From: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!C70:arms-d Newsgroups: fa.arms-d Title: Arms-Discussion Digest V0 #131 Article-I.D.: ucb.1442 Posted: Mon Jun 28 23:40:01 1982 Received: Tue Jun 29 06:34:17 1982 >From HGA@MIT-MC Mon Jun 28 23:27:09 1982 Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 0 : Issue 131 Today's Topics: More comments on SOBER FACTS / rule of 7 Discussion about this list and the NRA Helping the russians Query on international law Military & NASA in space Discussion of Jim Jenal's concepts ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 June 1982 06:13-EDT From: Robert Elton MaasSubject: More comments on SOBER FACTS / rule of 7 I griped about the rule of seven when it came up a month or so ago. It's obviously absurd when carried to time=0 (gives infinite radiation level) or time very large (gives longest isotope decaying according to inverse power rather than exponential). The author of the network message replied that there was a graph showing the rule for a moderate range (I forget, something like from a few days to 1000 days?). I guess the way it works out is that the mixture of short-lived and long-lived radioactive isotopes manages to emulate an inverse power law in that range, which is the useful range for deciding when people can return to radioactive areas after an attack. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jun 82 10:45:13-EDT (Sat) From: J C Pistritto Subject: People jumping to conclusions When I suggested splitting the lists, I was *NOT* trying to force anyone off, etc. as REM has been saying. The idea is to divide a discussion with two obvious focus points, (disarmament & tactics), into two discussions with a single focus each. Although I am sure that there are people who would receive both, from the type of submissions entering ARMS-D recently, it seems that the set of people active on each topic is reasonably disjoint. Gee folks, it was only a suggestion... -JCP- ------------------------------ Date: 27 June 1982 00:24-EDT From: James A. Cox Subject: keep your peace From: Robert Elton Maas I don't think the Arpanet is the place for people of one belief to get together and force out anyone of opposing belief. If you want to do that, form a private church, not on Arpanet (or join an existing one like the NRA or the John Birch Society). In one of your previous messages, you accused someone of "right-wing emotionalism." Now you seem guilty of left-wing emotionalism. How ridiculous to claim that the NRA and the John Birch Society "force out anyone of opposing belief"! It's about as ridiculous as claiming that the ACLU, Common Cause, and the Communist Party of the U.S. "force out" people of opposing beliefs. In fact, of course, this problem never arises, because people never join such organizations unless they agree with their views. I feel certain that the NRA would gladly accept members (and take their dues, of course) who do not agree with its stand on gun control. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jun 82 10:02:39-EDT (Sun) From: Earl Weaver (VLD/VMB) Subject: NRA Like HGA, I am an NRA member and see no comparison between it and the Birchers. I often chuckle to myself when I hear some people describe the "gun lobby" (NRA) in condemnation regarding its "influence" (via members' letters) over elected officials knowing full well that those same people would describe similar actions by other groups on other issues as "democracy in action." Any other NRA members "out there"? (replies can be made directly to me; I don't feel arms-d should be used for accumulating that tally [if there are any responders]) ------------------------------ Date: 06/27/82 10:18:07 From: RMS@MIT-AI I don't think that REM has answered what I consider the most important point ES made: that once you accept the reasoning that you must help the Russian government avoid being overthrown because they might start a total war if that happened, you are collaborating in perpetuating their oppressive rule. What chance do the Russians -- or the Poles, to connect with recent events -- have, EVER, if the US begins to feel obliged to help Russia put down any insurrections there? ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jun 82 17:05:49 EDT (Sun) From: Steve Bellovin Subject: Query on international law Someone I know claims that the Geneva Convention prohibits stationing military forces or equipment in civilian areas, with the aim of reducing casulties among non-combatants. This would imply that the PLO is legally responsible (whatever that means) for much of the destruction of Beirut. Does anyone know if this is accurate? ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jun 1982 1732-PDT From: Jim McGrath Subject: Military & NASA in space I have no objections to the Military and NASA cooperating in space - security is needed for space facilities, space is a natural area of military interest because it is such "high ground," and, quite frankly, NASA can do with some help from the DoD lobby on Capital Hill. What I object to is the military mistreating NASA - such as not paying a proper proportion of the space shuttle costs, or the costs of a space station that will be used by the military. If anything, DoD, being richer than NASA, should be paying a greater that "just" share of the costs. I also want to make sure that the military uses of space do not prevent commercial exploitation of space. Given DoD's track record, I do think it is proper to continue to exert pressure on behalf of NASA on DoD. Jim ------------------------------ Date: 06/26/82 19:32:20 From: RMS@MIT-AI I did feel the emotions Jim [Jenal] wanted me to feel while I read his message. But I don't agree with his conclusion. I also don't think that his powerful parable is really analogous to the arms race. Also, I think it was cheap emotionalism to work so hard on stirring up helplessness, then slip in the claim that it are relevant to the arms race while people are too stirred up to judge that claim properly. I believe there are principles in human affairs that justify a RISK of human extinction in their defense. I'd prefer to avoid it if I can. But when the enemy figures that out and starts using it -- essentially, holding humanity hostage -- what am I supposed to do? Automatically give in to anybody who uses that tactic? I don't think we should give Red Brigade or Iranian terrorists what they want (unless it is something they were entitled to anyway), even though this makes a risk that they will kill their hostages. The principle stated at the end of Jim Jenal's message could easily be generalized to say that defending against the terrorists is not worth causing innocent bystanders who happen to be the hostages to be killed. And, indeed, this is a good principle to follow UNTIL the enemy figures out that you are doing it and starts using it against you (by holding hostages). Then you either abandon the principle (on that particular occasion) or you are sunk. A principle of always giving in to the demands of terrorists with hostages would be carte blanch for terrorists. A principle of always giving in to the demands of anyone who can blow up the world is carte blanche for them. And what happens when both Russia and China have the power to blow up the US, and they make conflicting demands on us, both backed by nuclear ultimatems? The alternative of giving in doesn't save us then. It only works on the assumption that there is only one other force in the world that we have to obey. If there is a way out of the dilemma between surrendering and risking mass destruction -- such as, ABM systems -- then I'm for it. While stuck in the dilemma, I take the Israeli attitude toward the terrorists: give terrorists what they want once, and they will make demands more often. The only way to prevent constant Russian ultimatems is to make it clear we would not give in to them. I definitely prefer the world of MAD, which is still here after 20 years, to the world of giving in to Russian ultimatems. Meanwhile, Jim Jenal's analogy is different in key respects from MAD. In fact, his parable is a situation a lot worse than MAD. The first thing I would want to do in that situation is find a gun, find my enemy, and have my family threaten to feud with him. AFTER I succeeded in doing that (which Jim specifies is impossible), I would be a lot safer, and I'd be in a situation more comparable to MAD. So much for the issue; now for Jim's technique of persuasion: Jim's message went to a great deal of effort to wring our hearts about a fictional situation, and then quickly slips in the claim that those stirred-up emotions are relevant in some way to discussion of the arms race. I have already challenged that claim, in the previous paragraph. Now I say that it is irresponsible argument to put so much effort into stirring up emotions and so little into showing that they are relevant to the topic under discussion; so much emphasis on the part of his argument that we are likely to agree with, while brushing over the part that people might disagree with, hoping they will not notice it is there, and be convinced through a mental lapse. This is a tactic that I see disarmament proponents, together with antiabortionists, use constantly, and it is a wrong to the audience. One should try to overcome the weaknesses in an argument, not to distract people from them. ------------------------------ Date: 27 June 1982 00:34-EDT From: James A. Cox Subject: A New Voice Enters the Fray... From Jim Jenal: THERE IS NO PRINCIPLE IN HUMAN AFFAIRS, THAT JUSTIFIES THE POSSIBLE EXTINCTION OF HUMANITY IN ITS DEFENSE. Well, that's your opinion. I disagree, as I'm sure you're well aware if you've read any of the old mail. So what? ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jun 1982 18:16:01-PDT From: cbosg!nscs!jpj at Berkeley Subject: Re: A New Voice Enters the Fray... I respect your [Cox's] right to disagree, but on what basis do you do so? Can you state for me a principle of Human invention that has meaning in the face of extinction? Now I admit that you need *not* concede that extinction is *probable*, but you surely cannot deny that it is *possible!* [In point of fact, when we broaden are horizons beyond *mere* nuclear weapons, we recognize many other implements of killing which, while perhaps not as physically destructive, may well be far more lethal. It is unlikely to suppose that in any conflict sufficient to involve strategic, nuclear arms, such would be the *only* weapons used. Recent evidence of Soviet application of chemical weapons, coupled with the Reagan Administration's decision to resume the production of similar weapons speaks of the potential for their wider, future use. Such a scenario makes extinction even more probable.] Once you grant me that possibility - and being a reasonable individual you must - I fail to understand how any Human activity can have meaning in the face of the cessation of *all* Human activity. Please elucidate. Cheers... Jim Jenal ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jun 1982 19:18:40-PDT From: cbosg!nscs!jpj at Berkeley Subject: Re: A New Voice Enters the Fray... In response to: From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: A New Voice Enters the Fray... Yup. So, what do we do to prevent extinction? I guess that there are a couple of approaches to that. One says that if *everyone* realized that extinction was at hand - they would rise up to eliminate its source. In a sense, that was the point of my little fiction. I don't believe that anyone is *happy* with the current state of the world, unless they are insane - or profitting from a lot of misery. Given that they do not, there is the task of education - informing those who sleep that all is not as secure as they might choose to believe and to rouse them from their slumber. On the other hand, there are those who believe, perhaps as you do, that extinction is a very real possibility but who see no way to get to a world that is free of such a risk. In the final analysis, I suspect that there is *nothing* that we can do to remove such a risk. As long as the prerequisite knowledge exists, we live in its shadow. But to change tacks slightly... It seems to me that if there is any cause worth dying for, in the face of potential extinction; it is to sacrifice your life so that others might live. Not necessarily live well, or even *free*, but to LIVE. How can we presume to choose how those who would come after us would want to live? By what right do we usurp their *very being* in the name of *any* ideology? All of us were born - we now can choose how to cope with our fate - can we deny future generations a chance to do likewise? Who gave this generation the proxy for all who would come after? Alas, that is not a plan - rather, it is the beginning of a philosophy. Out of which I some day hope to reason and behave in a coherent and consistent manner. I welcome your comments and those of the other distinguished members of this list. Cheers... Jim Jenal ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jun 1982 2255-PDT From: Jim McGrath Subject: Of Mice and Men CBOSG!NSCS!JPJ@UCB-C70 The damning aspect of all of this is that *we* chose this course. To speak of the realities of life (ie, the need for sovereignty and its defense) as immutables is a fallacy. People established the order of the world. People *can* re-order the world into something other than a self- destructive entity. Pride goeth before the fall... Quite frankly, I believe you are wrong. Like it or not, we are not gods. There are many limitations on human actions which we cannot, as yet, overcome. I (and I think most of the people on this list) would wish this to be otherwise, and are striving to increase our knowledge and control. But for all our accomplishments in the past few centuries, our technological knowledge is still quite small. And as for our philosophical/psychological/social knowledge, it is in an even poorer state. There is poverty in this world. Our present resources are not adequate to serve the population of this planet for any significant number of years. We are developing new knowledge that might enable us to do better in the future. In particular nuclear power, materials science, computers, genetic technology, and the exploitation of space all promise us a greater degree of control over our environment, and thus the means to satisfy out material needs. But perhaps more important are developments in the social sciences that will enable us to manage our human resoures and use these material means to satisfy those needs. Needless to say, these developments are far more difficult to make. Obviously we should therefore try to increase our knowledge and control. But in the meantime there ARE *realities* that we must respect - else our search for a better way to live may be cut off - permanently. THERE IS NO PRINCIPLE IN HUMAN AFFAIRS, THAT JUSTIFIES THE POSSIBLE EXTINCTION OF HUMANITY IN ITS DEFENSE. Yes there is - the principle of survival of humanity, and all that that entails. Luckily this principle does not come into play in full force. That is to say, we will not destroy humanity, even in the worse case - only significant parts of it. Given that ANY course of action, including inaction, entails similar risks, all we can do is try to make the best of things and act as intelligently as we can (which is not nearly enough, but what else can mere mortals do?) Jim ------------------------------ End of Arms-D Digest ********************