C70:arms-d (07/02/82)
>From HGA@MIT-MC Wed Jun 30 01:01:19 1982 Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 0 : Issue #134 To: ARMS-D-DIST at MIT-MC Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 0 : Issue 134 Today's Topics: More heat than light Watering the Tree of Liberty Rule of 7 Nitpickers Liberals and defense policy In defense of battleships SpaceTrack Network ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 Jun 1982 2306-PDT From: CAULKINS at USC-ECL Subject: More heat than light One of my major concerns right now is the bellicose stance of the US; we are the ones who insist on the right to use nuclear weapons first and/or in response to a conventional attack. CSD.MCGRATH@SU-SCORE For good reason - the "peace" advocates have steadily depleted our conventional military forces so that we would have no alternative. I'll advocate renouncing the first use of nukes when we can handle any conventional Soviet attack - to do so beforehand would be stupid and/or dishonest. CAULKINS@USC-ECL Talk about stupid ! Even the US military admits that even limited tactical use of nukes is quite likely to escalate to The Full Nuclear Exchange; to risk destruction of the ozone layer, complete destruction of our society (and that of the Soviets plus lots of innocent bystanders), etc., etc. for some CSD.MCGRATH@SU-SCORE Ever hear of a strategy called DETERRENCE? I NEVER advocated a first strike itself - so please direct your comments to what I SAID, NOT what you consider *stupid* (the implication being that anyone who would dare to disagree with you would HAVE to be stupid). Setup Strawmen on you own time and WITHOUT use of my words. Your kneejerk reaction is quite insulting and throughly discredits any valid arguments you may assemble. CAULKINS@USC-ECL The more so since precision guided munitions make it possible to redress any supposed conventional imbalance. CSD.MCGRATH@SU-SCORE Once again, keep your rebuttal to what I SAY - if you do then you will find no difference between your "rebuttal" and my statement above. Otherwise don't bother to comment on my messages - you apparently have not read them anyway. MCGRATH was the first to use the term 'stupid'. I leave to others the judgement as to which of us has violated the bounds of reasonable discussion, and accept MCGRATH's invitation to cease commenting on his messages. ------------------------------ Date: 29 June 1982 03:56-EDT (Tuesday) From: Robert A. Carter <CARTER at RUTGERS> Subject: Watering the Tree of Liberty Date: Monday, 28 June 1982 02:25-EDT From: Jim McGrath <CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE> I prefer a citizen army to a draft one. But I prefer a draft army to a mercenary one. These preferences are based on their relative threats to our freedoms. Interesting thought! What precisely do you mean by these categories? A "citizen army" is a term I have seen most often used to justify the draft, in apposition to a "professional" army. Do you mean the modern equivalent of Minute Men? That seems pretty impractical just in terms of technology. I am told that the period between the Spanish-American War and WWI was one of radical change in U.S. Army doctrine on this subject. The Spanish-American War was fought with the same basic organizational structure as the Civil War - a small standing army fighting along side of a larger number of locally-officered militia units. The principal problems with militia units were insufficiently-trained men and inept, politically-chosen officers. By WWI, the doctrine provided that the standing Army was to be used as cadre, with militia and reserve units serving, along with draftees, to fill the ranks of existing "paper" standing army units, and as replacements. Even the famous "local" WWI units like the Rainbow Division were in fact professionally led, down to the level of quite junior officers, I believe. By WWII, even the cosmetic use of "local" names had fallen into desuetude. This distinction - between the professional cadre and the new troops - helps to explain something otherwise quite puzzling: Why the rigid class distinction between officers and men has been retained even by the armies of the egalitarian democracies. Put another way, it seems to be essential that an army have a corps of junior leaders (field grade and down) who have complete internalized the goals of the organization, and that those leaders be trained and treated differently from ordinary private soldiers, who spend most of their time concentrating on staying alive in combat and avoiding boredom outside it. By the way, I doubt that there will ever be a threat to our liberty flowing from the organization of our Army, no matter what that organization is. The Latin nations have an unwritten constitutional rule that when things get bad enough, the army takes over. That tradition, which certainly dates to Napoleon, and which might even be traced to the Praetorian Guard, is completely foreign to the Anglo-American tradition, I think. There is simply no such idea floating around in this society. How does this accord with your "citizen" army? With the Volunteer Army? [Bob] ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jun 1982 1038-EDT From: Eric M. Ostrom <ERIC at MIT-EECS> Subject: Rule of 7 Nitpickers >From The Effects of Nuclear Weapons: "This rule [of 7] is accurate to within about 25% up to 2 weeks or so and is applicable to within a factor of 2 up to roughly 6 months. Subsequently, the dose rate decreases at a much more rapid rate than predicted by this rule". Also, "...the fission products constitute a very complex mixture of over 200 different forms (isotopes) of 36 elements...About 2 ounces of fission products are formed for each kiloton (or 125 pounds per megaton) of fission energy yield [note that fusion would be less unless purposely 'salted' to make a dirty bomb - Eric]. The total radioactivity of the fission products is initially extremely large but it falls off at a fairly rapid rate as the result of radioactive decay." Let us pray that these horrendous weapons not be used, but let's cease with the end of the world claptrap too. Personally, I'm a LOT more worried about genetically engineered bacteria as the ultimate doomsday weapon than a bunch of moby big firecrackers. Not with a bang, but a whimper... ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jun 82 13:51:28 EDT (Tue) From: Steve Bellovin <smb.unc@UDel-Relay> Subject: liberals and defense policy I suppose I'm one of the people Jim McGrath had in mind when he decried liberals who want a no-first-strike doctrine, but have (allegedly) vitiated the ability of the military to fight a conventional war. Well, I can't speak for others, but let me at least defend my own opinions. First, Congress does not -- except in the case of major systems, like the MX and the B-1 bomber -- set military priorities. They're set by the administration in power, albeit sometimes modified to provide suitable pork-barrel projects for influential members of Congress. The Pentagon seems unwilling or unable to propose weapons projects that make any sense at all *in the context of a non-nuclear war*. Look at the budget -- if you're going to spend tens of billions of dollars on big-ticket items like sitting-duck carriers, M-1 tanks that apparently run on lemon-juice, and ever bigger and better nuclear missles, *of course* there's no money left for things like spare parts, maintenance, etc. I'd be willing to support a defense budget that had money for a sensible military -- one that could defend the U.S. quite well -- if only someone would propose one. What do I consider "sensible"? Well, for one thing, I whole-heartedly support the notion of the Rapid Deployment Force. I'd like a tank more suitable for fighting than the M-1 -- one that's built for reliability, fuel economy, and simplicity. The history of tank warfare, from World War II to the Middle East today, shows that fuel supplies are a major problem, and that the ability to repair tanks -- both from ordinary breakdowns and from enemy-inflicted damage -- is of major importance. The M-1 fails miserably on both counts. I'd like more attention paid to command, control, and communications systems -- areas where our technological lead can have big payoffs. (For example, it would seem that our electronics capabilities could give us perfectly secure communications down to the tactical level.) I'd spend more money on training; again, the record shows that a pilot or commander who can *think* and act independently can do a far better job. Money to harden our satellites and our land-based facilities against EMP would also be worth-while. What would I cut? Well, I regard any big-ticket item intended primarily for nuclear warfare (the MX and the B-1) or for refighting WW II (the carriers -- and that says nothing about the battleships usable only for refighting WW I) as highly suspect -- I'd like to hear far better justification than has been advanced so far. I would note, incidentally, that it's by no means clear that arming ourselves conventionally would cost that much more. Remember the study issued a few months back by the likes of McNamara; they concluded that it was really quite affordable. --Steve Bellovin ------------------------------ Date: 30 June 1982 03:15-EDT From: Harold G. Ancell <HGA at MIT-MC> Subject: In defense of battleships Battleships were not useless in World War II. They filled at least two or three important roles: 1) Fleet air defense. The dual purpose 5 inch guns with VT (proximity fused) shells were very good at knocking out planes. 2) Land bombardment. 3) Carrying important people safely, like FDR and admirals commanding a fleet. The refurbished batleships will continue to preform the last two tasks, and in addition will carry many missles (Harpoons, Tomahawks, and who knows what anti-air). Plans call for the eventual installation of ski-jump flight decks. Also, there are all sorts of things one can do with 16 inch guns; with rocket assist, put payloads in orbit, and with terminal guidance, obtain a reasonably long range anti-ship weapon (+60 miles.) The final advantage of the battleships is that they can be steaming in a couple or so years, as opposed to the many (4?) years it takes to build a Nimitz class carrier, or the even greater number of years (+7) it would take to design and start building a new class of capital ships. Strange as it may seem, the Navy is not wasting its (and our) money. - Harold ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jun 82 19:03:41-EDT (Tue) From: J C Pistritto <jcp@BRL> Subject: SpaceTrack Network The recent 'Extra' issue contained some comments critical of the large electronic installations throughout the world that maintain communications with US military satellites. The point is being missed, here. The electronic apparatus that forms the heart of the US strategic reconnaissance program will not be the CAUSE of a nuclear war, if anything, this stuff helps prevent nuclear wars by providing multiple, redundent inputs to the military staff at NORAD. That way, one bad input will not send all the missiles flying. Further, the positioning of more and more of the hardware in space is designed to enhance its survivability during nuclear conflict, thereby reducing the probability of such conflict occurring. If the enemy knows he can't knock out your early warning capability, a 'sneak' attack becomes impossible. There seems to be a widespread conclusion being drawn by a group of people who could be called 'pacifists' here; ie. that anything that has ANYTHING is therefore *BAD*, and therefore, we shouldn't have any of it. I've even heard the Space Shuttle program attacked on these grounds. Have people forgotten why nations have military forces to begin with... -DEFENSE-? -JCP- ------------------------------ Date: 30 June 1982 00:31-EDT From: RMS at MIT-AI Why the systems for detecting Russian attacks are called "putting the nuclear button in the hands of a robot in space" or "the electronic tentacles of the arms race" is beyond me. None of the proposals cited in that article seem to involve automatic use of nuclear weapons, or nuclear weapons in space. So it seems to be a non-sequitur. Also, I don't see why the ability to detect Russian missile launches is considered aggressive. If the Russians do not start a war, all those satellites will do is tell us so. Hairy CCC is only useful if the Russians attack. If the US were to develop and use a first strike capability, the attack would be carried out by surprise, at a time when all the facilities were functioning properly. Backup facilities and defenses for CCC systems are only needed if you expect to be attacked BEFORE you fight. For example, under the demagoguery of warning about "robots in the sky attacking us with our own weapons", the article urges people to oppose projects actually designed to detect Russian attacks; opposition whose success would have no particular tendency to prevent war; only to make the US helpless to deter or defend (I'll bet you the author opposes ABMs too) if Russia decides to start one. The only situation in which those people will be happy is one in which Russia has every reason to attack the US, and the US cannot do anything to reduce either the likelihood of an attack or the damage from an attack. I recognized one important half-truth in the article. It seems to expect the reader to think that Navstar is connected somehow with nuclear weapons. The Navstar system is expected to be used by conventional armed forces for navigation, but I believe that the DOD goes to special trouble to make nuclear weapons systems use other methods. For example, the MX is inertially guided, the cruise missiles use terrain matching, and the Trident II is supposed to track stars. I think the reason is that they know that the Russians will attack Navstar if they attack; the US plan is not to use nuclear weapons until the Russian attack has happened, and by then Navstar would be gone. The only proposal cited in the article that seems aggressive is the idea of using satellites to find Russian submarines. This is the only one that there would be useful if the US wanted to start a war. It does not seem that the author focuses on this proposal. That supports the theory th
C70:arms-d (07/02/82)
>From HGA@MIT-MC Wed Jun 30 01:01:19 1982 Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 0 : Issue 134 Today's Topics: More heat than light Watering the Tree of Liberty Rule of 7 Nitpickers Liberals and defense policy In defense of battleships SpaceTrack Network ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 Jun 1982 2306-PDT From: CAULKINS at USC-ECL Subject: More heat than light One of my major concerns right now is the bellicose stance of the US; we are the ones who insist on the right to use nuclear weapons first and/or in response to a conventional attack. CSD.MCGRATH@SU-SCORE For good reason - the "peace" advocates have steadily depleted our conventional military forces so that we would have no alternative. I'll advocate renouncing the first use of nukes when we can handle any conventional Soviet attack - to do so beforehand would be stupid and/or dishonest. CAULKINS@USC-ECL Talk about stupid ! Even the US military admits that even limited tactical use of nukes is quite likely to escalate to The Full Nuclear Exchange; to risk destruction of the ozone layer, complete destruction of our society (and that of the Soviets plus lots of innocent bystanders), etc., etc. for some CSD.MCGRATH@SU-SCORE Ever hear of a strategy called DETERRENCE? I NEVER advocated a first strike itself - so please direct your comments to what I SAID, NOT what you consider *stupid* (the implication being that anyone who would dare to disagree with you would HAVE to be stupid). Setup Strawmen on you own time and WITHOUT use of my words. Your kneejerk reaction is quite insulting and throughly discredits any valid arguments you may assemble. CAULKINS@USC-ECL The more so since precision guided munitions make it possible to redress any supposed conventional imbalance. CSD.MCGRATH@SU-SCORE Once again, keep your rebuttal to what I SAY - if you do then you will find no difference between your "rebuttal" and my statement above. Otherwise don't bother to comment on my messages - you apparently have not read them anyway. MCGRATH was the first to use the term 'stupid'. I leave to others the judgement as to which of us has violated the bounds of reasonable discussion, and accept MCGRATH's invitation to cease commenting on his messages. ------------------------------ Date: 29 June 1982 03:56-EDT (Tuesday) From: Robert A. Carter <CARTER at RUTGERS> Subject: Watering the Tree of Liberty Date: Monday, 28 June 1982 02:25-EDT From: Jim McGrath <CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE> I prefer a citizen army to a draft one. But I prefer a draft army to a mercenary one. These preferences are based on their relative threats to our freedoms. Interesting thought! What precisely do you mean by these categories? A "citizen army" is a term I have seen most often used to justify the draft, in apposition to a "professional" army. Do you mean the modern equivalent of Minute Men? That seems pretty impractical just in terms of technology. I am told that the period between the Spanish-American War and WWI was one of radical change in U.S. Army doctrine on this subject. The Spanish-American War was fought with the same basic organizational structure as the Civil War - a small standing army fighting along side of a larger number of locally-officered militia units. The principal problems with militia units were insufficiently-trained men and inept, politically-chosen officers. By WWI, the doctrine provided that the standing Army was to be used as cadre, with militia and reserve units serving, along with draftees, to fill the ranks of existing "paper" standing army units, and as replacements. Even the famous "local" WWI units like the Rainbow Division were in fact professionally led, down to the level of quite junior officers, I believe. By WWII, even the cosmetic use of "local" names had fallen into desuetude. This distinction - between the professional cadre and the new troops - helps to explain something otherwise quite puzzling: Why the rigid class distinction between officers and men has been retained even by the armies of the egalitarian democracies. Put another way, it seems to be essential that an army have a corps of junior leaders (field grade and down) who have complete internalized the goals of the organization, and that those leaders be trained and treated differently from ordinary private soldiers, who spend most of their time concentrating on staying alive in combat and avoiding boredom outside it. By the way, I doubt that there will ever be a threat to our liberty flowing from the organization of our Army, no matter what that organization is. The Latin nations have an unwritten constitutional rule that when things get bad enough, the army takes over. That tradition, which certainly dates to Napoleon, and which might even be traced to the Praetorian Guard, is completely foreign to the Anglo-American tradition, I think. There is simply no such idea floating around in this society. How does this accord with your "citizen" army? With the Volunteer Army? [Bob] ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jun 1982 1038-EDT From: Eric M. Ostrom <ERIC at MIT-EECS> Subject: Rule of 7 Nitpickers >From The Effects of Nuclear Weapons: "This rule [of 7] is accurate to within about 25% up to 2 weeks or so and is applicable to within a factor of 2 up to roughly 6 months. Subsequently, the dose rate decreases at a much more rapid rate than predicted by this rule". Also, "...the fission products constitute a very complex mixture of over 200 different forms (isotopes) of 36 elements...About 2 ounces of fission products are formed for each kiloton (or 125 pounds per megaton) of fission energy yield [note that fusion would be less unless purposely 'salted' to make a dirty bomb - Eric]. The total radioactivity of the fission products is initially extremely large but it falls off at a fairly rapid rate as the result of radioactive decay." Let us pray that these horrendous weapons not be used, but let's cease with the end of the world claptrap too. Personally, I'm a LOT more worried about genetically engineered bacteria as the ultimate doomsday weapon than a bunch of moby big firecrackers. Not with a bang, but a whimper... ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jun 82 13:51:28 EDT (Tue) From: Steve Bellovin <smb.unc@UDel-Relay> Subject: liberals and defense policy I suppose I'm one of the people Jim McGrath had in mind when he decried liberals who want a no-first-strike doctrine, but have (allegedly) vitiated the ability of the military to fight a conventional war. Well, I can't speak for others, but let me at least defend my own opinions. First, Congress does not -- except in the case of major systems, like the MX and the B-1 bomber -- set military priorities. They're set by the administration in power, albeit sometimes modified to provide suitable pork-barrel projects for influential members of Congress. The Pentagon seems unwilling or unable to propose weapons projects that make any sense at all *in the context of a non-nuclear war*. Look at the budget -- if you're going to spend tens of billions of dollars on big-ticket items like sitting-duck carriers, M-1 tanks that apparently run on lemon-juice, and ever bigger and better nuclear missles, *of course* there's no money left for things like spare parts, maintenance, etc. I'd be willing to support a defense budget that had money for a sensible military -- one that could defend the U.S. quite well -- if only someone would propose one. What do I consider "sensible"? Well, for one thing, I whole-heartedly support the notion of the Rapid Deployment Force. I'd like a tank more suitable for fighting than the M-1 -- one that's built for reliability, fuel economy, and simplicity. The history of tank warfare, from World War II to the Middle East today, shows that fuel supplies are a major problem, and that the ability to repair tanks -- both from ordinary breakdowns and from enemy-inflicted damage -- is of major importance. The M-1 fails miserably on both counts. I'd like more attention paid to command, control, and communications systems -- areas where our technological lead can have big payoffs. (For example, it would seem that our electronics capabilities could give us perfectly secure communications down to the tactical level.) I'd spend more money on training; again, the record shows that a pilot or commander who can *think* and act independently can do a far better job. Money to harden our satellites and our land-based facilities against EMP would also be worth-while. What would I cut? Well, I regard any big-ticket item intended primarily for nuclear warfare (the MX and the B-1) or for refighting WW II (the carriers -- and that says nothing about the battleships usable only for refighting WW I) as highly suspect -- I'd like to hear far better justification than has been advanced so far. I would note, incidentally, that it's by no means clear that arming ourselves conventionally would cost that much more. Remember the study issued a few months back by the likes of McNamara; they concluded that it was really quite affordable. --Steve Bellovin ------------------------------ Date: 30 June 1982 03:15-EDT From: Harold G. Ancell <HGA at MIT-MC> Subject: In defense of battleships Battleships were not useless in World War II. They filled at least two or three important roles: 1) Fleet air defense. The dual purpose 5 inch guns with VT (proximity fused) shells were very good at knocking out planes. 2) Land bombardment. 3) Carrying important people safely, like FDR and admirals commanding a fleet. The refurbished batleships will continue to preform the last two tasks, and in addition will carry many missles (Harpoons, Tomahawks, and who knows what anti-air). Plans call for the eventual installation of ski-jump flight decks. Also, there are all sorts of things one can do with 16 inch guns; with rocket assist, put payloads in orbit, and with terminal guidance, obtain a reasonably long range anti-ship weapon (+60 miles.) The final advantage of the battleships is that they can be steaming in a couple or so years, as opposed to the many (4?) years it takes to build a Nimitz class carrier, or the even greater number of years (+7) it would take to design and start building a new class of capital ships. Strange as it may seem, the Navy is not wasting its (and our) money. - Harold ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jun 82 19:03:41-EDT (Tue) From: J C Pistritto <jcp@BRL> Subject: SpaceTrack Network The recent 'Extra' issue contained some comments critical of the large electronic installations throughout the world that maintain communications with US military satellites. The point is being missed, here. The electronic apparatus that forms the heart of the US strategic reconnaissance program will not be the CAUSE of a nuclear war, if anything, this stuff helps prevent nuclear wars by providing multiple, redundent inputs to the military staff at NORAD. That way, one bad input will not send all the missiles flying. Further, the positioning of more and more of the hardware in space is designed to enhance its survivability during nuclear conflict, thereby reducing the probability of such conflict occurring. If the enemy knows he can't knock out your early warning capability, a 'sneak' attack becomes impossible. There seems to be a widespread conclusion being drawn by a group of people who could be called 'pacifists' here; ie. that anything that has ANYTHING is therefore *BAD*, and therefore, we shouldn't have any of it. I've even heard the Space Shuttle program attacked on these grounds. Have people forgotten why nations have military forces to begin with... -DEFENSE-? -JCP- ------------------------------ Date: 30 June 1982 00:31-EDT From: RMS at MIT-AI Why the systems for detecting Russian attacks are called "putting the nuclear button in the hands of a robot in space" or "the electronic tentacles of the arms race" is beyond me. None of the proposals cited in that article seem to involve automatic use of nuclear weapons, or nuclear weapons in space. So it seems to be a non-sequitur. Also, I don't see why the ability to detect Russian missile launches is considered aggressive. If the Russians do not start a war, all those satellites will do is tell us so. Hairy CCC is only useful if the Russians attack. If the US were to develop and use a first strike capability, the attack would be carried out by surprise, at a time when all the facilities were functioning properly. Backup facilities and defenses for CCC systems are only needed if you expect to be attacked BEFORE you fight. For example, under the demagoguery of warning about "robots in the sky attacking us with our own weapons", the article urges people to oppose projects actually designed to detect Russian attacks; opposition whose success would have no particular tendency to prevent war; only to make the US helpless to deter or defend (I'll bet you the author opposes ABMs too) if Russia decides to start one. The only situation in which those people will be happy is one in which Russia has every reason to attack the US, and the US cannot do anything to reduce either the likelihood of an attack or the damage from an attack. I recognized one important half-truth in the article. It seems to expect the reader to think that Navstar is connected somehow with nuclear weapons. The Navstar system is expected to be used by conventional armed forces for navigation, but I believe that the DOD goes to special trouble to make nuclear weapons systems use other methods. For example, the MX is inertially guided, the cruise missiles use terrain matching, and the Trident II is supposed to track stars. I think the reason is that they know that the Russians will attack Navstar if they attack; the US plan is not to use nuclear weapons until the Russian attack has happened, and by then Navstar would be gone. The only proposal cited in the article that seems aggressive is the idea of using satellites to find Russian submarines. This is the only one that there would be useful if the US wanted to start a war. It does not seem that the author focuses on this proposal. That supports the theory that he knows the US will not start a war and that the only way he can bring one about is to make it safe for Russia to do it. ------------------------------ End of Arms-D Digest ********************