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!utcs!mnetor!lsuc!pesnta!hplabs!ucbvax!arms-d From: Arms-D-Request@MIT-XX.ARPA (Moderator) Newsgroups: mod.politics.arms-d Subject: Arms-Discussion Digest V6 #26 Message-ID: <8601210138.AA01358@ucbvax.berkeley.edu> Date: Sun, 19-Jan-86 14:41:00 EST Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8601210138.AA01358 Posted: Sun Jan 19 14:41:00 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 22-Jan-86 00:26:19 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: ARMS-D@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 417 Approved: arms-d@mit-mc.arpa Arms-Discussion Digest Sunday, January 19, 1986 2:41PM Volume 6, Issue 26 Today's Topics: SM reply to Spencer's posting Re: Space Invaders/Offensive Star Wars lasers Re: Paranoia re: missile flight test ban Orbiting lasers > ground targets Citizen's summit again Russians and WWII Citizen's Summit Response BM Testing Ban Soviet 'NO NUKES' Re: Offensive Lasers Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V6 #22 Unreleased SDIO Computing Panel Report SDI and Research funding Aircraft Carriers Offensive Star Wars lasers BM Testing Ban BM Testing Ban ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 15 Jan 86 16:48:28 PST From: sun!oscar!wild@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Will Doherty) Subject: SM It is probably not appropriate to get into a discussion of SM on this digest, but if you find it necessary to use the term, please include a definition of what you mean by it. The term has a variety of meanings depending on who's using it, so I think we have to provide definitions if we want to talk further about it. Will Doherty (sun!oscar!wild) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jan 86 20:39:31 cst From: Janos Simon Subject: reply to Spencer's posting A small correction to the perceived attitudes and morality of foreign countries speaking out against war. Argentina: The Beagle channel dispute was subjected to arbitration. The veredict was accepted by Argentina, after a popular referendum. In fact the referendum was considered as a very shrewd political move by President Alfonsin, as it passed with overwhelming majority, which he could present as a vote of confidence in his government. India: Prime Minister Gandhi met recently with the Pakistani president. They both pledged to solve their differences by paceful means. In addition, India has shown remarkable restraint over racial incidents in Sri Lanka, forcing the Tamil insurgents to negotiate with the government, and refusing to allow them to operate from India. I am not defending the morality of these countries, but it does not hurt to set the record straight. As for the analogy of street gangs asking police protection against the mob: the analogy could be made more accurate if you assume the gangs involved in fistfights, while the mob carries machine guns and mortars. In the Falkland/Malvinas war no outsiders were hurt: this is unlikely to happen in an USSR-US conflict. Only the US and the USSR can destroy the whole world: the other countries are mere amateurs, so to speak. ------------------------------ Date: Wed 15 Jan 1986 17:17:20 EST From: Paul Dietz Subject: Re: Space Invaders/Offensive Star Wars lasers I recall sending some notes to arms-d on the ground-attack capabilities of lasers some time ago. The only problem I see is the degradation of the beam(s) by the lower atmosphere. This can be avoided by attacking during quiet times (night, say) and by using multiple convergent beams against a single target. This limits power densities until quite near the target, avoiding thermal blooming. The reference to nuclear winter is silly, however. Fire starting with a nuclear weapon is an all-or-nothing thing; you can't target specific buildings (say). The most likely use for an orbital laser ground attack system would be pin-point strikes against enemy government, military centers and terrorist bases. I could see the government building such a weapon even if it is entirely useless against ICBMs. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Paranoia Date: 15 Jan 86 14:31:40 PST (Wed) From: foy@aero If RR and MG are paranoid in the clinical sense then their communicating without the aid of a specialist in medical illness would probably do no good. Even with specialised assisstance it probably would do no good. I don't believe that either of them fit that definition. Rather I assume that their actions are based on a deep suspicion of their intent based on the past history of their countries and their relationship. In this case personal communications will allow them to build up a mutual understanding what each other. We are more able to form workable agreements with someone we know than someone we don't. We are also more able to seperate truth from falsehood be personal conversation, even with translators, than we are by what we read and hear second hand. It is not an easy process to develope an understanding when their have been years of finger pointing, but it can be done. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jan 86 10:31:14 PST From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: re: missile flight test ban I see two potential problems with a missile flight test ban: 1. When the boosters get old and unreliable, a "use it or lose it" choice may have to be made. This is similar to a problem in SDI deployment. If full replacement of parts is allowed (including a whole booster?), then this seems like a hold on the status quo - no improvement at all. 2. Since many ICBM boosters double as satellite boosters, how is flight testing of new space hardware limited by this ban? Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jan 86 10:35:27 CST From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI Subject: Orbiting lasers > ground targets > The most likely use for an orbital laser > ground attack system would be pin-point strikes against enemy government, > military centers and terrorist bases. I could see the government > building such a weapon even if it is entirely useless against ICBMs. > >I agree such is possible; that is my fear. To me, the capability of "pin-point strikes against enemy government, military centers and terrorist bases" sounds like a good thing to have! What could be better than being able to attack enemy targets precisely, without having to do things like destroy the civilian population of a city surrounding them, which we have done in previous wars? Of course, if your viewpoint is from the perspective that all weapons are evil and any war is wrong and should never be enaged in, then of course such a capability is "a bad thing". As a practical matter, though, I would think that the smoke obscuration caused by the initial laser attack would diffuse and/or absorb the beam so that continuing this long enough to destroy fortified targets, or hitting closely-spaced targets in succession, would not be successful. It could be used to attack widely-spaced targets, or start forest or grass fires over wide areas, I suppose. But postulate having such a weapon in existence in the current (or recent, depending when you read this) Libyan situation. If we could exterminate the Libyan leadership and much of its military equipment and resources by zapping just the reviewing stand and the military parade, without having to kill off vast numbers of the civilians living around that site, wouldn't that be a useful option? Of course, if our having such a capability were known, I suppose the leadership would stay underground, and there wouldn't be any military parades, and most military equipment would be in bunkers or at least under camouflage, so there would always be countermeasures. In the long run, it might not be cost-effective. [Is any weapon system *ever* cost-effective?] Will ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jan 86 18:05:56 PST From: walton%Deimos@Hamlet.Caltech.Edu Subject: Citizen's summit again >From: foy@aero On the subject of the Citizens' Summit: > >>From: walton%Deimos@Hamlet.Caltech.Edu > > >The posting included a lot of comments from the LA Times which painted >the Soviets black and us white. My comments are from my own observation >of the NBC broadcast. Please point to one of the many comments which painted the Soviets black and us white. >I don't recall a lot of American's discussing the "bag ladies" that any >one can see on the streets of many large US cities, nor the thousands of >homeless, nor acid rain, smog, toxic wastes, nor Kent State, nor the >1968 Democratic Convention. None of the mentioned issues affect US-Soviet relations. Moreover, you fail to mention an instance of a Soviet citizen expressing a SINGLE disagreement with policies of the Soviet government. I think you'll find there weren't any, while several Americans criticized American government policies. >Steve, I observed that Donahue fielded many of the more difficult questions >that the Soviets raised. Does "difficult" in this context mean "requiring special expertise" or just "politically sensitive?" Pozner clearly used the latter meaning. >The point of my posting is that it is much easier to see someone else's faults >than it is our own. Our media, even including the liberal LA Times tends to >see only our side in a direct exchange between our country and any other >country. Ignoring our oun problems, seeing the world in terms of black and >white does no one any good. I agree entirely. The main point is that the Soviets see only American faults. Americans consistently show ourselves willing to criticize ourselves, even in front of Soviet citizens. The fact that there wasn't a tremendous amount of self-criticism by Americans on this program mainly reflects the fact that one doesn't discuss one's family's shortcomings in front of others. There is certainly a tremendous amount of criticism of the US goverment by US citizens in the US domestic news media. Steve Walton walton%deimos@hamlet.caltech.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1986 00:54 EST From: Rob Austein Subject: Russians and WWII (Forgive me if I somebody else has already brought this up, am still slogging my way through about 50 back issues of ARMS-D...). Date: Saturday, 4 January 1986 23:18-EST From: Jim McGrath Re: Russians and WWII Actually, the Russians DID enter WWII before she was attacked, if you count carving up Poland, invading Finland, and entering into a neutrality pact with Germany. She just was not on our side until Germany attacked in 1941. Russia was initially prompted by sheer territorial greed, and Stalin was simply double crossed by Hitler. There is an argument (no real evidence either way unless somebody read Stalin's mind) that this was not entirely greed. Germany had just gone from being a bankrupt and defeated country to being one of the top military powers in the world, in very short time. So Stalin wanted a buffer zone, to wit, as much of Poland as he could get ahold of. (Finland had also been used as a staging ground for invading Russia just after WWI, which may or may not be relevant.) So I am not quite so sure that this was "sheer territorial greed". Strikes me as somewhat similar to the current situation with regard to the Warsaw Pact countries; if you find that a fight is inevitable you want to do it on somebody else's real estate, yes? (It's not that I am a fan of Joe Stalin, but it bothers me to see people throwing rocks for the wrong reasons...). --Rob ------------------------------ Subject: Citizen's Summit Response Date: 16 Jan 86 08:54:38 PST (Thu) From: foy@aero >From: walton%Deimos@Hamlet.Caltech.Edu [Walton] The following excerpts from Howard Rosenberg's review of "A Citizens' Summit" are reprinted without permission from the Jan. 1 issue of the Los Angeles Times: The posting included a lot of comments from the LA Times which painted the Soviets black and us white. My comments are from my own observation of the NBC broadcast. [LAT] "The Soviets hit American faults and the Americans hit Soviet faults. Unlike the Soviet audience, significantly, the Americans acknowledge their nation's imperfections. I don't recall a lot of American's discussing the "bag ladies" that any one can see on the streets of many large US cities, nor the thousands of homeless, nor acid rain, smog, toxic wastes, nor Kent State, nor the 1968 Democratic Convention. [LAT] down of a Korean jetliner, it is Pozner the Kremlin spokesman who fields the question, not a member of his audience. Steve, I observed that Donahue fielded many of the more difficult questions that the Soviets raised. The point of my posting is that it is much easier to see someone else's faults than it is our own. Our media, even including the liberal LA Times tends to see only our side in a direct exchange between our country and any other country. Ignoring our oun problems, seeing the world in terms of black and white does no one any good. Richard Foy, Redondo Beach, CA The opinions I have expressed are the result of many years in the school of hard knocks. Thus they are my own. ------------------------------ Date: Fri 17 Jan 86 02:47:35-EST From: "Jim McGrath" Subject: BM Testing Ban Reply-to: mcgrath%mit-oz@mit-mc.arpa From: Herb Lin (v 6, i 19) Another method to achieve the same goal would be a comprehensive ban on the flight testing of all ballistic missiles. I've often dreamed of this (as you perhaps could tell from previous contributions, I like the neatness of a game theoritic approach to a problem, and thus like increasing uncertainty as a way to decrease expected payoff). The problems are twofold. First, technological breakout is very easy. What do you do if the other sides tests, and "overnight" increases dramatically its confidence levels (especially if they hide this new information from you, via encoding, so your confidence levels are unchanged. Second, I don't see how you could properly distinguish between military and civilian testing. This is especially a problem for us, since the Soviet civilian and military space programs are more closer integrated, often using only slightly modified hardware (although note that the Soviets have claimed that the spcce shuttle is a military vehicle). Logically, one would have to shut down all space actiities. Given that the test ban would not end the threat of destruction (we still would be left with commercial jets and suitcases, if nothing else), and given that I feel that expension into space offers one of the few long term solutions to destructive superpower competition on earth, this would be a bad trade off. Jim ------------------------------ Subject: Soviet 'NO NUKES' Date: 17 Jan 86 12:23:22 EST (Fri) From: wesm@mitre-bedford.ARPA A brief question to throw out there. Maybe I'm stating the obvious but, if the Soviet Union has just proposed to eliminate all nuclear weapons by the year 2000, why are they insistant that SDI be scrapped as part of the deal? It seems to me that SDI would be a 'useless' system if there were no incoming missles to stop and therefore of no concern...if they are being sincere. I would think that they would want some tactical weapons systems eliminated since they would become more important. wesm@mitre-bedford ------------------------------ Date: Fri 17 Jan 86 19:34:24-EST From: Richard A. Cowan Subject: Re: Offensive Lasers From: Michael_Joseph_Edelman%Wayne-MTS%UMich-MTS.Mailnet@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA From: Dave Caulkins: ... 'in a matter of hours, a laser defense system powerful enough to cope with the ballistic missile threat can also destroy the enemy's major cities by fire. ... the attack time for each city beung only a matter of minutes. ...' ... 'Such mass fires might be expected to generate smoke in amounts comparable to the amounts generated in some major nuclear exchange scenarios.' ... That could cause 'a climatic disaster similar to nuclear winter,' ... Seems like another attempted end-run by the anti-SDI group. ^^^ Michael, I agree with you that this report sounds a bit far-fetched. But it's from a defense think-tank, not an anti-SDI group, or "the" anti-SDI group (What do you mean by that, anyway?). It's far-fetched because the short duration of laser pulses likely to be sustainable would have difficulty igniting a major conflagration. But it makes sense -- doesn't it? -- that a contractor for SDI would casually proposed far-fetched ideas. That's what SDI contractors are for! I'm suspicious of this particular argument. It sounds more like bait for unsuspecting SDI opponents than a serious attempt to discredit SDI. Better arguments concern the ability to destroy human targets on the ground or battle satellites in space. -rich ------------------------------ End of Arms-Discussion Digest *****************************