From: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!C70:arms-d Newsgroups: fa.arms-d Title: Arms-Discussion Digest V0 #123 Article-I.D.: ucb.1381 Posted: Fri Jun 18 02:48:41 1982 Received: Sat Jun 19 04:56:06 1982 >From HGA@MIT-MC Fri Jun 18 02:41:25 1982 Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 0 : Issue 123 Today's Topics: But is Arms Control a good idea? Alleged communist fronts Standards of discussion among the intelligentsia Comments on SOBER FACTS More on why Arms Control is nearly worthless Pacifists not informed about military options? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 17 Jun 1982 0058-PDT From: Ted AndersonSubject: But is Arms Control a good idea? "It is thouht that the combination of four hydrogen atoms to form one atom of helium occurs in the interior of stars, and could be made to occur in terrestrial laboratories if we could produce tempreatures compared to thos in the interior of stars. Almost all loss of energy involved in building up elements other than hydrogen occurs in the transition to helium; in later stages the loss of energy is small. If helium, or any element other than hydrogen, could be artificially manufactured out of hydrogen there would be in the process an enourmous liberation of energy in the form of light and heat. This suggest the possibility of atomic bombs more destructive than the present ones, which are made by means of uranium. There would be a further advantage: The supply of uranium in the planet is very limited, and it is feared that it may be used up before the human race is exterminated, but if the practically unlimited supply of hydrogen in the sea could there would be considerable reason to hope that homo sapiens might put and end to himself, to the great advantage of the other less ferocious animals. But it is time to turn to less cheerful topics." Bertrand Russell From: Human Knowledge, its Scope and Limits 1948 ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jun 1982 10:07:33-EDT From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX Subject: Re: alleged communist fronts In response to your message of Thu Jun 17 08:20:28 1982: Unfortunately, many of the people I've encountered do not see any similarity between Soviet funding of groups here and our funding of groups there. Further, I'm not sure that I automatically regard such activities on either side with suspicion; I have occasionally thought that the best thing for this world would be for \all/ of the [superpowers] to have their willingness to take arms outside their immediate boundaries sapped. As for the Heritage Foundation being well regarded by its opponents, I guess you're just not very familiar with those opponents. Even THE NEW REPUBLIC, which is no longer a staunchly liberal magazine, has spoken poorly of their claims that the larger portion of the news media in this country is pushing "disinformation". ------------------------------ Date: 17 June 1982 12:47-EDT From: Zigurd R. Mednieks Subject: AFSC Would the people out there who seem to know more about AFSC than I comment on their behavior during the thirties and the Viet Nam war era? The affiliation of a group with a church does not imply anything about their politics (AFSC) or even their intelligence (The Moral Majority). It would be incorrect to hold groups with church affiliations above criticism and it would be foolish to ignore the diversity of opinion among such groups. Yow! Are we getting preoccupied yet? The discussion in this list leans heavily to the discussion of strategic nuclear war. That leads to a lot of flaming without any basis in facts because nobody really knows anything about nuclear war. Considering all the hard facts about modern weapons that were generated recently in the Falklands and the middle east, shouldn't we be discussion what might deter the use of conventional weapons? It isn't likely the next war will start with nukes, and, offhand it seems that the best way to make sure that it doesn't end with nukes is to make sure it never starts at all. So how about some discussion of conventional deterrant? Cheers, Zig ------------------------------ Date: 18 June 1982 02:00-EDT From: James A. Cox Subject: alleged communist fronts \The New Republic/ could only be regarded as "no longer a staunchly liberal magazine" by someone even further to the left. I know of not a single editorial position taken by that magazine recently which I could not arguably call "liberal." ------------------------------ Date: 17 June 1982 13:08-EDT From: Oded Anoaf Feingold Subject: Standards of discussion among the intelligentsia I am getting tired of hearing people being called "pacifists" as an explanation of why their opinion differs from yours. I am furthermore getting tired of pigeonholing and stereotyping, but not of mudlinging, cuz I am about to sling some mud (my natural habitat). As far as getting one's ass shot off goes, I am pleased to explain: I tend towards viewpoints that might get me branded "pacifist" by the standards of this list. Therefore, even though I have not actively advocated positions such as those put forward by Lin, Webb, Caulkins, WDoherty and mayhap others, I feel myself included in the intended audience for your original remarks. So at a first approximation, the comment about shooting your ass off was to let you know that my opinions do not make me a pacifist, or even less bloodthirsty than the average around here. The second-order meaning is that my feelings on arms policy can be different from yours WITHOUT invalidating my belief that adequate defenses (by various countries) are necessary/desirable. I don't have any quarrel with the primary purpose of the New York demonstration, but that doesn't make me pacifistic. Calling me pacifist by that criterion is tantamount to asserting that my convictions in that regard [necessity of adequate defense] are either nonexistent or insincere. I do not appreciate that imputation. There is a third-order meaning: Asking the "pacifists out there" whether they know how Soviet-stoogeish these various organizations are is a rhetorical attempt to link them (the "pacifists") with them (the Soviet-stoogeish organizations), and by extension imply that the pacifists are Soviet stooges, whether wittingly or not. That is unfair, it is redbaiting, it is bullshit, it is McCarthyistic, it is primitive, and even assuming you uncovered some truth and we (or I in particular) were serving Soviet policy in some remote sphere, that doesn't make the policy wrong nor me wrong in advancing it. I am reluctant to entertain the explanation that you were actually calling for undisclosed pacifists out there (not on this mailing list) to examine their true backers/masters/motivators. I think you were pulling a little rhetorical stunt to discredit people on this list (in the best William F. Buckley style,) and I DON'T BUY that class of argument. Furthermore, whatever the putative merits (or lack thereof) of the issue you raised, making a blatant factual error as calling the AFSC a Soviet front casts doubt on whether the rest of your accusations are righteous. So accusing the pacifists out there of being duped by the Soviets and therefore wrong by rhetorically tying them to Soviet-fronts organizations which might not even BE Soviet-front is a crock of shit, intentionally stepped into. Oh yeah, one last thing. It's REAL bad logic to make the implicit accusation that only pacifists marched in New York. Care to tell me (us) you didn't do that? Hmm, I guess I have to shoot my own ass off, for using that forbidden word. Oh well, the flame value was worth it. Cheers, Oded ------------------------------ Date: 17 June 1982 22:23-EDT From: Zigurd R. Mednieks Subject: Standards of discussion among the intelligentsia Intelligensia? Well anyway... I thought I was pretty clear about differing opinion: I even stated that I especially respected differing opinion on the maintainance of liberty (as opposed to merely a state of peace), and that is what seems to be at the heart of your flame. I too have doubts about nukes -- especially the battlefield nukes that now underpin NATO defences. I did err about the word pacifist, but only in accepting the degraded meaning of it in the context of the current arms-d discussion. You should be flaming at the people who label themselves pacifists and aren't. Did you read my last message about the orthoganality of anti-nuke/pacifist/dupe categories? Please read what you are objecting to more carefully or be accused of Witch-hunting yourself. Cheers, Zig ------------------------------ Date: 18 June 1982 01:51-EDT From: James A. Cox Subject: comments on SOBER FACTS From Caulkins at USC-ECL: .... I think most people would prefer the 'cancer' of serfdom to the very real cancer which many nuclear survivors would suffer. Unfortunately, you may be right. I say "unfortunately" because our horror of nuclear war, and our consequent willingness to do almost anything to avoid it, may be exactly what will bring about the "cancer of serfdom" most quickly. People who are not willing to risk death to preserve their freedom do not deserve it, and usually do not have it for long. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jun 1982 2259-PDT From: Ted Anderson Subject: More on why Arms Control is nearly worthless. I skimmed an editorial in today's Wall Street Journal, by some pathologist, on the subject of Yellow Rain and chemical/biological warfare in general. One of his points was that these problems were potentially at least as dangerous as nuclear weapons and easily more so. Yet there is little uproar about them, either public or scientific. On the basis of (1) Nuclear Weapons, (2) Chemical Weapons, and (3) Biological Weapons, I would be inclined to use informal induction to assume the existance of any number of types of weapons of mass destruction. It convinces me that we are approaching the problem of survival the wrong way. It's like seeing an hoard of rats coming at you and responding by organizing five or six people with sling shots to shoot rocks at them. The argument can be made that sling shots are better than doing nothing, but still it seems like a more effective solution will be necessary. Consider the suggested ideal world in which there are enough controls on, and inspections of, research & development, the military and the politicians to insure that we are safe from all possible weapons of mass destruction. This is not the sort of world I look forward to living in. I'm annoyed enough at the fairly modest requirements imposed by our own classification and regulatory system. Well, you say, think of the alternative: Living in constant terror of sudden, civilization annihilating war. Well, yes, I guess that is worse, but not much. Frankly I don't like either alternative. The fundamental problem is that human beings are tools using animals. Men have been manipulating their environment for something like 100,000 years. It is unreasonable to expect them to suddenly lose interest in such activities. These "activities" are not limited to war. Nuclear power, big water projects, genetic engineering, and weather control (to name the first four I thought of) are all things that present "Arms Control" like problems. Even in an area as obviously dangerous as Nuclear Weapons arms control agreements have had dubious success. What hope is there that more subtle dangers can be dealt with more effectively? A friend of mine has a Fortune Cookie fortune tacked to his wall which reads: "Try a new system or different approach." Surely this is called for here. As I've suggested before, I think a massive effort to develop space is one "different approach" that has a great deal to be said for it. This approach subscribes to the theory that mankind has too many of its eggs (i.e. all) in one, very fragile, basket. It should not be necessary to conjure up unlikely catacalismic events such as are chronicled in "Lucifer's Hammer" to convince people of this. An important question is, are there other approaches that also have the potential of providing us with more appetizing alternatives than the two I rejected above? Surely there is more than just one. Perhaps at the root of the problem is some innate aggressiveness as some have suggested. Maybe subtle (and often not so subtle) population pressures are responsible. Possibly within a few years the dominant life form on this planet will be silicon based, or some hybrid, then the rules governing behavior will be sufficently different that we won't have to worry about these problems. On the other hand maybe we just worry too much. Ted Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Thu Jun 17 17:14:11 1982 From: decvax!watmath!djmdavies at Berkeley Subject: Pacifists not informed about military options? I don't ordinarily read this digest, but a friend asked me to comment on the recent suggestion that American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) is a [soviet communist] 'Front' organization. Sacnning the recent issues, I see that others have replied already. Mind you, though Quakers have been around since the mid-1600s, AFSC is considerably more recent, early this century, if I remember correctly. But, yes--it's Quaker Service for US residents. I noted two other strains of thought. One, that there are no pacifists reading this digest (regularly); and Two that pacifists haven't really thought about the military (and/or other) consequences of their stand. [stand by for mild flaming] I was kind of surprised that noone on this list is a *real* pacifist, but then I suppose most of you work for the US military or are funded by grants of military origin--the ARPAnet being what it is..? And a thorough-going pacifist would refuse such a position in all likelihood. It does mean that there is a danger of only preaching to the converted in the discussions. The suggestion that pacifists haven't really thought through the implications of their beliefs is comforting to those who support military action as a way to resolve disputes, and may be true of some pacifists, but is not a correct generalization. Pacifists arrive at their beliefs for various reasons, and there are different 'flavours' of pacifism much as there are different forms of vegetarianism (for example). I am a Quaker, and am a pacifist for religious/spiritual reasons. My beliefs/actions haven't really been tested seriously yet, but that's the direction I want to be pointing in (Canada hasn't been at war lately). I believe that it is wrong to threaten or resist with military violence. I cannot accept (for myself) a notion that killing and maiming people, destroying property, etc., is an appropriate way to stand up for ones 'rights' or way of life. I DO believe in RESISTING, but non-violently, in the case of a military invasion-for instance. I do not happen to believe that the Russians are likely to invade any part of North America, but if they were to I would not want to participate in fighting them off. I believe that non-violent resistance and non-cooperation by the whole population would be more effective and much more positive as a way of reaction. Doing this properly would mean countries setting up trained forces, to supersede the present armed forces. Some pacifists have thought about these issues more deeply than myself. It isn't true that pacifists haven't thought deeply about the implications of their beliefs. We believe the risks involved (which are very real) can and should be taken. I am inclined to suggest that most non-pacifists haven't got beyond a stage of seeing that there are risks, and just turning off. This is getting too long, but I will close by remarking that the Quaker peace testimony is not primarily a (negative) 'no' to war, it is rather a YES to peace-- which is rather a tall order. Quakers are concerned to seek to understand, and work to remove, the root causes of conflicts and social problems. Emphasis on ROOT causes. Our society isn't so hot on treating people as people either, and pacifism in an international-conflict sense is only a small (but sometimes visible) corner of what Pacifism means to me. Julian Davies University of Western Ontario ------------------------------ End of Arms-D Digest ********************