Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!ucbvax!arms-d From: ARMS-D-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA (Moderator) Newsgroups: mod.politics.arms-d Subject: Arms-Discussion Digest V6 #12.2 Message-ID: <8601080211.AA01595@ucbvax.berkeley.edu> Date: Tue, 7-Jan-86 17:50:00 EST Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8601080211.AA01595 Posted: Tue Jan 7 17:50:00 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 8-Jan-86 03:26:20 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: ARMS-D%MIT-MC.ARPA@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 173 Approved: arms-d@mit-mc.arpa Arms-Discussion Digest Tuesday, January 7, 1986 5:50PM Volume 6, Issue 12.2 Today's Topics: See #12.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon 6 Jan 86 18:03:10-PST From: Jim McGrath Subject: Re: Another SDI Problem From: Paul Dietz If putting thousands of tons of defensive hardware into orbit is practical, what is to keep to opposing side from placing thousands of tons of OFFENSIVE hardware in orbit? Nothing. You have a good point that needs further examination. It could be that nuclear weapons in space are too vulnerable to space based lasers, for example. Quite possible. For instance, it would be much more dificult to deploy and maintain the status of decoys, since the defensive systems will now have a long time to differentiate decoys from actual targets. You could also put KE weapons in close orbit, so you would not need the speed of lasers. KE weapons are also better at destroying decoys and target, since they can be used in a "shotgun" mode. If this is the case then those lasers should also be vulnerable to other lasers, so a defense dominated world would be highly unstable. This brings up a point I have not seen discussed, namely the heat sink problem (which is the limiting problem for defense against lasers). Battlestations could produce a lot of heat that cannot easily be carried away by convection (you would have to dump valuable mass overboard) or radiating (the fins would be very large, increasing vulnerability to attack). Jim ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Jan 86 18:01 pst From: "del tufo joseph%e.mfenet"@LLL-MFE.ARPA Subject: "deltufo%d"@lll-mfe.arpa requesting any information ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Jan 86 21:43 EST From: Andreas.Nowatzyk@A.CS.CMU.EDU Subject: Re: Re: KAL007 Re: KAL007 > > 4) "The steady course of KAL007 required several inflight checks..." > But as Sayle notes, KAL007 flew a steady magnetic heading of 246 > throughout its flight. An airline on autopilot requires no such > checks. The filed flight plan would have required the crew to have > reset the inertial guidance system waypoints twice during the > flight, true; but if the autopilot was on a magnetic heading the > crew would never have been alerted to reset waypoints- until they > either noted that they seemed to have been on course for too long, > or were alerted by some other means. > According to a study by the German equivalent of the FAA which was cited in an article of "Der Spiegel", KAL246 did not fly a steady magnetic heading of 246. They used a 747 simulator and tried several versions of possible pilot errors, such as a) forgetting to switch to inertial navigation b) Typos while programming the INS (transposing 2 digits of the coordinates of one waypoint comes close) c) skipping a waypoint The conclusion was that no *single* operator error provides an explanation of the actual course (a combination of 2 or more operator errors might explain it, but such a simulation has too many variables to be convincing). It was also noted that the pilots must have violated normal flight procedures: By the time the plane passed the last VOR in Alaska, the deviation from the normal course was already significant. The normal procedure required a check against the VOR which would have uncovered the problem. It was noted that the spy-community uses events like this to study the electronic signatures of the opponent's radars etc. and their intercept procedures. The bottom line of the Spiegel article is that both official stories (the one of the US and of the SU) have giant holes. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Jan 86 21:55:12 EST From: Herb Lin Subject: Putting a Man into the Loop From: Jim McGrath After an attack is acknowledged, you concede the possibility of overkilling by the computer (taking out third party satellites and the like) in return for the more immediate response to attack provided by the computer. So your solution is that you kill everything, and don't do discrimination? No. I meant exactly what I said. You concede that you might make a mistake in firing (which was your original objection). Do you have your sources right? I don't think I said this... You do not aim for making a mistake. I explicitly said in the same message that one of the jobs of human operators is to assist in real time parameter adjustment so that the computer controlled weapons would be able to discriminate better. Why do you think the decoy discrimination problem is simply a matter of parameter adjustment? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Jan 86 22:02:07 EST From: Herb Lin Subject: The Goal of SDI From: Jim McGrath From: Herb Lin We all, including the public, would like as high an X as possible, they would agree that losing a city or two and some missile bases/airfields would be a lot better than losing everything. But that is not the goal of the SDI. Which does not mean it should not be supported for that reason. Most government programs have consequences (sometimes good, sometimes bad) never conceived of in their initial purpose. That does not mean you ignore them when evaluating the program. My major problem is that I cannot make a case for SDI in the form of population defense *at all*, nor have I seen one made by you or anyone else. You are proceeding on the assumption that there is not a down side to SDI, and that's simply wrong. My technical argument against SDI essentially boils down to uncertainties about actual performance. These uncertainties have significant military and strategic implications, and they are mostly negative. Do you want to score points against Reagan and Company? Or do you want to discuss strategic defense, and SDI as it is developing? My objection to RR and SDI is NOT the research into SDI, but rather the shift of policy that seems to be accompanying SDI. It's as though the President announced a program of research to make people immortal, and proceeded to formulate policy on the basis of the expectation that the goal would indeed be reached. I don't really object to research into immortality, but to begin to abandon Social Security and retirement policies on the basis of expecting that people will soon become immortal, that's another question. ------------------------------ End of Arms-Discussion Digest *****************************