Friday, 27 May 1988
1.
THE INF TREATY HAS JUST BEEN RATIFIED BY THE SENATE.
The final obstacle, once Sen. Helms (R-NC) had lowered the flag, was
Star Wars. The INF debate became a surrogate for the
long-running squabble over the "broad interpretation" of the 1972
ABM treaty. The Administration has sought to reinterpret the ABM
treaty to allow testing of space-based SDI components. Such
testing is banned under the traditional interpretation
(WN 20 Nov
87), but is essential to plans for early deployment of a
ballistic missile defense. Sen. Nunn (D-GA) and others argued
that, if Administrations were free to reinterpret treaties, it
would circumvent the advise and consent role of the Senate
(WN 12
Feb 88). The compromise language, agreed to by 72-27, asserts
the Senate's power in treaty interpretation, but does not mention
the ABM treaty. Both sides are now free to claim victory.
2
. STRATEGIC ARMS REDUCTION WILL BE DISCUSSED IN MOSCOW
next week by Reagan and Gorbachev. If a START treaty calling for the
destruction of half of the warheads in the nuclear arsenals of
the two nations is eventually negotiated, it would involve
dismantling some 6,000 warheads on both sides. A reasonable
guess is that the warheads contain an average of 5 Kilograms of
Pu each. Both countries would therefore be confronted with the
task of disposing of some 30,000 Kg of weapons-grade plutonium.
The only practical means of disposing of that much plutonium is
to burn it in power reactors. Since each gram of Pu-239 will
yield about .275 MW days of electric power, we are talking a
total of 8 Terawatt days, which is about 8% of the electricity
generated in the US last year. Environmentalists who are opposed
to nuclear power but favor disarmament are faced with a dilemma.
3. PRIORITY SETTING IS THE MAJOR SCIENCE POLICY ISSUE
in Washington these days. A House/Senate Conference yesterday
agreed on an FY 88 budget resolution. The Report calls on the
National Academy of Sciences to "provide advice on developing an
appropriate institutional framework for conducting cross-program
development and review of the Nation's research and development
programs." There were no major surprises for science funding with
most things being split right down the middle
(WN 15 Apr 88).
4. GEORGE KEYWORTH, THE FORMER SCIENCE ADVISOR TO THE PRESIDENT,
writing in "Issues in Science and Technology," the quarterly
publication of the National Academy of Sciences, laments that
advising on defense technology resulted in his alienation from
"...my own scientific community [physics], which had become
essentially pacifist in its attitude toward defense." While it
may be true that physicists are overwhelmingly opposed to SDI,
that seems to be evidence of a perception that the concept is not
sound, rather than a sudden blossoming of latent pacifism. It has
been the major responsibility of every Science Advisor to give
advice on defense technology. The trick is to give good advice.
|
