Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ucbvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!ucbvax!daemon From: daemon@ucbvax.UUCP Newsgroups: fa.arms-d Subject: Arms-Discussion Digest V2 #40 Message-ID: <893@ucbvax.UUCP> Date: Sun, 27-May-84 08:31:02 EDT Article-I.D.: ucbvax.893 Posted: Sun May 27 08:31:02 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 1-Jun-84 01:57:54 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.UUCP Organization: U.C. Berkeley Lines: 179 >From @MIT-MC:JLarson.PA@Xerox.ARPA Sun May 27 02:30:45 1984 Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 2 : Issue 40 Today's Topics: Technological vs Political Solutions (3 msgs) Re: global US-USSR conflict is remote obnoxious "checks enclosed" Basic flaw in *any* forward-basing mode for defense ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 May 1984 02:00-EDT From: Herb Lin Subject: Technological vs Political Solutions To: JoSH @ RUTGERS cc: ARMS-D @ MIT-MC, ARMS-DISCUSSION @ MIT-MC, poli-sci @ RUTGERS In-reply-to: Msg of 14 May 84 02:40:34 EDT from JoSH From: JoSH From: Caulkins "I don't believe that it requires a fundemental turnaround in the makeup of the human mind to realize that making ever more weapons that threaten civilization and the species is a bad idea, and that new political approaches are needed. Do you think that the political leaders of the world over the past 40 years cannot see this obviously simple fact? Do you think it really makes a difference in the political arena? In fact, I think they cannot see this obviously simple fact. Indeed, there is a good deal of psychological research that indicates that people are unable to cope with large changes, and react by denying their reality, especially when under stress. Furthermore, when they may not have to face the outcome (i.e., a nuclear war), they underestimate the probability of undesirable events significantly. However, it is NOT a question of intelligence, at least not as measured by the standard measures (usually given when not under real stress). ------------------------------ Date: 24 May 1984 02:07-EDT From: Herb Lin Subject: Technological vs Political Solutions To: JoSH @ RUTGERS cc: ARMS-D @ MIT-MC, ARMS-DISCUSSION @ MIT-MC, REM @ MIT-MC In-reply-to: Msg of 21 May 84 23:45:39 EDT from JoSH actually, you bring up an interesting question to which I would like to see some answers. Can someone imagine a scenario in which the US/USSR are "dragged" into a nuclear war by some third world nuclear usage? If so, please post it. I haven't come up with any, and yet this is the thing most often mentioned. ----------------------------- Date: 24 May 1984 06:03-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Technological vs Political Solutions To: LIN @ MIT-MC cc: ARMS-D @ MIT-MC, JoSH @ RUTGERS Date: 24 May 1984 02:07-EDT From: Herb Lin Can someone imagine a scenario in which the US/USSR are "dragged" into a nuclear war by some third world nuclear usage? Same technique as VietNam. USA and USSR have "advisors" in various third-world countries (Honduras, Israel, Lebanon, Afganastan, Germany, Japan, you name it somebody has advisors there). So a local nuclear war starts, and our advisors and troop ships get nuked out of existance. We (USA or USSR) retaliate against that third-world nation, and obliterate some enemy (USSR or USA respectively) advisors and troops etc. we didn't know were so close, or else that enemy nation has a protective treaty and resents our use of nuclear weapons and denies their friendly third-world nation used them first. Seeing how things got out of hand in VietNam and Lebanon, I worry a lot about a third-world nuclear war getting out of hand. It's just too difficult to contain war when there are technical means to enlarge the war. [Worried pessimist, REM] ------------------------------ Date: Thu 24 May 84 20:26:32-PDT From: Eric J. Horvitz Subject: Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V2 #39 To: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA cc: EJH@SU-SCORE.ARPA In-Reply-To: Message from "Moderator " of Wed 23 May 84 22:43:56-PDT "Most serious analysts feel that a fullscale global US-USSR conflict is remote." --JOSH Either our definitions of the term "remote" are very different or you are probably a bit off in your assessment of the thoughts of the grand experts. I have found through personal communication with a number of our country's top "serious" experts that the most prevalent view is that fullscale US-USSR conflict is not remote at all. As one example, at a recent round table seminar, I asked Dick Garwin point blank: "Considering all that you know, what is your estimate for the likelihood of a massive nuclear exchange between the US and the USSR within twenty years?" Garwin knitted his brow and squirmed a bit before coming up with an answer. "I would give that a 30% chance," he said confidently. Even Hermann Kahn was bullish in estimating the chances for a massive nuclear war between the superpowers. Tell me, which serious experts have you been studying? ------- ------------------------------ Date: 26 May 1984 05:03-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Me too, obnoxious "checks enclosed" mailing received To: ARMS-D @ MIT-MC Indeed, when I went to check my mail Thursday (first time in over a week) I found that misleading letter. I haven't opened it yet. I may ask the postal inspector to open it with me. (I'll pretend not to know what's inside, and to be freaked out by the threat on the cover "penalty for illegal use", then pretend to be really shocked by the fraudulent gimmick inside.) Graham ought to be ashamed of the tactics his organization is using. Is he that desperate to save face for his wonderful idea that happens not to be feasible currently due to revelations of nuclear winter, that he must resort to every dirty trick he can think of to push his idea on us before we all recognize its faults?? Apologies to Lowell Wood who shares Graham's views but not his tactics. (LLW must feel about Graham like President Carter felt about Billy?) ------------------------------ Date: 26 May 1984 05:17-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Basic flaw in *any* forward-basing mode for defense To: ARMS-D @ MIT-MC There seems to be a basic flaw in any weapon that is based closer to the enemy's homeland than to one's own. What right do we have to put our weapons in their yard? Isn't that an untrusion on their space? Don't they have the right to push us back to at least the midpoint between our homelands? Therefore, if we put anti-ICBM weapons in space as their normal basing mode, don't the USSR have the right to shoot them down whenever they pass over USSR territory? Sputnik set a precedent for peaceful passive devices to pass over enemy territory providing they are in orbit. Yuri Gegarin (do I have that name correct? It's been awhile) extended that precedent for manned peaceful flights providing they are in orbit. But no precedent has been established for weapons over enemy territory under any circumstances (anti-sat weapons haven't been officially acknowldged). Perhaps we (USA and USSR) should make it clear that any weapon capable of damaging enemy homeland or enemy satellites or other enemy vehicles should be forbidden to fly over enemy territory, EVEN IF IN ORBIT, by establishing a treaty or agreement to that effect? Exceptions could be granted only by mutual agreement such as a joint BMD system. Then one-sided BMD as well as satellite killers would be FORBIDDEN, while observer satellites which report violations of the treaty would be explicitly PERMITTED by the Sputnik/Gegarin precedent. I favor such a treaty to avoid the destabilizing effect of any forward-based weapon. Rebuttal anyone? ------------------------------ [End of ARMS-D Digest]