Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuxl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!orb
From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Star Wars, Computers and Doomsday Machines
Message-ID: <798@whuxl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 11-Nov-85 18:32:18 EST
Article-I.D.: whuxl.798
Posted: Mon Nov 11 18:32:18 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 12-Nov-85 21:06:50 EST
References: <343@whuts.UUCP> <7800666@inmet.UUCP> <797@whuxl.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany
Lines: 66

There has been much public debate and media coverage of the
Star Wars program. This week AT&T is sponsoring a special program
on PBS "Shielding America: Can Star Wars Make us Safe?" which
may provide interesting information.  I am skeptical of any
devastating critique since the announcement says the issue will
be covered by "government and military officials" like Henry
Kissinger and Robert McNamera and once again, as so often, is
likely to exclude antinuclear experts like Randall Forsberg.
But it is worth watching if only to see if they present a balanced
presentation.  Even Star Wars advocates admit that it cannot
stop 100% of attacking nuclear weapons but only 90%.
Given that 10% of either side's nuclear arsenal is still some
tens of thousands times the power of the Hiroshima bomb the
answer to any question of "protecting civilians" seems quite clear
at the outset.
But this issue has been often mentioned.
 
What I find more frightening is the issue that is *never* mentioned-
at least not in the general press: namely that in order to work
Star Wars planners themselves admit that it must be an *automatic
system* totally under the control of computers.  This point is
made very clearly in the June, 1985 issue of Atlantic by Jonathan
Jacky.  I would highly recommend it, particularly to programmers.
Jacky quotes from DARPA's own report, "Strategic Computing...
A Strategic Plan for Its Development and Application to Critical
Problems in Defense":
    Instead of fielding simple guided missiles or remotely
    piloted vehicles, we might launch completely autonomous
    land, sea and air vehicles capable of complex, far-ranging
    reconnaissance and attack missions....In contrast with
    previous computers, the new generation will exhibit 
    human-like, "intelligent" capabilities for planning and
    reasoning.......Using this new technology, machines will
    perform complex tasks with little human intervention, or
    even complete autonomy.......
 
Jacky quotes from an OMNI interview with Caspar Weinberger
on the *very short* time that a Star Wars system would have
to respond:
   OMNI: You are talking about a total battle time of as
         little as possibily one hundred twenty or
         two hundred seconds?
   WEINBERGER: It is very short.  It is a very big task-
         a task about which a lot of people say, "well,
         we can't do it." But then a lot of people said that
         we couldn't fly.

He also points out that the DOD's Fletcher Panel on Star Wars
concluded, "It seems clear....that some degree of automation
in the decision to commit weapons is inevitable if a ballistic
missile defense is to be at all credible."
 
He also quotes from George Keyworth and Robert Cooper's
testimony:
      "who's going to make that decision?" said Tsongas.
      "We don't know," said Keyworth, "By the year 1990, it
       may be done automatically."
 
By the year 1990 is there any programmer willing to stake
the future of the world on a computer?
I think programmers should do all in their power to point out
that idea is *extremely* dangerous!
        "Peace in the World, 
                  or the World in Pieces!"
     tim sevener whuxn!orb