From: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!arms-d Newsgroups: fa.arms-d Title: ARMS-D Vol 1 #8 Article-I.D.: ucbvax.61 Posted: Mon Mar 21 22:29:39 1983 Received: Fri Mar 25 00:23:25 1983 >From The-Moderator@MIT-MC Mon Mar 21 22:27:48 1983 Received: by UCBVAX.ARPA (3.331/3.17) id AA00665; 21 Mar 83 22:29:17 PST (Mon) Sender: FFM@MIT-MC To: ARMS-D-DIST@MIT-MC Subject: Arms-Discussion Digest V1 #8 To: ARMS-D-DIST@MC Reply-To: ARMS-D at MIT-MC Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 1 : Issue 8 Today's Topics: Strategic nuclear weapons forum of experts..., economics of strategic nuclear weapons, sufi principles, What's going on in El Salvador?, Charleston SC destroyed by nuclear detonation ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 17 March 1983 02:42 EST From: Herb LinSubject: Strategic nuclear weapons forum of experts... To: STERNLIGHT @ USC-ECL cc: ARMS-D @ MIT-MC In-reply-to: The message of 11 Mar 1983 1046-PST from STERNLIGHT at USC-ECL Two comments on this forum: 1. I don't know what it means to say that we are "stuck"in our negotiations with the Soviets. Some would argue that we are not. Please define. 2. I object strongly to the lack of information about who these experts are; some would argue that some of these experts are part of the problem. In any case, I feel that knowing who these people are and what their positions are is essential in knowing what I should say, because the problem of nuclear war is as much political as anything else, and I would frame my comments differently if I were speaking to one person over another. I might also emphasize different things. ------------------------------ Date: 17 March 1983 03:07 EST From: Herb Lin Subject: economics of strategic nuclear weapons To: BEELER @ BBNF cc: ARMS-D @ MIT-MC, sternlight @ USC-ECL In-reply-to: The message of 16 Mar 1983 1337-EST from BEELER at BBNF the US spends about 15% of its defense budget on strategic nuclear weapons and delivery systems. tactical systems are much harder to quantify, because of dual capable weapons systems - do you count an F-16 fighter, which is certified as nuclear capable? ------------------------------ REM@MIT-MC 03/19/83 03:55:27 Re: sufi To: ARMS-D at MIT-MC One way to apply the sufi principle would be to require that all the top government officials of each nation physically reside in the other, with family of course, telecommunicating to work. I'm not sure when this will become practical. ------------------------------ Date: 19 March 1983 20:37 EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Re: Sufi; + computers To: CAULKINS @ USC-ECL cc: ARMS-D @ MIT-MC Date: 19 Mar 1983 0819-PST From: CAULKINS@USC-ECL [We would have incentive to design the satellite-based ABM system so it'd have a weak spot, and we'd then arrange that many of our ICBMs use that weak spot to get thru undamaged. I don't think so. Any reasonable space ABM system design involves low earth orbit satellites; since these pass alternately over US and USSR ICBM launchers it would be difficult to design something that clandestinely ignored one flavor or another of launch vehicle. This is especially true if the ABM is built around X-ray lasers. The method of attacking ICBMs once identified as such, and the method of deciding which targets to attack, are pretty much independent. Suppose we design the target-tracking&control system for the ABM so that whenever between 15 and 17 missiles are traveling in convoy at an angle of between +45 and +55 degrees from horizontal at an altitude of 30 miles, they are marked as "conventional aircraft, don't attack". Then we reprogram our IBCMs to travel in convoys of size 16 and arrange the trajectory to satisfy the special rule. Of course we don't tell the Soviets, and we make the program bug (feature from our point of view) so obscure that they don't figure it out by reading the code we submit for approval. -- Try to tell us Reagan wouldn't authorize such a trick, huh? Somebody has to write the code, then the other side has to approve it. Would you rather they write it and we approve it? -- Devil's advocatedly yours, Robert Maas, presently residing 5 miles from ground-zero at Moffet Field naval air station, a likely 5-megaton target... ------------------------------ Return-Path: <@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA:Schauble.HDSA@M.PCO.LISD.HIS> Received: from M.PCO.LISD.HIS by MIT-MULTICS.ARPA dial; 20-Mar-1983 02:51:15-est Date: 20 March 1983 00:42 mst From: Schauble.HDSA at M.PCO.LISD.HIS Subject: What's going on in El Salvador? Reply-To: Schauble%PCO-Multics at MIT-MULTICS To: Arms-D at MIT-MC, Poli-Sci at RUTGERS I have a friend who is a former US Army intelligence officer. He is trained in counter-intelligence and jungle warfare from Viet Nam. He just recently got a call from Army Intelligence asking him to do a one year tour in El Salvador. I wonder why they are looking for that combination. ------------------------------ REM@MIT-ML 03/21/83 02:24:42 Re: Charleston SC destroyed by nuclear detonation To: ARMS-D at MIT-MC How many of you saw the TV movie tonight about terrorists threatening to set off a nuclear bomb if the USA didn't dismantle all our nuclear missiles in the Charleston SC area, the government took the terrorists by force then tried to dismantle the bomb, but failed and in fact set it off, destroying downtown Charleston and leaving the whole city and an area downwind uninhabitable due to fallout? What did you think of its accuracy/realism? I thought some of the network news personnel were overly smooth when reporting the early events, while some of the on-the-spot coverage was unprofessional, but the facts seemed to be reasonable. I was impressed with the point they made at the end, that the number of burn cases from that one very small (60 kilotons I think it was) detonation was twice as many as the total number of people who could be treated in burn units in the entire nation. Sounds like these movie makers have been listening to PSR (Physicians for Social Responsibility). The footage of the actual detonation from a distance was good up to the point where the shock wave "knocked over the camera", but it was apparent the camera was smoothly but quickly lowered to the floor, and when it "hit the floor" it didn't bounce or anything, obviously poor special effect, perhaps they were too cheap to risk actually damaging their camera during filming? But overall the movie was done moderately well. They had some great footage of entire buildings on fire, although in the first shot of that area I saw many buildings in the background that were not in the slightest damaged or on fire. ------------------------------ [End of Arms-D Digest]