From: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!C70:arms-d Newsgroups: fa.arms-d Title: Arms-Discussion Digest V0 #147 Article-I.D.: ucb.1604 Posted: Mon Jul 26 02:17:56 1982 Received: Thu Jul 29 06:28:36 1982 >From HGA@MIT-MC Mon Jul 26 02:11:24 1982 Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 0 : Issue 147 Today's Topics: Palestinian state on the West Bank CIA More Comments on arms sales New heights in standardization ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 Jul 1982 0118-PDT From: Herb LinSubject: Palestinian state on the West Bank... Part of this msg should go to POLI-SCI, but there is an issue relevant to ARMS-D. Israel claims that a Palestinian state on the West Bank would be a major threat to Israel's security. Consider the following proposal: 1. Allow the estabilishment of a Palestinian state on the West Bank, subject to the condition that no heavy weapons be deployed there. 2. Monitor the new state continuously by satellite. 3. Clobber any indication of heavy weapon deployment. This proposal seems to meet Israeli security objections, because heavy weapons such as tanks, artillery, APC's, jet fighters, and so on are needed to pose a security threat to Israel. Small arms and anti-tank weapons seem not to pose such a threat. Precedent exists for a similar arrangement - the post-war Japanese constitution excludes capital military equipment. Comments? ------------------------------ Date: Saturday, 24 July 1982 14:41-EDT From: Jon Webb Subject: CIA [pur-ee!Physics.els at UCB-C70] Concerning the CIA, the laws are such that they can barely do their job of gathering intelligence without Congress butting in, much less cause anarchy on a global scale as the Soviets do. I'm certain that there are those in the CIA who want to overthrow particular governments, but they do not have a free hand to do this. I'm not sure why you say this. Don't you know of CIA action against the government of Salvador Allende in Chile, or their installation of the Shah in Iran in the 50s? I suppose you know about these things, but think of them as things that happened in the past and can't happen now because of the new laws. But how can you be sure? After all, when the CIA was doing things like this people like you were saying just what you're saying now: the CIA wouldn't/couldn't do such a thing, all the unrest in these countries is due to freedom-loving people fighting opression by their government, etc. And all the other side had was rumors and mostly poorly supported allegations that the CIA was doing these things. Isn't the weight of evidence on the other side: the CIA has overthrown governments in the past, and may be trying to do so now? Jon ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jul 1982 00:35:09-CDT From: pal at uwisc Subject: More Comments on arms sales I have a few more comments and questions about arms mongering. As pointed out by Herb Lin in Vol.146 there are several ways of measuring arms sales. I suppose that what I really meant was *to what extent do such sales affect the amount and level of conflict in various parts of the globe*. I can conceive of situations in which arms sales would *lessen* the possibility of war in a region, but I am equally sure that there are situations where the introduction of sophisticated weapons systems would upset the regional balance of power in the direction of instability. Now to throw out a topic. What are the views of readers of this list on the following points? -- Are US arms sales primarily ideological in motivation, or are they for profit? What about the USSR? France, I would think, sells arms primarily for the money, since there are situations where *both* sides in a conflict are supplied by the French. I am now going to stick out my neck and suggest that ideologically motivated arms sales are in some sense defensible. That is, if one believes that the purpose of a superpower is to make the world a better place to live in (from *their* viewpoint, hence by spreading their viewpoint around), then arms sales that help to shore up friendly regimes against *outside* attack are *necessary*. However, weapons sales to governments for use against its own citizens are decidely less defensible. Sales of arms to guerrillas is a tough one. Such sales make for wars (civil), but they could also be deemed ideologically "good", such as western aid to Afghans, or Soviet/Cuban aid to El Salvadorans. Obviously, whether one regards such movements as "the people trying to throw off the yoke of oppression" or as "a few radicals trying to overthrow the government" depends on one's ideological standpoint. It also seems that it is possible for countries to get arms from the superpowers by making the right kind of noises. I would venture that neither Pakistan nor Saudi Arabia, both of which recently received substantial military assistance from the US to counter the perceived threat from the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is really scared of a Soviet attack, but is rather using this as an excuse to extract arms which the US would probably not give them under normal circumstances. What motivates such arms sales? Domestic political pressure? or a genuine belief that the Soviets are about to invade Pakistan? ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jul 1982 at 0011-PDT From: Andrew Knutsen Subject: new heights in standardization If you thought ADA was bad... By Bruce Ingersoll (c) 1982 Chicago Sun-Times (Field News Service) WASHINGTON - A Reagan administration plan to standardize the design of military computers has raised fears on Capitol Hill that the armed services will be saddled with obsolete technology. Several members of Congress also believe that standardization will boomerang on the Pentagon by reducing competition among defense contractors in the electronics industry. At stake in the little-noticed controversy is not only the wartime effectiveness of computerized weapons, but also billions in defense contracts. By 1990, the Defense Department will be spending $38 billion a year on tactical computers, the Electronics Industries Association estimates. One Pentagon technocrat called that cost projection low. In pursuing computer standardization, the Pentagon would develop and own its computer design instead of buying militarized versions of off-the-shelf computers. ''I find it incredible that DOD (Department of Defense) is planning to adopt a technical approach which has proven to be a failure and forgo the significant innovations available from the private sector,'' Rep. Jack Brooks (D-Tex.) wrote to Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger. ''I strongly recommend that you flatly reject this proposal on the basis that it will not only grossly waste the taxpayers' money but will undermine rather than enhance our nation's defense,'' he said. Brooks, chairman of the House Government Operations subcommittee on national security, will hold hearings Wednesday and Thursday on the Pentagon proposal for standard ''instruction-set architecture'' for computers. To a great extent, congressional anxiety over the proposal, being pushed by Richard DeLauer, undersecretary of defense for research and engineering, has been stirred by a General Accounting Office report. The GAO concluded that the proposal, if adopted, would lock the services into the use of inferior technology and prevent them from exploiting the rapid rate of innnovation in the computer industry. GAO investigators also found that standardization would ''effectively eliminate many competent computer companies from the militarized computer market,'' their report said. ''Very few companies are willing to compete on procurements mandating obsolete architectures.'' One computer expert, who insisted on remaining anonymous, argued that the Pentagon is really bent on a costly and unnecessary duplication of what can be bought off the shelf. H. Mark Grove, an aide to DeLauer, said the Pentagon's objective is to curb the proliferation of computers in aircraft, missiles and other weapons systems. The services have hundereds of different computers, each requiring unique software, or computer programs, and logisitical support. The Pentagon is spending $6 billion a year on software alone. ''If we let chaos reign, we're going to pay some high prices,'' Grove said. The GAO urged the Pentagon to forget about standardizing computer designs and, instead, concentrate on developing a common ''language''-known as ADA - for programming its computers. Such an approach is favored by most of the computer experts interviewed by the GAO. nyt-07-21-82 0219edt ------------------------------ End of Arms-D Digest ********************