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 #10.1 Message-ID: <8601060230.AA03680@ucbvax.berkeley.edu> Date: Sun, 5-Jan-86 18:43:00 EST Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8601060230.AA03680 Posted: Sun Jan 5 18:43:00 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 5-Jan-86 22:55:39 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: ARMS-D%MIT-MC.ARPA@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 196 Approved: arms-d@mit-mc.arpa Arms-Discussion Digest Sunday, January 5, 1986 6:43PM Volume 6, Issue 10.1 Today's Topics: Beyond War Awards Soviet forces in Europe Aversion to Nuclear War Re: Putting a Man into the Loop The Goal of SDI Politicians railroads Boof Review [sic] Man in SDI Loop [GA.CJJ: Limited Nuclear War] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat 4 Jan 86 20:37:51-PST From: Jim McGrath Subject: Beyond War Awards Reply-to: mcgrath%mit-oz@mit-mc.arpa From: foy@aero The Awards were not a farce for several reasons. Spencer did not seem to be able to include Sweden and Tanzania in his comments. On Sweden: it is known as one of the largest arms supplier outside of the US/USSR (the most obvious example being its fighters). They certainly seem to be betting a lot of their foreign trade on other people continuing to fight wars. Argentina has had a complete change of government since the Falklins/Malvenas incident. I doubt very seriously if the current government of Argentina will try to solve either the UK or the Chile territorial dispute by violent means. Though my knowledge of both disputes is not complete, it is sufficient to know that there is merit on both sides of both disputes. All governments suffer from some periods of peace. What about the next military government? Or what about the current government if negotiations failed? It would be better if there were not merit on both sides - that way I could foresee someone backing down. But sovereignty is almost impossible to compromise on by definition. I am not as knowledgeable about the dispute between Greece and Turkey. I also doubt that Greece is seriously considering going to war with Turkey over this dispute. Maybe, maybe not. But Greece is a member of NATO, hardly a country club. The current Gandhi is certainly not as skilled as the first one in the use of non-violent means in conflict resolution. This in no ways invalidates his comments about nuclear war. India would be more believable if it were not a nuclear power itself. The fact that I may not have settled all of my disputes with my wife, boss, fellow workers, or people on this net in no way invalidates my comments about nuclear war, nor does Spencer's personal disputes if he has any give credence to his comments on nuclear issues. Disputes between nuclear powers are qualtively different from disputes between non nuclear powers... Here you lose me. I thought your contention was that war was obsolete, not just nuclear war. I could maybe buy the bit about nuclear war, at least between the superpowers, but there is simply too much evidence against the more general proposition - but that's for another message. Jim ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Jan 86 02:52:29 EST From: Herb Lin Subject: Soviet forces in Europe From: Gary Chapman tanks are tanks. In some ways, yes, and in others no. Given a Swedish AT-4 anti-tank rocket, I'd rather face a T-62 (of which there are many) than a T-80 (of which there are few). It is a fundamental assumption of military planning today, within the military and even among DoD critics, that NATO forces are ridiculously outgunned and outnumbered in Europe. My complaint is precisely that; it is an *assumption* that NATO forces would inevitably lose a war quickly in Europe. The analysis that people have done in International Security *does* take into accouunt things like the effects of C3 and logistics, and while the result isn't as secure as I would like, it paints a different picture than the standard one (on which I concur there is near consensus). As I understand it, the Army didn't do similar studies until after the IS articles came out. This is why we have moved to the dangerous doctrine of deep strike, "follow-on-forces-attack," and an increased offensive capability. I concur that these are destabilizing. Given my position that the conventional military situation in Europe isn't as bleak as people usually claim, the recommendations that follow can safely get rid of deep strike etc. Given the position that the conventional situation is as bleak as is believed, then there really aren't many alternatives to deep strike. ------------------------------ Date: Sat 4 Jan 86 21:26:08-PST From: Jim McGrath Subject: Aversion to Nuclear War Reply-to: mcgrath%mit-oz@mit-mc.arpa 4-Jan-86 21:06:30-PST,1058;000000000000 From: Nicholas.Spies@H.CS.CMU.EDU Jim MacGrath says "Then you must be strongly in favor of increasing conventional arms ... and SDI." No, I am in favor of more efforts to encourage both US and Soviet citizens and their governments to emphasize their common interests rather than carping on our all-too-obvious differences.... There are too many differences for the US and USSR to simply lie down with one another. Such activities may help ease tension, but it will not eliminate it. Thus you must also support other means to reduce the risk of nuclear war. Otherwise you are setting a goal that you deem to be above all others (averting nuclear war) but refusing to utilize all of the means available. SDI's dubious protection will introduce more uncertainties than it is supposed to reduce.... Great. Uncertainties reduce the incentive to launch a first strike. That is exactly what we want. It is only when one side KNOWS that it is better to strike first that it rationally will do so. Jim ------------------------------ Date: Sat 4 Jan 86 21:47:31-PST From: Jim McGrath Subject: Re: Putting a Man into the Loop Reply-to: mcgrath%mit-oz@mit-mc.arpa From: Herb Lin ... "go/no-go" You mean fire/don't fire? I mean weapon activation. Firing decisions for specific targets will be made by computer, but the weapons themselves will be inert until activated. 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). 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. As I said earlier, boost phase poses a particular problem. The only thing I can see to do now is to trust in AI to give you a good initial screen, and to argument this with a human authorized to override the problem in a few seconds. This could work well for limited periods of time (such as alerts), but I have problems with it for extended periods. Jim ------------------------------ End of Arms-Discussion Digest *****************************