Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!henry From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: problems with Star Wars #2 (part 2: the crux) Message-ID: <5863@utzoo.UUCP> Date: Sat, 10-Aug-85 18:30:14 EDT Article-I.D.: utzoo.5863 Posted: Sat Aug 10 18:30:14 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 10-Aug-85 18:30:14 EDT References: <5772@utzoo.UUCP>, <1240@utcsri.UUCP> <5797@utzoo.UUCP>, <16069@watmath.UUCP> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Lines: 45 > > "Oh no, look at that. Missile launches all over the place. OPEN FIRE!" > > I'm not talking about reading printouts, I'm talking about the same sort > > of real-time interaction that takes place when driving a car or flying an > > aircraft. Similarly, I am not talking about digging the President out of > > bed; I'm talking about trained observers standing regular watches. > > One can only hope that the computer that decided those were missle > launches wasn't just dropping bits or seeing radar hash from the Moon. > Putting the computer as the last link in the decision chain is risky; > but so is putting it everywhere else. Human beings deal better with > unexpected situations than computer programs. Sigh, you have misunderstood completely. The whole idea is to place the go/no-go decision, *and* the signal processing that leads up to it, with the human observers. The aiming system obviously needs heavy signal processing to get precise tracks of missiles, but *the human observers don't*. Missile launches are not inconspicuous events! Especially when hundreds or thousands are occurring simultaneously, which is the only case that stresses a BMD system to the limit and hence really calls for a fast decision. If we could put human observers permanently in low orbit, binoculars would suffice. That's inconvenient, because we'd need a lot of observation posts to make sure we had one or two in the right place. Telescopic video cameras (visible and IR) aboard Clarke-orbit satellites would probably suffice; if not, it shouldn't need much more. Note that attempts at jamming such cameras, or their data links, are in themselves hostile acts. Both cameras and data links should be multiply redundant [different hardware rather than just replication of the same], to avoid any single hardware malfunction being mistaken for jamming. [From another author] > You're talking about the same sort of real-time interaction that causes > thousands of fatal car accidents every year. Sure, most of the time > drivers can make split second decsions correctly, but when they don't the > consequences do not result in the deaths of millions of people. Please read what I said: I am explicitly suggesting multiple observers, with near-simultaneous agreement required for a "fire" decision. This is the sort of procedure that is used already for things like ICBM launch decisions, which are much more likely to cause the deaths of millions than activation of a defence system is. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry