C70:arms-d (07/11/82)
>From HGA@MIT-MC Sat Jul 10 20:47:56 1982
Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 0 : Issue 140
Today's Topics:
Electronics in Foxbat
Expensive vs. Cheap
Comments On Comments On Comments
Sober Facts - number sources
Destroying LA -- opinion, no facts
Destruction of the world
Preventing Soviet Invasion of Western Europe
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 30 Jun 82 19:21:04-PDT (Wed)
From: decvax!utzoo!henry at Berkeley
Subject: electronics in Foxbat
[ This message was originally submitted to the Space Digest. - Harold]
People who criticize the Foxbat's electronics as primitive obviously
saw only the mass-media reports on it. After the first wave of
contempt, the people studying it were much impressed with what they
saw. True, the stuff was much inferior to what the West can do, but
it was an impressive use of the available technology. In particular,
it is far cheaper to build than it would have been if it had been
designed in the West, even to equivalent specifications. Remember,
the total number of Mach 3.0 (or even Mach 2.8) combat aircraft in
service in the West is *zero* -- and the Foxbat prototypes started
flying nearly twenty years ago. That last point is worth emphasizing:
the Western fighters that were being tested and built when the Foxbat
started flying were among the first combat aircraft to use transistors
instead of tubes. At the time, using tubes in the Foxbat was the only
sensible approach -- Russia was of course behind in semiconductor
technology, while tubes were cheap and available in quantity. It's
also noteworthy that the Foxbat's electronics are (by design) much
easier to maintain than those of its Western contemporaries, or even
those of more recent Western aircraft. And while that radar may be
crude, its power output is so high that it's virtually unjammable.
The Foxbat obviously could do with more modern electronics, and there
is considerable speculation that just this is in the works. Bear in
mind that the Russians seldom hold up production of something that
works just because something better is on the way (a habit that tends
to plague Western defence purchasing). It would not surprise me if
the computers on a hypothetical Russian shuttle were crude, barbarous,
and primitive by Western standards, but worked well enough to do the
job, and were carefully used so as to minimize the impact of their
shortcomings.
------------------------------
Date: 10 July 1982 03:09-EDT
From: James A. Cox <APPLE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Expensive vs. Cheap
The Secretary of the Navy made an interesting comment in responding to
critics of the cost of modern airplanes. "The question is, do we want
a lot of cheap planes, like the ones we shot down in the Gulf of
Sidra, or a smaller number of more expensive ones, like the ones that
shot them down." To him, and to me, the answer seems clear.
------------------------------
Date: 10 July 1982 04:43-EDT
From: James A. Cox <APPLE at MIT-MC>
Subject: COMMENTS ON COMMENTS ON COMMENTS
From WDoherty at BBNG:
I would argue that the rich and powerful in either society
[U.S. and U.S.S.R] determine the "civilian" government
positions. The US has only a facade of democracy, just as the
Soviet Union has only a facade of the true philosophy of
communism.
As for your first statement, although there are nominally no "rich"
people in the Soviet Union, it seems clear that the powerful there do
determine the civilian government positions. In the U.S., the rich
and powerful naturally have much influence. But bear in mind that,
unlike in the Soviet Union, no powerful political figure, no
corporation, no rich man, or group of the above, can "determine" the
result of an election. And in this country, elected officials have
the real power. The people who run the U.S. do so contingent on the
approval of the American populace. Now you may argue that the public
is duped and doesn't really know what its own interests are, but it
takes a hell of a lot of gall for anyone to claim that he knows the
"real" interests of the public, what the public "really wants," when
that is contradictory to explicit statements (in elections) of those
interests.
About your second statement: it all depends on your definitions of
"true" democracy and communism. The U.S. is reasonably faithful to
John Stuart Mill's vision of democracy, not so much to Rousseau's, and
quite unfaithful to Jane Fonda's. I suspect that, to be clearer, you
should have said something like "economic democracy" or "democratic
socialism" rather than "true democracy" (although if you're trying to
convince any Americans it is well to stay away from the term
"socialism"). Likewise, the Soviet Union is reasonably faithful to
Lenin's idea of communism, but less so to Marx's and Engel's original
theories. Probably you meant by "true" democracy and communism the
kind that appeals to you the most. But to understand that, we have to
know what kind appeals to you the most, don't we?
What makes the activities of the U.S. armed forces any more
justifiable than the same activities performed by the Soviet
armed forces? Both actors in the war games are equally
reprehensible if the methods they use are just about the same.
Not necessarily true. To decide the justifiability of an act, one
must consider both the goal it attempts to accomplish and the
justifiability of the method itself. The US and the Soviet Union may
behave similarly, but if the US's goals are good and the Soviet
Union's bad, US actions are more justifiable than Soviet actions. I
do not wish to debate the goodness of the US's goals right now; I did
want you to know that your conclusions are not completely correct.
------------------------------
Date: 10 Jul 1982 0811-PDT
From: CAULKINS at USC-ECL
Subject: SOBER FACTS - number sources
LIN@MIT-MC
At this point, I am totally confused. There are two
authoritative sources which appear to be in conflict. My
formula
P = 3300 (W/r^3) + 192 (W/r^3)^.5
is taken from Brode's review of the effects of nuclear weapons
in the Annals of Nuclear Science. "Effects of Nuclear
Weapons" is also supposed to be an authoritative source. I
have no idea where these two different sources get their
information; if they do not agree, what's going on? Does
anyone "out there" really know what's going on?
I used the handy Nuclear Bomb Effects Computer (analog) that comes
with the '77 edition of "Effects of Nuclear Weapons" to get my numbers
(4.3 Mi radius for 5PSI from a 1 MT bomb); it computes overpressure
for a given yield and ground range for an explosion at optimum burst
height, defined as "a burst at that height which maximizes an effect
for a particular ground range and yield"
ES@MIT-MC
The article quoted the number of bombs required "to
destroy L. A." without specifying exactly what was meant by
destruction. In the July 1982 "clarification", Beckmann cites
as a reference "Shall America be Defended?", by Gen. Graham,
Arlington House, 1979, p. 112.
Has anyone seen this book ? Where did Graham get his numbers ?
------------------------------
Date: 10 Jul 1982 09:11:13-PDT
From: decvax!minow at Berkeley
Subject: Destroying LA -- opinion, no facts.
Assuming the objective is to make LA uninhabitible, rather than
turning it into a 3000 sq. mile parking lot, I would guess that far
fewer bombs (maybe a dozen or so) would be needed; and that nuclear
weapons would not be a necessity. All that would be needed would be
to take out the Colorado River dams and aquaducts that supply the LA
basin with its water. A few dirty bombs on the San Fernando Valley
farming area would be appropriate as well.
Note that this doesn't harm the civilian population, but rather turns
5% of the US population into refugees, tying up a huge amount of
resources in disaster relief. If the purpose of war is imposing one
country's will on another; rather than punishment or genocide, this
would be far more effective than trying to reduce every condominium to
glassy rubble.
....
On kill rates: one difference between World War I and II, and the
projected global nuclear conflict is the greater number of civilian
(i.e., non-combatant) killed. When the battlefield becomes the entire
planet, we are effectively held hostage to the good will of our
respective governments, whether we like it or not.
Now, where did I put my copy of Mother Courage?
Martin Minow
decvax!minow @ Berkeley
------------------------------
Date: 10 Jul 1982 17:13-EDT
From: Sesh.Murthy at CMU-750M at CMU-10A
Subject: Destruction of the world.
I would like to know what would happen in the worst case in a nuclear
war. Would this mean the entire population of the world is
annihilated. From the previous discussions I get the impression that
only areas close to bomb explosions would be wiped out. Does this
mean that the radioactive fallout in such a case (Almost all nuclear
devices that man has are exploded) would not wipe out people far away
from (i.e. thousands of miles) the places where the explosions take
place.
What I am driving at is that in the event of a nuclear war most
nuclear devices would explode over North America, Europe, the Soviet
Union, and possibly China. What would happen to people in say South
America, Africa, India etc. Will they be wiped out. What areas if
any would be reasonably safe.
Also what do people mean when they say that the US and the Soviet
Union together have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world
several times over.
Sesh.
P.S. If something of the sort has already been discussed bear with me.
It is humanly impossible to wade through the archives and notice every
single thing said.
------------------------------
Date: 10 Jul 1982 21:15:07-EDT
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: re preventing [soviet invasion of western europe]
The problem with arguing that firepower rather than manpower wins
wars is that too many military procurement people read this as an
excuse to go for the most beautifully impractical devices they can
find. Provided you restrain these types, the concept seems sound; in
particular, I have heard a number of unquantifiable rumors floating
around about assorted cute anti-tank devices (although with many of
the proposed designs I would wonder \how/ \many/ of them could be made
and brought to the front, since you'd have to figure many would be
"wasted"---I would argue that it's better to make something cheap and
wastable in thousands rather than something so smart you think it is
99%-effective in dozens).
I do not anticipate the problem you see with stockpiling such
weapons. First, it would be more effective to have many small
stockpiles, making complete [surgery] extremely dangerous to
undertake. Second, it might be effective to have some of the
stockpiles near enough to civilization that disentanglement would be
impossible (i.e., if they try it they'll kill enough people that
they're in deep shit). Third, a "surgical" nuclear action strikes me
as a hazardous undertaking under any circumstances. Consider that
half of our problem is that, thanks to our halfwitted support of
unpopular and parasitic regimes (and considering how much thanks we've
gotten from Argentina recently, maybe that should be derated to
quarter-witted), anything we do looks bad to much of the world; if we
could learn to use propaganda effectively, a strike against weapons
which are demonstrably (this must be done in advance) for defense only
should backfire ruinously.
------------------------------
End of Arms-D Digest
********************