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!ucbvax!arms-d From: ARMS-D-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA (Moderator) Newsgroups: mod.politics.arms-d Subject: Arms-Discussion Digest V6 #8.3 Message-ID: <8601052049.AA00472@ucbvax.berkeley.edu> Date: Sat, 4-Jan-86 23:08:00 EST Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8601052049.AA00472 Posted: Sat Jan 4 23:08:00 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 5-Jan-86 20:14:39 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: ARMS-D%MIT-MC.ARPA@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 149 Approved: arms-d@mit-mc.arpa Arms-Discussion Digest Saturday, January 4, 1986 11:08PM Volume 6, Issue 8.3 Today's Topics: see #8.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 4 Jan 86 22:36:54 EST From: prandt!mikes at AMES-NAS.ARPA (Peter O. Mikes)@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU Re: Conflict Resolution From: Herb Lin Violence and war is the means of last resort to impose your will. The point is you have leaders/nations unwilling to take "no" for an answer; as long as you have that, you will have war and armed forces. Comment by Peter Mikes: mikes@ames-nas or Informatics corp:(415)964-9900 It is not a LAST resort. The THREAT of war is the only currently working method for allocation of the global resources. Surely leaders/nations must be able to say 'no' sometimes. I said that leaders can't TAKE no; surely they can give it. If Country A wants something from Country B, and Country B says no (after all other measures have failed), Country A can either go to war to take it from B, or accept the no. You cannot split hairs about who is GIVING the 'no' and who is NOT TAKING it, without including the nature of the deal in the package. War results as an 'unfortunate last resort consequence' when both parties choose to say 'no' to a compromise -- More exactly: Nation A proposes a distribution of a scarce resource (a deal) and nation B can either accept it or propose another ("more fair") deal. There can be several iterations - which may be of psychological interest - but end-result can be modeled by a game: After the allocation of the resource is proposed and nature of the deal clarified, each country declares a probability that it will 'insist' on it's proposal. When both nations insist, i.e. when both said 'no' to the proposal of the other party, then they must resort to war - to save their face, maintain their credibility and to keep their dominos up. There is kind of 'reaction time' in starting and ending war. Historically, during the war nations used to change their perception and sometime leadership and so the game continued after the war - same game with new content.. Do we agree that this is a reasonable representation of the typical and current state of affairs? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Jan 86 22:38:48 EST From: Herb Lin Subject: conflict resolution I accept your correction. When both say no, then war is a last resort, but not because they need to save face; war happens when the have-not insists on having. ------------------------------ Date: Sat 4 Jan 86 19:24:35-PST From: Jim McGrath Subject: Re: Putting a Man in the Loop Reply-to: mcgrath%mit-oz@mit-mc.arpa From: Herb Lin From: Jim McGrath The model to think of is a sophisticated computer game. The human operator(s) would take care of truly strange cases (rising moons, flocks of interplanetary geese).. But the major problem is not the things that the computer isn't sure about, but rather the things that it is sure about that are not true. How would the human ever know to intervene? I thought a bit about that, and have a suitable elaboration. Basically, you require a "two key" system, with the computer holding one key and a human operator/monitor another. This is primarily for the "go/no go" decision. 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. This takes care of the computer going off half cocked. If you are worried about the computer missing an actual attack, you can now set the sensitivity low, trusting to the human monitor to not activate when appropriate. Actually, this is too simple. What you really want is to have the hardware/software under a set of human operators, perhaps partitioned to provide zone coverage. The humans act as before, mainly as checkpoints for activation decisions, overseeing strategy, sending expert information to the computers as the situation unfolds so that the software does not have to be a tactical genius. Now a set of human supervisors sit on top of the operators. They have another "key," and so can break ties on activation decisions (or even override lower level decisions). Their other missions are to advise operators on developing strategy, keep the command authorities informed, and to act as "free safety." That is, they will have the authority to override operator commands so that targets that find seams in the zones (or similarly defy the operator/computer teams) will be targetted for attack. Normally they will access information at a much higher level than an operator (the former will have to deal with thousands of targets - the latter tens of low hundreds). Other concepts can be advanced: advance/retard the ease of a go/no go decision according to alert status and the like. The main point is that a man in the loop is a big win, since you get a proprogrammed general purpose computer which can take care of those "higher level" decisions. Response time is not a concern - seconds are not vital if you have 20 minutes. Only for boost phase interception do you run into difficulties. Jim ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Jan 86 22:45:25 EST From: Herb Lin Subject: Testing SDI From: Jim McGrath remember that the major cost of the target simulation is in the boost phase. Once the targets are in sub-orbit, it makes no difference whether they were fired independently by hundreds of expensive boosters or were accelerated from orbital velocity, after having been place there originally through more economical means. Terminal phase tests are especially easy to do this way. Only boost phase is intrinsically expensive. I agree with your technical point. But successful boost phase is what SDI is all about. The technology for dealing with mid-course and terminal is ALREADY here. You need boost phase so that you can thin out the midcourse and terminal. ------------------------------ End of Arms-Discussion Digest *****************************