Re: [iwar] Probability times time produces what?
From: Ross Stapleton-Gray
From: amicus@well.com
To: iwar@egroups.com
Tue, 24 Oct 2000 15:24:53 -0400
fc Tue Oct 24 12:35:15 2000
Received: from 207.222.214.225
by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0)
for fc@localhost (single-drop); Tue, 24 Oct 2000 12:35:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by multi33.netcomi.com for fc
(with Netcom Interactive pop3d (v1.21.1 1998/05/07) Tue Oct 24 19:35:09 2000)
X-From_: sentto-279987-571-972416094-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com Tue Oct 24 14:34:50 2000
Received: from fh.egroups.com (fh.egroups.com [208.50.144.71]) by multi33.netcomi.com (8.8.5/8.7.4) with SMTP id OAA31896 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:34:50 -0500
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-571-972416094-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com
Received: from [10.1.10.38] by fh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 24 Oct 2000 19:34:54 -0000
X-Sender: amicus@well.com
X-Apparently-To: iwar@egroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-6_1_0); 24 Oct 2000 19:34:50 -0000
Received: (qmail 4933 invoked from network); 24 Oct 2000 19:30:55 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 24 Oct 2000 19:30:55 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO postal.dn.net) (207.153.221.107) by mta3 with SMTP; 24 Oct 2000 19:30:55 -0000
Received: from home (pm-57.ppp.wdc.dn.net [207.226.188.57]) by postal.dn.net (102199-jg) with ESMTP id PAA12054 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 15:30:52 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <4.2.2.20001024151506.00d833c0@90.0.0.1>
X-Sender: director#embassy.org@90.0.0.1 (Unverified)
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2
To: iwar@egroups.com
In-Reply-To: <200010241756.KAA05897@all.net>
References: <4.2.2.20001024104040.00a9d560@poptop.llnl.gov>
From: Ross Stapleton-Gray
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: list iwar@egroups.com; contact iwar-owner@egroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe:
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 15:24:53 -0400
Reply-To: iwar@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [iwar] Probability times time produces what?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
At 10:56 AM 10/24/00 -0700, Fred Cohen wrote:
>Having more people
>with control over weapons tends to increase the number of events and
>thus increases the chances of one of those one in a million or more bad
>events taking place. Hence a strong argument for lower numbers of
>people with the ability to cause events can be made if you want to be
>sure that the probabilities stay low.
Recognize, though, that there are interdependencies: the whole theory of
MAD was that there were significant consquences for each of the players
(who presumably were more careful as to where and how they rolled their
dice...).
Would we (putting on a U.S. hat) rather see just Pakistan, or both Pakistan
and India, have the bomb? The latter situation invites the development of
the same protocols that lowered tensions in U.S.-Soviet relations.
I'd have to say I'm a glass-half-full optimist re the current situation of
nuclear arms; there's as much reason to believe that the MAD doctrine will
be as applicable to these new nuclear states, and, putting on a Dr.
Strangelovian chapeau, if there *is* some sort of accident, it won't be by
or on a nuclear power whose knee-jerk response would be to launch 1,000
megaton-scale warheads... at worst we might have another Hiroshima, and an
immediate world response to take such steps as required to end (or severely
decrease) such risks in future.
Ross
_____________________________________________________________________
Ross Stapleton-Gray TeleDiplomacy, Inc.
director@embassy.org 2503 Columbia Pike, Suite 118
Arlington VA 22204
http://www.telediplomacy.com +1 703 685-5197 / 5257 fax
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/14/_/595019/_/972416094/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
------------------
http://all.net/