🚀 go-pugleaf

From: Moderator <ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA>

Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 3 : Issue 26
Today's Topics:

	Arms-D solution already ?? 
	
	Homing Interceptors
	Strategic Interests
	Space Bullets
	Peace With Honor
	Winning = imposing your will
	Re: Strategic Attacks
	SDI and welfare (2 msgs)
	
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26-Apr-85  0:33:08
From: JLarson.pa@Xerox
Subject: Arms-D solution already ??
To: ARMS-D@MIT-MC

Just after sending that last digest, we received an offer that may well
be the ideal solution to all this!
 
Former Arms-D moderator, Harold G. Ancell <HGA@MIT-MC.ARPA>, has offered 
to take over as moderator again and set up a regional redistribution 
scheme which should allow Arms-D to stay on MC.

Keep your fingers crossed. It may take a bit of time to set all this up
so please bear with us.  More soon ..

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 22 Apr 85 11:01:09 pst
From: alice!wolit@UCB-VAX.ARPA
Subject: Re: Homing Interceptors
Apparently-To: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA

Dane Eder writes:

> Place 'pods' in orbit some humdreds of
> kilometers high.  Each pod covers a 1000 km radius sphere.  Space
> the pods 1500 km apart, allowing for some overlap of coverage.
> Then 27 pods in the same orbit will go all the way around the
> earth.  If you use polar type orbits, 27 orbits side by side will
> cover the entire earth, with lots of overlap over the poles.
> Now, if each pod carries 100 interceptors, we have 72900 interceptors,
> with a total weight of 7.29 million kg.  Allow overhead for the
> pods and we get perhaps 10 million kg.  This is perhaps 200 launches
> of a Shuttle-derived cargo launcher.  Not trivial, but in the
> 10-20 billion$ range.

Wrong.  27 pods will provide complete coverage of ONE orbital path.
If in a polar orbit, this would assure that there was always one pod
covering the North Pole, for instance, at all times.  So what?
One pod can shoot down 100 warheads (or 100 dummies).  Let's generously
assume that EVERY Soviet ICBM passes within 1000 km of the Pole.  Unless 
the Soviets are obliging enough to stagger their launches so as to give 
EACH pod a shot at a small number of targets (and, incidentally, to give 
the US time to get its ICBMs out of their silos), all you've got is 100 
fewer warhead+dummies out of 10,000+ warheads.  Not much of a bargain for
"$10 - $20 billion"!  Especially when you realize that these pods are
in low orbits, which will decay, so you'll have to spend "$10 - $20
billion" every few months to replace them!  Now, you could always put
them into geosynchronous orbit, but then you'd always be out of
range.  At least that would prevent all the inevitable accidents from
causing much trouble...

Jan Wolitzky, AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ; 201 582-2998; alice!wolit
(Affiliation given for identification purposes only)


------------------------------

Date: 23 Apr 85 10:02:15 EST (Tuesday)
From: Jeff Miller AMSTE-TOI 4675 <jmiller@apg-1.ARPA>
Subject: Strategic Interests
To: arms-d@mit-mc.ARPA
Cc: jmiller@apg-1.ARPA

     Here's a thought that should engender some serious 
defense comment and, inevitably, emotion.
     The US depends heavily on certain strategic 
materials. Among these are uranium, chromium, titanium, 
magnesium and cobalt. The USSR has reserves of most of 
these. In case of war with the USSR, it would be a 
grave strategic vulnerability if our supplies of these 
minerals were not in friendly hands. Currently the 
chief supplier of these and other materials is South 
Africa.
     What should the US policy toward South Africa be?
     How valid is the contention that the US should 
only associate with regimes that pass a moral litmus 
test?
     The chance that any majority government in South 
Africa might be pro-Western is practically non-
existent. Are we willing to abandon the most critical 
sealane chokepoint in the oil pipeline to the West?  
Remember, that majority government will probably act in 
conjunction with current front-line states that are 
already affording the Soviets port and air facilities.
     Remember when everyone said that a majority 
government in Zimbabwe wouldn't drastically change 
anything? Has anybody out there been to Zimbabwe 
recently?
     Zimbabwe, of course, poses no threat to US 
interests. Can the same be said for an anti-West South 
Africa, with its regional military power intact, its 
strategic minerals under Soviet influence and its dominant 
position astride the supertanker lanes available only 
to  Soviet military presence?
     Hans J. Morgenthau said that national leaders 
whose pursuit of moral imperatives cause them to 
sacrifice their peoples' true interests are the most 
immoral of all men.

                                   J. Miller                

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 23 Apr 85 12:12 MST
From: Jong@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject:  Space Bullets
To: arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA

  The idea of "space Bullets" seems very attractive, for several
reasons.  First is its reasonableness (compared with space-based lasers,
say).  Second, high-velocity, low-mass projectiles seem difficult to
convert into offensive weapons; a swarm of bullets loosed suddenly upon
Moscow would probably vaporize in the atmosphere.
  In light of its attractiveness (at least to a layman such as myself),
I wonder why we haven't heard more talk of it.  Could it be that the
technology isn't "sexy" enough?  If you were a Pentagon planner, and you
had a chance to lobby for an entirely new concept in armaments, or a
stodgy but effective alternative, which would you push for?


------------------------------

Date: 23 Apr 85 14:18:55 EST (Tuesday)
From: Jeff Miller AMSTE-TOI 4675 <jmiller@apg-1.ARPA>
Subject: Peace With Honor
To: arms-d@mit-mc.ARPA
Cc: rbloom@apg-1.ARPA, jmiller@apg-1.ARPA

     Here is my proposal for avoiding the expense and inherent dangers of an 
escalating strategic arms race. We're already moving this way so we might as 
well save ourselves a lot of money.
     I propose that our national leaders meet with the Soviet leaders and 
request that they supply an exhaustive list of geopolitical and strategic 
aims, and accede on every point. Our leaders might explain that we've decided 
Lenin was right all along, that the West would succumb because its freedoms 
included the freedoms of naivete and irresolve. 
     Gorbachev, of course, wouldn't be surprised by the offer, only the ease 
with which he'd won. He will have been totally aware of the intense efforts to 
undermine US resolve through disinformation and Active Measures - he'd 
probably feel sorry for old Yuri Andropov, who was the father of the 
successful campaign.  At least Yuri had lived to see his initial victory, one 
might say the first victory of the next nuclear war. By use of the incredible 
opportunities afforded KGB operatives and agents of influence in the US, the 
Soviets prevented the deployment of the Enhanced Radiation Warhead - and 
realized that they possessed the ability to influence Western public opinion 
and bring about destructive results.
     Despite the fact that the ERW, artillery fired with accuracy, has a 
blast-destruction radius of only around 150 yards, and its released neutron 
radiation, which can penetrate armor and is quite deadly out to a 1 mile 
radius, dissipates quickly, the public was led to believe this was the 
dirtiest weapon in history. The fact that the tactical nuclear devices in 
Europe are more destructive, both in terms of physical destruction and 
tactical practicality, was never mentioned. The smallest of these will wipe 
out a 3-5 mile radius and spread radiation over an even wider area, and the 
lingering effects of the radiation denies the use of the terrain. The ERW 
would have enabled NATO to bring grievious casualties to the WP without 
destroying most of Western Europe in doing so.
     That, of course, is the point. The Soviets bank on the European Allies 
deciding to block further US deployments of nuclear munitions of the type 
which mean large-scale physical destruction. They use their excellent methods 
of Active Measures to influence political parties, peace organizations, 
parliamentarians and the press to oppose deployments. The danger posed by the 
ERW was simple; it nullified the logic being pushed by the KGB, because it 
offered a viable way to cancel the weight of Soviet numbers without large-
scale destruction. It had to be defeated.
     After a massive disinformation effort, it was. The Soviets have found our 
society an easy mark for purposes of propaganda and influence. Thousands of 
people were mobilized, demonstrated, conducted letter writing campaigns. Red 
agents, plotting the end of the West? No. Well-meaning, loyal, concerned 
Americans, whose politcization and organization was influenced and directed 
through front organizations like "The World Peace Council," a division of 
the International Department of the KGB. During the blitz, a congressional 
conference attended by US Representatives John Conyers, John Burton, Ronald 
Dellums, Ted Weiss Don Edwards and others, applauded the criticisms of the ERW 
made by a guest, Radomir Bogdanov of the Soviet Academy of Sciences. Colonel 
Radomir Gregorovich Bogdanov of the Twelfth Department, First Chief 
Directorate, KGB.
     The successes of that campaign have led to the nuclear freeze movement of 
today. Counterintelligence has determined a tremendous effort is being made by 
the KGB, using regular operatives, agents of influence, co-opted Soviet 
academicians and scientists and, indeed, many KGB officers posing as the 
smiling, sympathetic, concerned scientists, writers and physicians whose words 
of peace are seized upon by people too desperate to believe "they're regular 
guys just like us " to be suspicious.

     In a democracy, everyone has the right to use all media and forums to 
express one's opinions. It is a system with awesome potential to a group that 
has spent a half century perfecting the arts of propaganda and disinformation, 
which has unlimited resources and no compunction about committing them, which 
enjoys a freedom of movement that even their most experienced agents have 
trouble believing. The US public is free to choose. Such is the nature of 
democracy - I wouldn't have it any other way. Given the unwillingness of that 
public to believe that bad guys would be able to influence them - insults the 
intelligence, you know, I believe we will choose wrong. Not right away, all at 
once, but a long series of wrong choices.
     So - why prolong the inevitable? Why spend money on compromise weapons 
systems that get built after one side cripples the program to avoid 
antagonizing the peace-loving Soviets and the other side decides its too 
embarassing to just dump the program? I say peace is the way, and I know the 
public will agree allowing a little time for the PR blitz to get underway.

  
------------------------------

Date: 1985 Apr 23 21:03:02 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@IMSSS.SU.EDU.ARPA>
To: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Winning = imposing your will, want to discuss L. Koppett's column
Reply-to: REM@MIT-MC.ARPA

Did anybody besides me happen to read Leonard Koppett's column in the
newspaper today (Tuesday April 23)? It discussed the question of what
"winning" really means, how it often is just a metaphor rather than
the truth, how equating success with winning confuses our thinking, etc.
I'd like to discuss this particular column (entitled "The fatal
illusion we call 'victory'") with anybody else who has read it too.


------------------------------

Date: Wed, 24 Apr 85 12:53:11 pst
From: alice!wolit@UCB-VAX.ARPA
To: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Re: Strategic Attacks

> From: Laurinda Rohn <rohn@rand-unix>
> 
> Estimates of casualties range from down in the thousands for attacks 
> like #4 [Leadership attack] to a million or so for 
> #1 [Counterforce] to upwards of 10 million for #3 [Countervalue].  
> [#2 = Countermilitary, #5 = C3 attack.]
> The reason the media doesn't talk about things
> like #1 or #4 is that those attacks aren't nearly so gruesome or
> sensational as the country being blown to bits.

Gimme a break, Laurinda!  Casualties "down in the thousands" for an
attack that takes out "the White House, the Pentagon, and Congress"!!!
We're talking about several million people who live in D.C., unless
you envision an attack by a human wave of Iranian teenagers, or something...
Similarly, the estimates I've read of the results of a counterforce
attack run from more like several tens of millions just from fallout alone
up to the whole shebang if you believe -- as does the Pentagon -- in
nuclear winter.  As for 10 million dead in a countervalue [nice euphemism
for city-busting] attack, you could easily generate that with, say, 5
bombs each on NY and Chicago, which is more like what RAND strategists
consider to be "communication of intentions" rather than serious
war-making.  Besides, it is already widely acknowledged that AUTHORITY
exists well below the level of the residents of the White House, the
Pentagon, and Congress for launching nuclear attacks in their absence,
and the ABILITY exists right down to the level of the individual sub
captain, bomber pilot, or missile crew, so it's all but 100% assured
that a #4 or #5 will degrade to a #2 and #3 in a matter of hours,
making the casualty figures for such attacks mere fantasies.

I'm glad that you don't consider your opinions to be those of "any
resonable entity," since they're clearly not!  After the last world war,
we hanged those who expounded the theories that inspired the
prosecution of aggressive war (which included political assasination
-- your "#4 attack").  What size necktie do YOU wear?

Jan Wolitzky, AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ; 201 582-2998; alice!wolit
(Affiliation given for identification purposes only)


------------------------------

Date: Wed, 24 Apr 85 23:37:12 EST
From: Richard A. Cowan <COWAN@MIT-XX.ARPA>
Subject: Re: SDI and welfare
To: LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA, cowan@MIT-XX.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC>" of Fri 19 Apr 85 08:05:41-EST

        From: Richard A. Cowan <COWAN at MIT-XX.ARPA>
        [cowan]  ....  When we have a nation full of MITs --a few of which
        study the damage caused by military bias -- supporting a largely
        military economy, there is no countervailing influence to sustained
        military buildup.
  
    >From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA>
    I suspect that we will always be arming, and that military research
    will always be necessary.  That doesn't change my belief that we have
    to find political accomodations, but that's a fact of the world.
    Sustained military buildup -- depending on its definition -- is not
    necessarily a pure evil.

While sustained military research may be a fact of life in the eighties,
and it may have obvious positive in addition to negative effects, I think
we'd all agree that there's a point of military dominance in society which
we would not tolerate.  I think Nazi Germany in 1939 reached such a point.  The
fact that we have lots of military research today isn't such a big deal.  The
fact that this can lead to a dangerously militarized state which commits
atrocities, even in a democratic country such as the United States, scares me.

United States influence economically and geopolitically is bound to decline
as countries like China and Japan continue to grow and exert their full
economic weight.  But US foreign policy operates under the assumption that
the US is the world's number one power.  I'm afraid the US will be reluctant
to yield its inflence over world affairs as it weakens, and may resort to
propping up its influence by military might.  Ironically, Japan and China's
rise as world powers can probably be attributed to the fact that they don't
waste so many of their technological resources on military pursuits, as does
the Soviet Union and the United States.

      Congress cannot act if there are no experts to testify for
      corrective legislation.

   You forget that Congress has its own experts, that often take quite
   adversarial roles.

Last week in Washington I met with some of these experts --
congressional aides who, as you say, were taking adversarial positions
regarding the arms race.  But their position is extremely weak;
Congress itself is one of the major sources of liberal sentiment, and
no matter what a Congressman thinks, he must base most of his
decisions on the sentiment of his constituents.  While what a
congressman hears from inside congress is important, it must be echoed
from the outside in order for him to act.  One congressman we talked
to received 1000 letters from constituents at a defense plant begging
the congressman to vote for a weapons system that would save that
person's job.  Under such hostile conditions, a congressman will need
substantial OUTSIDE backing from experts who can justify a defense cut
in order to vote against such a system. 

And unless a view is widely held OUTSIDE as well as INSIDE congress,
the president can just go on TV and rally his cause, creating enough
outside pressure to nullify the adversarial roles of Congressional
aides.

-Rich
-------


------------------------------

Date: Thu, 25 Apr 85 00:20:19 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject:  SDI and welfare
To: COWAN@MIT-XX.ARPA
cc: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA, LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA


    From: Richard A. Cowan <COWAN at MIT-XX.ARPA>
        >From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA>
        I suspect that we will always be arming, and that military research
        will always be necessary.  That doesn't change my belief that we have
        to find political accomodations, but that's a fact of the world.
        Sustained military buildup -- depending on its definition -- is not
        necessarily a pure evil.

    While sustained military research may be a fact of life in the eighties,
    and it may have obvious positive in addition to negative effects, I think
    we'd all agree that there's a point of military dominance in society which
    we would not tolerate.  I think Nazi Germany in 1939 reached such a point.

I agree.

    The fact that we have lots of military research today isn't such a big 
    deal.  The
    fact that this can lead to a dangerously militarized state which commits
    atrocities, even in a democratic country such as the United States, 
    scares me.

I don't know what you mean by "dangerously militarized" state.  We do
not glorify the military life, and even the military believes strongly
in civilian control.  Atrocities scare me too, but I don't know about
the correlation between militarism and atrocity.  I believe South
Africa commits atrocities, but I'm not sure I would call them
militarized in the sense that I think you're arguing.  They don't have
global imperialistic designs.


          Congress cannot act if there are no experts to testify for
          corrective legislation.

       You forget that Congress has its own experts, that often take quite
       adversarial roles.

    Last week in Washington I met with some of these experts --
    congressional aides who, as you say, were taking adversarial positions
    regarding the arms race.  But their position is extremely weak;
    Congress itself is one of the major sources of liberal sentiment, and
    no matter what a Congressman thinks, he must base most of his
    decisions on the sentiment of his constituents.

But so must a President.  In the long run, we get whom we elect.  If
we can't maintain a consistent policy, then we lose, and non-elected
bureaucrats get the power; sometimes that's good, other times that's bad.

    While what a
    congressman hears from inside congress is important, it must be echoed
    from the outside in order for him to act...  Under such hostile
    conditions, a congressman will need
    substantial OUTSIDE backing from experts who can justify a defense cut
    in order to vote against such a system. 

It helps, but I have yet to see outside experts alone be decisive.


------------------------------
[End of ARMS-D Digest]