Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!ucbvax!XX.LCS.MIT.EDU!ARMS-D-Request From: ARMS-D-Request@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU.UUCP Newsgroups: mod.politics.arms-d Subject: Arms-Discussion Digest V6 #113 Message-ID: <8606221651.AA02267@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Date: Sun, 22-Jun-86 11:35:00 EDT Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8606221651.AA02267 Posted: Sun Jun 22 11:35:00 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 22-Jun-86 23:59:33 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: ARMS-D@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 114 Approved: arms-d@xx.lcs.mit.edu Arms-Discussion Digest Sunday, June 22, 1986 11:35AM Volume 6, Issue 113 Today's Topics: Space Shuttle Militarism CIA truth = DoD false Informing the Senate about SDI ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1986 13:19 EDT From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU Subject: Space Shuttle Militarism From: decwrl!decvax!utzoo!henry at ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU > ... Establishing > space colonies or homesteading on some heretofore unknown hospitable > planet, would require giant leaps in scientific understanding... Nonsense. Most of what is required is straightforward engineering development. That, plus.. money. By far the most serious problem, which is NOT a straightforward engineering problem, is how to maintain a closed sefl-sustaining environment over many years. That is NOT well-understood by ANYONE. ------------------------------ Date: Friday, 20 June 1986 20:35-EDT From: michael%ucbiris at BERKELEY.EDU (Tom Slone [(415)486-5954]) To: arms-d Re: CIA truth = DoD false A program to actively create disinformation regarding military equipment was made more than 2 years ago. The program is to be primarily coordinated by the CIA. "The disinformation effort covers 15-20 programs, 6 or 7 of which are DoD projects. Programs likely to be covered by the DoD's disinformation policy include the Air Force's special mission aircraft flying in Nevada, the Air Force's Advanced Technology Bomber (ATB), the Navy's Advanced Tactical Aircraft (ATA) and SDI, one government official said. The official went on to say, "If some of the results of the disinformation activity on a particular program get passed to Congress through hearings or other means, there are channels on the Hill that can be used to get the correct information to the people who need to know. Program budget amounts sent to Congress are correct." [from Aviation Week & Space Technology, March 17, 1986] The ultimate honesty of the CIA/DoD is suspect. In recent times, they have made no effort to keep Congress informed of crucial CIA and DoD activity in Central America which has lead to dangerous and unauthorized violations of international law and national boarders. It is in fact in their best interests to disinform Congress, so as to inflate their budgets. Furthermore, it is the CIA/DoD's intent, direct or not, to disinform the American public. This is a very dangerous intent, especially when it concerns major military systems, such as SDI. ------------------------------ Date: Wednesday, 18 June 1986 15:21-EDT From: horning at src.DEC.COM (Jim Horning) To: ARMS-D Re: Informing the Senate about SDI [ from RISKS@SRI-CSL.ARPA -- Moderator ] The information in this message is political, not technical. However, it concerns the process of supplying technical information to those who must make political judgements, so I believe that it is germane to Risks. [and ARMS-D] Recent news accounts have indicated that the outcome in the Senate of requests for increased SDI funding is very unclear. Senators are having to take positions on a matter they don't fully understand, and many of them would like to be better informed. I was contacted by an aide to Senator Proxmire for information about how David Parnas's criticisms of SDI software are viewed in the professional community. General Abramson and the SDIO have had some success in spreading the message that David Parnas is an isolated crank who is not taken seriously by those who actually build software. I was able to express my own opinion and concerns, but cannot speak credibly for the entire professional community. Pound-for-pound, Risks probably contains more people qualified to make an informed judgement on this issue than any other group I know how to reach. Whatever your views, I would urge you to take the time to write a letter expressing them to Mr. Douglas Waller Office of Senator William Proxmire United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Based on my experience, you can expect your letter to receive personal attention, and to carry weight according to your credentials and the cogency of your arguments. (This is in sharp contrast to my experience writing to my own senators and congressman.) In addition to stating your own views clearly, it would probably help to indicate how they relate to Parnas's criticisms and (if you have read it) to the Eastport Report. In my own letter, I also devoted a paragraph to sketching my credentials; I don't much care for such self-advertisement, but thought I should give a starting point for any checking they cared to do, and the reasons why I felt qualified to comment on reliability and on aerospace software. Jim H. ------------------------------ End of Arms-Discussion Digest *****************************