C70:arms-d (06/25/82)
>From HGA@MIT-MC Fri Jun 25 02:42:12 1982
Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 0 : Issue 129
Today's Topics:
Rule of 7
Israel in Lebanon
A hidden assumption
Russian computers
Military & Space, DOD 82-1, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 24 June 1982 13:01-EDT
From: Oded Anoaf Feingold <OAF at MIT-MC>
Subject: Factor of 7 rule, why does it work?
My guess would be that a nuclear explosion would create a mix of
isotopes of varying half-lives. Hence for every sevenfold increase in
time, there is a strong selection for longer-lived isotopes, the fast
ones being virtually entirely used up. Hence the factor-of-10
decrease in radioactivity. Obviously this rule would break down
within a measurable period, since eventually the only isotopes left
(in any quantity) would be very long-lived, but presumably by that
time the levels would be safe (by some reasonable definition of safe).
This explanation doesn't mean I BELIEVE the rule of seven, just that
under certain asssumptions it might be reasonable.
------------------------------
Date: 25 June 1982 01:17-EDT
From: ES at MIT-MC
Subject: Physical basis for the rule of 7 in fallout decay
If we start with amount n0 of an isotope with decay rate b, then after
time t the amount remaining is
n(t) = n0 exp(-bt).
The activity (amount of radioactivity) is proportional to
a = n0 b exp(-bt).
If we have a mixture of isotopes with a variety of decay rates, and we
assume that decay rate b takes on continuous values, then we let n0(b)
db be the amount of initial material with decay rate in the range of b
to (b + db). Ignoring the existence of decay chains, the activity
after time t is
a(t) = integrate(n0(b) b exp(-bt) db, bmin, bmax)
It is a fairly reasonable model that most of the fallout material is
of short half life, and that the distribution obeys a power law,
n0(b) = 1/b^p, with p > 0.
If p > 1, we can let bmax -> infinity. If p < 1, we can let
bmin -> 0. Thus the power law cannot be true for all b; it's just an
approximation. As long as p < 1, the integral for a(t) converges at
b -> inf due to the exponential factor when t > 0. We get
a(t) = integrate( 1/b^p b exp(-bt) db, 0, inf)
= const * t^(p-2).
Since 0 < p < 1, we have -2 < p-2 < -1, and the activity decays with
time by a power law. If the time is increased by a factor k, the
activity decreases by a factor k^(2-p). To match the "rule of 7",
solve
7^(2-p) = 10.
We get p = 0.817, which is consistent with the assumptions above.
------------------------------
Date: 25 Jun 82 0:23:17-EDT (Fri)
From: J C Pistritto <jcp@BRL>
Subject: Israel in Lebanon
While America and Britain evacuated Beirut's European
population today, the Israeli forces encircling Beirut continue
pounding from the air, land, nd sea. Apparently, in a sharp, but
short-lived battle with Syrian units, the Israelis have cut the
Beirut-Damascus highway at 3 points, from Beirut, to within 5 miles of
the Syrian border. Israel's Merkava tanks apparently are having great
success knocking out Syrian T-62 and 72 versions. The Soviets are
apparently 'disillusioned' with their Syrian allies at this point.
Although they keep saying they won't, the Israelis seem to be edging
closer to taking Beirut, after overruning the international airfield
early today.
Arik Sharon for President!
-JCP-
------------------------------
Date: 25 June 1982 01:59-EDT
From: James A. Cox <APPLE at MIT-MC>
Subject: A hidden assumption
From ES at MC:
.... When the occupying forces [of Russia] arrive, they would see
the wealth and splendor of the ordinary American citizen. They
would see the houses, cars, shopping centers. They would see that
workers have fairly pleasant working conditions . . . . [They
might then wipe us out with nuclear weapons to eliminate the
danger that ordinary Russian citizens would find out that earlier
propadanda was false.]
That seems patently ridiculous to me. Ordinary Russians ALREADY know
that there is great wealth in the west, and the Soviet government
knows they know. Just talk to any Russian immigrant. To suggest that
the Soviets would destroy American wealth to prevent their citizens
from finding out that they were lied to, rather than using that wealth
to their own advantage, is to suggest that the Soviet government is
run by idiots. Unfortunately, that is far from true.
------------------------------
Date: 25 June 1982 03:59-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Russian computers
I don't agree that trying to totally destroy the economy of some other
country we happen to not like too much is a moral stand. Computer
chips can be used for all sorts of wonderful things and withholding
them from the USSR is withholding all sorts of peaceful things they
want too. We have no right to be so nasty to them in general. --
Preventing them from getting military equipment and information about
our military equipment is another matter of course, but much narrower
than chips or other generally-useful things.
------------------------------
Date: 1 Jun 1982 2104-PDT
From: GEOFF at SRI-CSL
Subject: Military & Space, DOD 82-1, etc.
PM-Military and Space, Adv 01, 2 Takes,880-1550
U.S. Air Force Moves into Manned Space Program
For Release Tues PMs June 1
By HOWARD BENEDICT
AP Aerospace Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - In the 25th year of the space age, man and his
military machines are moving to control the ultimate high ground far
above the Earth.
The Soviet Union already has a toehold. The United States makes
its opening bid this month, when, for the first time, American
astronauts will conduct military assignments in space.
The space shuttle Columbia will carry a Defense Department payload
to test sensors for future spy satellites - a modest beginning to a
multibillion-dollar project that could develop by the end of the
decade into a formidable space force of military pilots, ships,
satellites and exotic weapons.
Not exactly ''Star Wars'' - but heading in that direction.
The force is needed, defense officials claim, to counter a strong
Soviet manned military space effort aimed, they say, at dominating
that new arena. For their part, the Soviets blame the United States
for establishing the shuttle's military capabilities.
The first defense-related shuttle flight is scheduled to lift off
from Cape Canaveral on June 27, with touchdown on Independence Day,
July 4, at Edwards Air Force Base in California.
President Reagan is expected to greet the returning astronauts
with a speech outlining America's future in space. Reagan is said to
be considering establishment of a large permanent space station to be
used later in this decade for military, scientific and commercial
projects.
The June flight, Columbia's fourth and final test mission, will
see fundamental changes in NASA's hitherto open information policy.
The Air Force, which manages the Pentagon's space effort, has
declared the payload secret and won't disclose details to reporters.
It is listed simply as DOD 82-1.
The astronauts, Navy Capt. Thomas Mattingly and Henry Hartsfield,
won't discuss the payload on open air-to-ground conversations, nor
will they transmit television pictures of it for fear the Soviets
might learn something.
Nevertheless, many details about the package are known, from Air
Force congressional testimony and articles published in technical
papers.
Robert Hermann, an assistant secretary of the Air Force, spilled
the beans on DOD 82-1 in testimony last year before the House
subcommittee on science and technology.
''We are planning to place a critical space test program called
CIRRIS on the fourth orbital flight test mission,'' Hermann said.
''This will provide critical information applicable to future defense
missions and will give both the Air Force and NASA an early
opportunity to evaluate the procedures and interfaces for operations
with the shuttle.''
CIRRIS stands for Cryogenic Infra-Red Radiation Instrumentation
for Shuttle. It is to scan Earth's horizon with a super-cooled
infrared telescope to gather background and basic target data for
future spacecraft designed to detect and possibly destroy enemy
missiles and satellites.
The payload will not be released into its own orbit, but will
remain in the shuttle cargo bay.
From reliable sources it was learned other Pentagon instruments
aboard the flight include a Space Sextant, being developed to give
defense satellites an independent navigation capability, and a device
called HUP (horizon ultraviolet program), smaller than CIRRIS but
intended to do similar studies in the ultraviolet spectrum.
NASA always has prided itself on the openness of its program, and
some officials are not happy with the security demands. But, Brian
Duff, the agency's chief of public affairs, said: ''We have no choice.
The decision has been made by the president that we are to share the
shuttle with the Air Force.''
Brig. Gen. Richard Abel, Air Force director of public affairs,
said: ''It is imperative, as we move DOD space systems to the shuttle
from expendable launch vehicles, that we protect information about
those systems which would be useful to a potential adversary.''
Some observers believe CIRRIS is not all that secret and that the
Air Force's real goal is to test its own and NASA's security systems
to find where they might leak during truly top secret missions.
The first all-up military ''blue shuttle'' flight is scheduled for
the 10th launching, in November 1983, carrying a satellite to detect
aircraft from orbit.
After that, the pace accelerates, with 24 of the next 60 flights,
extending into 1987, classified as national defense missions - to haul
up satellites and as testbeds for lasers and other weapons. The
General Accounting Office estimated recently that the Defense
Department will require 114 of the 234 shuttle flights expected to
take place through 1994.
''The Defense Department and the Air Force have solid plans for
the continued expansion of space capabilities and the exploitation of
space for military purposes,'' said Air Force Undersecretary Edward C.
Aldridge Jr. in recent congressional testimony.
''This is inevitable, due to the military and economic advantages
of space surveillance, communications and navigation,'' he said. ''We
need to pursue a vigorous research and development program to give us
future military options in space, such as an anti-satellite system to
deny access to those considered harmful to our interests and,
potentially, weapons in space for protection of satellites or defense
of our forces.''
Officials of both NASA and the Air Force foresee the day, not too
many years away, when each agency will operate its own shuttle fleet.
Four shuttles are currently planned, with money in this year's budget
to maintain an option for a fifth vehicle.
The trend toward space militarization is indicated by the number
of Air Force uniforms at NASA centers. Eight officers are assigned to
NASA headquarters in Washington; 60 to the Kennedy Space Center at
Cape Canaveral, Fla., and 66 plus 22 Air Force civilian employees at
the Johnson Space Center in Houston.
Early military shuttle flights will be piloted by military
officers in NASA's astronaut corps, but the Air Force is training
specialists at its space division in Los Angeles to handle sensitive
payloads.
Adding impetus to the militarization effort is the continuing
Soviet activity and a recent GAO recommendation that the U.S.
accelerate an early feasibility demonstration in orbit of a
space-based laser weapon.
The Soviets possess the only operational space weapons system - a
killer satellite capable of flying alongside another satellite and
blowing it up. The Air Force early next year is expected to test-fire
for the first time its own anti-satellite weapon - a device that seeks
out an orbiting target and smashes into it after being launched from
an F-15 jet fighter aircraft.
The Soviet manned space program, very active in recent years, is
believed by American experts to be mostly military-oriented. The
Soviets have indicated they will have a 12-to-14-man permanent space
station in orbit by 1985, and the recently-launched Salyut 7 craft may
be the core of that outpost.
''The Soviets recognize the historical value of dominating the
space environment,'' said Sen. Harrison H. Schmitt, R-N.M., a former
astronaut who is chairman of the Senate space subcommittee. ''It's the
first ocean they really have a chance to dominate. They have the right
perspective - that the civilization that dominates the military and
non-military aspects of space is going to dominate the military and
non-military aspects of the Earth.''
Schmitt said the United States ''has not fully realized the unique
aspects of space for keeping the peace. We have a superior base of
technology but an inferior base of will by which to use that
technology.''
He urged formation of a space command within the Pentagon or Air
Force to set and implement space policy. Defense officials have said
they are working toward such a command and may have it in place by the
end of this year.
Among other things, that command would direct development of a
space-based laser system for destroying hostile missiles and
spacecraft.
The GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, says that
directed-energy weapons may revolutionize military strategy, tactics
and doctrine. Its recent report centers on the concept of a
constellation of laser battle stations in space with the potential for
credible air and ballistic missile defense for the United States
''where no defense currently exists.''
These unmanned laser stations would be carried aloft by the
shuttle fleet.
Lt. Gen. Kelly Burke, the Air Force deputy chief of staff for
research, development and acquisition, said earlier this month that
the Soviet Union could have an operational space-based, high-energy
laser in orbit within five years for anti-satellite applications.
Burke said it will be the end of the century before an effective
space-based laser weapon system could be deployed to destroy ballistic
missiles in flight.
There has been some congessional criticism, led by Schmitt and
Sen. William Proxmire, D-Wis., that the Defense Department is not
paying its fair share for shuttle development.
''Clearly, the space shuttle has been developed largely at NASA
expense,'' Schmitt said. ''Yet, DOD will be a major user.''
Of the $15 billion it will cost to build four flight shuttles and
their facilities, the Pentagon's share is $3.4 billion. That includes
constructing a second launching base at Vandenberg Air Force Base,
Calif., building secure facilities at Cape Canaveral and at Mission
Control Center in Houston and developing a rocket stage capable of
boosting all shuttle payloads - military, scientific, commercial - to
high orbits.
ap-ny-05-27 0945EDT
***************
------------------------------
End of Arms-D Digest
********************