From: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!C70:arms-d Newsgroups: fa.arms-d Title: Arms-Discussion Digest V0 #126 Article-I.D.: ucb.1462 Posted: Fri Jul 2 18:21:00 1982 Received: Sat Jul 3 06:28:36 1982 >From HGA@MIT-MC Tue Jun 22 15:05:18 1982 Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 0 : Issue 126 Today's Topics: Comparing nuclear war to serfdom is the wrong comparison Pacifists not informed about military options? Risking death Sincerity in negotiations Comments by Will Doherty ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 June 1982 00:43-EDT From: RMS at MIT-AI Subject: Comparing nuclear war to serfdom is the wrong comparison The right comparison is: some amount of risk of nuclear war versus some other amount of risk of serfdom. If you think, as I do, that there is a strategy which greatly reduces the risk of serfdom (or being shot for disobedience) while increasing the risk of nuclear war only a little over the strategy of disarmament, it might well be preferable to disarmament. Many people have risked their lives in defending their freedom, who were not desperate enough to simply commit suicide to escape slavery. I concede that maintaining a deterrent force and refusing to surrender has a greater risk of nuclear war than surrendering has. But I think we can keep the risk small by making sure the deterrent is credible. ------------------------------ Date: 20 June 1982 01:32-EDT From: James A. CoxSubject: Pacifists not informed about military options? You give Vietnam as a counter example to my theory. Can you really believe that it was the non-violent resistance that defeated U.S. efforts? If so, you have a grievous misunderstanding of that war. What defeated the U.S. was the huge casualty rate combined with the horror of seeing (violent) war every night on television. The Vietnamese won because they had the will \and the weapons/ to fight with. I am amazed that anyone questions the ability of, say, the Soviet Union to occupy and administer this country if there were no armed resistance. History teaches us that most people go along most of the time with the orders of the people in power, whether they are foreign or domestic, if those people are willing to act brutally to enforce those orders. Sure, the Soviets would have trouble if everyone rendered passive resistance regardless of the repressive measures the Soviets tried. But unfortunately, the U.S. is inhabited by human beings, not saints, and humans generally get scared and do what they're told when threatened with torture or death. Are Americans that much different from Germans, who \under orders/ exterminated thousands of their own countrymen, millions of foreigners, and who fought a war virtually to the death? ------------------------------ Date: 20 June 1982 02:01-EDT From: James A. Cox Subject: Pacifists not informed about military options? I am surprised that anyone really believes that, as Jon Webb says, "the U.S. could be defended by non-violent methods." How? Suppose the Soviets invaded with a large military force and encountered no violent resistance from the American people. How could they be stopped from setting up a government here to their own liking, and enforcing obedience to its orders? I concede that if a large number of people offered passive resistance, such as refusing to obey Soviet orders, that the Soviets would have great trouble. But can we realistically expect anything like that to happen? Suppose you are a factory worker who is refusing (non-violently, of course) to comply with a Soviet order to return to work. The Soviets then round up 1000 people from your city and promise to execute 10 per hour until work at the factory begins. How long would you stay away from work? Even more brutal methods are, of course, available to the occupying force to deal with really intransigent people. Historically, conquerors have always been able to maintain control of their dominions given sufficient military forces, forces which the Soviet Union would most certainly have available after an unopposed conquest of the United States. On China: yes, it is true that the Chinese have sometimes absorbed invading forces into their population and culture. That does not alter the fact that, until those forces were absorbed, the Chinese lived under foreign domination. The U.S. might eventually absorb Russian conquerors, but that process would take time, probably centuries, if the assimilation of the Normans into English civilization is a good example. At the least, those freedoms we enjoy at present would be denied us for many years to come. ------------------------------ Date: Sunday, 20 June 1982 13:45-EDT From: Jon Webb Subject: Pacifists not informed about military options? Well, yes, that's what I meant. If there were no resistance at all, it would not be hard to invade the U.S. and set up a puppet government. The hard thing would be to keep control of the puppet government, to keep it from being kind of reabsorbed into American culture and becoming more or less free again. Read Machiavelli. I was taking the long view. Sorry. Also, whether or not the U.S. has lots of pacifists and Soviet-fronts, there are a lot of people who would be willing to fight back against a Soviet puppet government, so that it would be terribly difficult to set up the government in the first place. Lots of places to hide rebel troops in the Appalachians, you know... Jon ------------------------------ Date: 20 June 1982 23:28-EDT From: James A. Cox Subject: Pacifists not informed about military options? .... Whether or not the U.S. has lots of pacifists and Soviet-fronts, there are a lot of people who would be willing to fight back against a Soviet puppet government.... Sure, they'd fight back. But then that would be violence, wouldn't it? ------------------------------ Date: 20 June 1982 02:58-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Sincerity in negotiations I like your [wolit] critique of USA and USSR proposals. Let's find a way to expose their ridiculous ideas and replace them with better ones. Have any suggestions? ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jun 1982 1606-PDT From: CAULKINS at USC-ECL Subject: risking death CAULKINS at USC-ECL .... One of my big problems with nuclear war is that a very small group imposes death, disease, malnutrition, etc. on a much larger group that never had any choice at all. James A. Cox Apparently, you are not talking about this country but about the Soviet Union. Do you forget that the American people elected, if not all the members of your "small group," at least the ones with the real power? It would be simple for the U.S. to reduce the danger of all-out nuclear war to zero. We would only need to unilaterally disarm.... ...Once we agree on the necessity for risking death to preserve our freedoms (and we apparently do agree),... I agree only on my personal right to risk my life for my beliefs. I most emphatically disagree with anyone else's right to make that decision for me, or for anyone else. I am talking about both the US and the USSR. In the US approximately 14% of the population consists of children at or below the age of 9; I imagine the numbers for the USSR are similar. They have elected nobody and done nothing to deserve the horrors that nuclear war would bring to them. One of my major concerns right now is the bellicose stance of the US; we are the ones who insist on the right to use nuclear weapons first and/or in response to a conventional attack. Current defense guidance studies (see my review of "Fiscal Year 1984-1988 Defense Guidance", ARMS-D Vol 0, Issue 118) indicate full readiness to carry nuclear war to any extreme necessary to 'prevail', regardless of the amount of death and destruction inflicted on the US, the USSR, or third parties. I would very much like to see a clear and accurate account of US nuclear weapons use policy. The only thing I've seen recently was the above mentioned study. Secretary Weinberger was asked about it on a TV show I saw a fragment of; he said that the study was 'highly classified' and that it had been quoted out of context. I believe that all citizens of this country need to know what nuclear policy is in order to be able to vote intelligently on this matter which can change their lives more profoundly than any other. It's my belief that the US and USSR will be in an adversary position for many years. Surely they can work out some modus operandi under which they can compete without the constant threat of a nuclear holocaust which would ravage both societies. In a hundred years no one will know or care what Marxism or Capitalism were, or which countries Reagan and Brezhnev led; but if there is a nuclear war the scars will still be obvious, if there's anyone left to see them. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jun 1982 2001-EDT From: WDOHERTY at BBNG Subject: COMMENTS SOBER FACTS from Gene Salamin-- I recommend that you see the film "The Atomic Cafe". The Access to Energy pamphlet is very reminiscent of the U.S. government's animated "Duck and Cover" propaganda. Who is Access to Energy a front for anyway? Where is the discussion of effects of targetting nuclear power plants, as well as oil and gas storage tanks? SOVIET FRONTS from Zig-- I work with people in both AFSC and WILPF. To my knowledge, they are not Soviet fronts. But in any case, if a Communist group or country wants to cooperate on some effective disarmament work, I am willing to work for disarmament along with them, just as I would work with anarchists, libertarians, socialists or capitalists, as long as they are sincere. From the evidence you have presented so far on the World Peace Council, it doesn't sound much more like a Soviet front than the United Nations does. Howz about some references? Herb, you seem to agree that the US Peace Council is Soviet-oriented. Please state your references, just as you ask others to do so. I certainly wouldn't want to fall innocently into the jaws of any of those bloodthirsty Communists! MILITARY EDUCATION from Jim McGrath-- Why don't we study disarmament instead of military arts? In any case, I'll promote any plan to spend a portion of the present arms budget on education rather than further destruction. Let's not take the funds from the social service budget though, OK? PACIFISM from Zig-- You are right that pacifism has nothing to do with involvement in Soviet fronts. You are also right that Soviet fronts have little to do with sincere promotion of nuclear disarmament (to my knowledge). But, pacifism is certainly one very strong motiviation for nuclear disarmament. "PACIFISTS" OUT THERE from Earl Weaver-- I guess I'm one of those "pacifists" out there. I think I'm even "out there" enough to be proud of it! US-USSR FUNDING from Cox-- "Wouldn't you regard with a bit of skepticism any organization in the Soviet Union (or any other Communist country) funded by the CIA? If so, what is wrong with my regarding with equal skepticism any organization in the U.S. funded by the Soviet Union?" Well, ignoring the fact that the CIA is not the polar equal of the Soviet government (it's more like the KGB), I tend to agree. It is not in the interest of the ***government*** of either country to promote peace. They (U.S. and USSR governments) are manifestations of a system which intends to stay in power and to produce wealth and comfort for themselves at the expense of others. That is why the immensely popular nuclear disarmament movement had to arise. It is a self-defense mechanism. The people want disarmament now. One out of every 250 Americans went to NYC to say that. Each one of them represents about 50 more with the same views that could not attend the rally. The frigid Cold War governments must finally bow to the desires of the people--somebody has got to stop them! It just does not make sense to wage war for peace (this in reference especially to U.S. refusal to reject first strike--at least Brezhnev had the sense to wield some popularity by his propagandistic commitment to end Soviet plans for first strike). In my more paranoid moments, I can just see top military planners plot how they can all look like they are for peace while pushing the war industry along as much as possible. Brezhnev can suggest an arms freeze; Reagan proposes reductions. The end result is a disagreement which allows the arms race to continue unfettered with the peoples' hopes for peace. RISKING DEATH from Cox-- I do not agree that the small group of people in positions of power throughout the world are representative of the people. This power elite strives to maintain and augment their own wealth, influence and power. Such elites exist in both the United States and the Soviet Union. It is one thing to be "risking death to preserve our freedoms"; it is another thing altogether to provoke a continous escalation of the arms race. One type of freedom is the power to make decisions about your future and the future of your community. The centralized control of armed forces in botht the United States and the Soviet Union makes such democratic decisions impossible. PEACEFUL RESISTANCE from Julian Davies-- Thank you for a refreshing and stimulating contribution to the digest. I also believe and act on peaceful resistance to violence. Although I am not a Quaker, you people are some of the more enlightened people I've met. When we leave all of the overkill statistics and power elite strategizing behind, I feel that it really comes down to how much we care for our neighbors and how much we are willing to strive for peace and community cooperation. If I were in El Salvador right now, my family facing a right-wing death squad, I am not sure that I could remain nonviolent. I certainly would not condemn this kind of violence in defense before the violence inflicted upon those who must defend themselves. At least until we are sure that our very survival depends on the use of violence, I feel that we should not use violent means. Ghandi explained that we must use the means to achieve a goal that best approximates the goal for which we strive. We must try to equate the means and the ends to achieve our ends. I feel that we should live as much at peace as we can, if we intend to strive for a peaceful world. It is a struggle that may never end, but it is a struggle (the struggle against violent oppression) for which I should be more proud to die than any other struggle. We will lay our lives on the line to stop the destruction, not to promote it. One good book on peaceful resistance to various forms of military occupation is Gene Sharp's "The Politics of Nonviolence". I also recommend Mahatma Ghandi's works, as well as the writings of Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King. Perhaps Ted Anderson's fortune cookie quote which reads: "Try a new system or a different approach" is appropriate here. Instead of tooling around with weapons of destruction, why don't we devote those resources to medicine, housing, safe, renewable energy production, agricultural, communications and transportation improvements (even to outer space, it's a lot more healthy)? There are planty of problems to be solved without a nuclear war. We can start by recognizing that almost all of the conflicts we have are solved peacefully, that violence is the exception not the rule. We need to study peaceful resolution to conflict, for peaceful resolution is the most frequent and most desirable outcome. Peace, Will Doherty (WDOHERTY@BBNG) ------------------------------ End of Arms-D Digest ********************