-cse at USC-ECL at USC-ECLB
Subject: A New Dark Age?
To: arms-d at mit-ai
Origin: usc-cse
Reply-To: dietz at USC-ECL at USC-ECLB
Via:  Usc-Cse; 15 Nov 82 11:44:11

Physics Today (Oct. 82 issue) has a fascinating piece in the news
section (pages 17-20) on a recently discovered effect of nuclear war.

This digest has seen dicussions of the effects of oxides of nitrogen
(NOx) on stratospheric ozone.  When a large (> 1 MT) bomb is
dentonated, the fireball generates large quantities of NOx and injects
it into the stratosphere.

However, most of the warheads in existence are smaller than this (a few
hundred KT).  These bombs do not inject significant amounts of NOx into
the stratosphere.  Rather, they leave it in the troposphere.  So, the
question is:  what is the effect of a nuclear war on the troposphere?

The answer is suprising and somewhat alarming.  A couple of scientists
have made a study of the effects, and they are substantial.

The study involved examining the effects of a nuclear war in which
roughly 1/4 of the existing weapons are used (after that you run out of
targets).  The immediate effects (blast, fallout, radiation) are
not covered, except to say that most cities in the Northern Hemisphere
with > 100,000 people are hit, as are most factories, dams, oil fields,
military bases, etc.

In all, 14,700 warheads are exploded, out of 59,000 (est) available,
for a total yield of 5.7 gigatons, out of 13 available.  Most weapons
are much less than 1 MT.

The weapons set off major fires.  Oil fields, gas fields, oil
refineries are destroyed.  Forests and grasslands burn.  In the US, and
to a greater extent in Canada and the USSR, there are large forests
near major cities.  These are ignited and burn out of control.

A conservative estimate yields the following figures:

	Roughly 1E6 square kilometers of forest are burned, 20 times the
	current yearly figure.

	Broken gas and oil wells vent at a rate equal to current world
	consumption.  Estimate that 25% of the gas does not burn.

	Fires inject ~2E15 grams of carbon in gases and ~3E14 grams of
	particulates into the troposphere.

	Vertical column density of particulates will be .1 to .5
	grams/m^2 (gold leaf is .5 grams/m^2).

	Particulates will reduce noontime sunlight by a factor of
	from 2 to 150(!), for a period lasting for weeks, over the
	entire northern hemisphere.  Note that the particulates in smoke
	absorb sunlight at least an order of magnitude better than
	volcanic particulates.

	Carbon monoxide levels increase by a factor of four over the
	entire northern hemisphere.

	After the smoke settles, sunlight will begin cooking the NOx and
	hydrocarbons in the troposphere.  A hemisphere wide smog alert
	may occur, with ozone levels at 160 ppb by volume, and PAN
	levels at 1-10 ppb (I think this is a stage 1 alert, for any Los
	Angeles residents).  Major crop damage will occur, although
	most people will have no problems.

	NOx will be washed out by rain, causing the rain to have
	a pH of < 4.

	Major damage to the ocean's plankton will occur due to the
	interruption of sunlight.

The biggest effect will be to make it very hard to feed the survivors,
even if they have been relocated away from target and fallout areas.
Irreversible changes (soot causing the melting of icecaps, for instance)
cannot be ruled out.

	


Return-path: dietz@USC-CSE
Date: 14 Dec 1982 9:28-PST
From: dietz%usc-cse@USC-ECL
Subject: Laser Bombs at Port Stanley
To: arms-d@mit-mc
Origin: usc-cse
Reply-to: dietz@USC-ECL
Via:  Usc-Cse; 14 Dec 82 10:36:01

An interesting article appeared in the Nov. 25 issue of New Scientist:

"Laser bombs forced the surrender at Port Stanley"

The commanders in charge of Argentinian troops on the Falklands
surrendered, rather than fight on to the last man, because they knew
that the Royal Air Force was about to drop laser-guided bombs directly
on to their brigade headquarters.  In the final, land-based days of the
war, Biritish laser bombs were as crucial as Exocets were in the early
naval phase.

Four Harriers from the aircraft carrier HMS Hermes had each dropped one
such bomb the day before surrender.  The British knew, from monitoring
Argentinian radio transmissions, that the sudden and unexpected arrival
of 450kg bombs, accurate to within a metre, was demoralising the
soldiers in Port Stanley.  So they broadcast a list of targets for the
next day in plain English, rather than using codes.  When the
Argentinian commanders heard that their personal offices were top of
the list, they surrendered -- only ten minutes before the Harriers were
due to arrive.

The RAF was using the Paveway II laser-guidance kit, attached to
standard British 450kg bombs.  Paveway II is made by Texas Instruments
in the United States and converts an ordinary "dumb" bomb into a
"smart" weapon with pinpoint accuracy.  One section of the kit attaches
to the rear of the weapon.  Another part, which goes at the front, has
four steering fins and a laser receiver.

When an aircraft drops a bomb, the laser receiving end acts like a
weathercock and points directly into the wind.  This means that it is
aiming at the target and can pick up energy from a laser that a soldier
on the ground is shing on the target.  A small computer in the bomb's
nose works out which direction the laser light is coming from and moves
the fins so that the bomb steers towards its target.

The Americans used the earlier Paveway I in Vietnam to knock out
bridges.  But the Falklands conflict was the first time that the more
manoeuvrable Paveway II had seen action.  It was also the baptism of
the Ferranti LTMR (laser target marker and ranger).

In the first attack, on 13 June, two Harriers flew in over Bluff Cove
to line themselves up and then continued at a fixed speed for a
precalculated time.  One after another, they pulled up into a climb,
released their bombs and turned away.  At this time they were shielded
from the target by Mount Harriet, so the defenders never saw or heard
the aircraft.

The first bomb fell slightly short but the second bomb was a direct
hit.  Latter in the day a second attack, with almost identical results,
was made against a machine-gun post.

During that night, British soldiers captured Mount Tumbledown and found
that the bombs had caused horrific casualties.  They were now within
laser range, about 3 km, of the Argentinian brigade headquarters.

Although the laser bombs proved devastatingly effective, the British
forces appeared to have loaded the dice even more in their favour.  One
of the few actions the received wide publicity during the attack on
Port Stanley was a supposedly-successful laser-bomb attack on a
howitzer right in the middle of Stanley.  Video tapes made at the time
show a British officer slowly and clearly broadcasting on his radio
that the attack was successful.  In fact, Port Stanley itself never cam
within laser range before the surrender and a well-staged bluff may
have led to the surrender.

(New Scientist, Nov. 25, 1982, Page 483)




Date: 28 December 1982 15:54-EST
From: Doug Humphrey <DIGEX at MIT-AI>
Subject: the list
To: ARMS-D at MIT-AI
cc: DIGEX at MIT-AI, HGA at MIT-AI


	just a brief question. does the arms-d list still exist ? i have not
received anything from it in quite a while, and really miss it. with all
of the things going on right now in the government concerning the MX and
other weapons systems, i would think that it would be a popular list.

	i hope that i just got dropped from the list and that it still exists.
if this is the case, please add me back onto it and point me toward the 
archives so that i may catch up.

with thanks, and wishes to all for a safe and peaceful new year,


doug


Date: 28 December 1982  17:59-EST (Tuesday)
Sender: CARTER at RU-GREEN
From: _Bob <Carter at RUTGERS>
To:   Arms-D at MC
Subject:BB New Jersey
Reply-To: Carter at RUTGERS


The BB New Jersey was commissioned today.  Does anyone have info or a
pointer to information about how she is fitted out?  Complement?
Armament?

_Bob

Date: 30 Dec 1982 1014-PST
From: Richard M. King <KING at KESTREL>
Subject: do-it-yourself fratricide
To: arms-d at MIT-MC
cc: king at KESTREL

	Would it violate any treaties to have a few dozen nuclear weapons of
our own buried in the dense-pack area, primed to explode if a computer thinks
that an incoming attack was likely to be successful (well aimed, and all of the
incoming missiles are due to reach an appropriate altitude at the same time)?

	Something like this might also work against soft landing missiles...

	The question is, is this an ABM?  (our weapons don't fly - they just
sit there until needed.)

						Dick
-------

FFM@MIT-MC 01/12/83 04:43:59 Re: ARMS-D'S COMING REVIVAL
To: ARMS-D at MIT-MC
Dear Arms-D Folks,

     We are about to start up ARMS-D again. So if you feel inclined,
please send us some new material. The moderatorship, is that a word?,
will be shared between Dave Caulkins, John Larson and myself.


			Thanks and Have fun,
			Sends Steve


Date: 25 Jan 1983 10:27:38-EST
From: rae at mit-vax
To: arms-d@mit-mc

Subject: Nova show

On February 15th, Nova is presenting "The Dawn With No Tomorrow".
It discusses the latest generation of nuclear weapons and shows how
Americans and Russians view the standoff between the world's superpowers.



End of Arms-D Digest
********************