Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!XX.LCS.MIT.EDU!ARMS-D-Request
From: ARMS-D-Request@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Newsgroups: mod.politics.arms-d
Subject: (none)
Message-ID: <8612170539.AA08193@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Wed, 17-Dec-86 00:39:29 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8612170539.AA08193
Posted: Wed Dec 17 00:39:29 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 17-Dec-86 23:23:47 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 555
Approved: arms-d@xx.lcs.mit.edu

XB.K98

Date: 16 Dec 86 21:44-EST
From: Moderator 
Subject: Arms-Discussion Digest V7 #85
To: ARMS-D@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Reply-To: ARMS-D@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU

Arms-Discussion Digest               Tuesday, December 16, 1986 9:44PM
Volume 7, Issue 85

Today's Topics:

              acceptable bounds for debate (IMPORTANT!!)
                            airborne alert
                        Offensive vs defensive
        Morality of U.S. Foreign Policy/Offensive Uses of SDI
                          Prisoner's Delemma
                      SDI, WSJ, CIA, DoD, and BS
        Morality of U.S. Foreign Policy/Offensive Use of SDI
                       Weinberger corrects goof
                             U.S. motives
             Offensive vs. Defensive; Ethics of US vs. SU
                      Reaganism and Rationalism
      Disinformation anyone? KAL007, PACs and Dimwitted_scientists

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1986  15:37 EST
From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: acceptable bounds for debate (IMPORTANT!!)


I have received two complaints about my decision to terminiate the
Cowan/Lin debate on the nature of acceptable debate and the meaning of
the term political.  So far, those are the only responses I have
received. 

Let me open this one up to the readership, in this, dedicated,
message.

I terminated the discussion on acceptable bounds of debate at the
point that I concluded the discussion would be more appropriate
elsewhere.  My judgment was that the debate had shifted from the
question of whether or not MIT was performing a "national service" by
running the Lincoln Labs (a lab funded largely by the military) to the
definition of a political act.  I believed then, and continue to
believe that the latter topic is more appropriate for some other
forum.  I had in mind, but did not say, that such another forum might
be POLI-SCI@Rutgers.

I excerpt below from the WELCOME message that I send to all new
subscribers; I passed this message by the list and received no
complaints.

    ARMS-D is for various and sundry comments and questions on policy
    issues related to peace, war, national security, weapons, the arms
    race, and the like.

I am sure that I don't believe that the definition of a political act
falls under this guideline.  I believe that the question of MIT's
performing a public service by running a weapons lab falls under the
guideline, but just barely.  On the other hand, Doherty said that he
is "concerned about the squelching of Rich's comments because they
seem to be the only discussion we have had about the ideology within
which "defense" RD&D (research, development, and deployment) occurs."

My problems with Doherty's forumlation are two.  (1) I am not removing
the discussion of these issues with the intention of squelching them,
even though I disagree with them.  Rather, I am trying to remain true
to the guidelines established for the use of this list.  (2) While I
recognize the interconnectedness of many issues, judgments must be
made somewhere.  I draw the line when I can't identify a specific
connection to military or defense issues.  If someone has a better
criterion, please let me know.

In addition, I have been made more sensitive to the question of
outpourings of detail on certain subjects, specifically the LOW issue.
LOTS of people complained about that one after I published the initial
complaint, and so I worry that this debate -- which in my judgment is
even less related to the guideline above -- may be going on too long.

That is my point of view.  I WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU.  For the meantime,
in light of the trend indicated (two votes in favor, none opposed!!),
no submission on this topic will be held back.  This publication
policy is a temporary one, pending the outcome of this poll.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1986  15:23 EST
From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: airborne alert


    John_Boies@ub.cc.umich.edu

    9) Might I also remind everyone of the fact that the U.S. keeps six
    percent or so of its B-52 force (and during the late fifties and early
    sixties some 33%) in the air at any given time.

The SAC does not maintain airborne alert at this time.  It maintained
a 1/3 alert during the Cuban missile crisis (I think.. not sure) and a
6% alert as a matter of course in the late 50's and early 60's.  It
was stopped due to operational costs.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 15 Dec 86 09:35:46 PST
From: pom@along.s1.gov
Subject: Offensive vs defensive

     POM: I want to comment on two fragments below, which while
	taken from a recent posting, seem to be reccuring over and over
	and over again ( by many different people).

....In general, the terms "offensive weapons" and "defensive weapons" have
little meaning until it is known how they might function with other intercept 
attacking RVs and of being able to detonate nuclear weapons......

....The second point I am trying to make is that terms must be defined
before any meaningful dialogue can occur.  Seemingly, advocates of SDI
say it's defensive largely because it can be made so it cannot
directly attack Russian soil, or some similar argument.  Critics of
DI, on the other hand, often suggest that SDI can be made a part of
an offensive strategy or plan--it can blunt retaliation by USSR after...

	POM: Actually, defensive or offensive cannot be defined in
technical terms: An umbrella is used offensively, when used to attack
unsuspecting passer-by and  a long-range rifle can be used for defense.
While some gizmos are more suitable for attack then other, arguments
about which one is which are pointless. Any weapon can be used either
way and whether a use is defensive  is essentially a moral judgement. 
 Defense is justified ,  unprovoked attack is not.( In normal society, If I
 kill 'in selfdefense' I go free) .The issue is 'what is just selfdefense',
 not whether a handgun is defensive and rifle offensive weapon.

 There is no reason whatsoever, why US should limit itself to weapons
 which can be used ONLY for defense. { Yes, I recall that president said
 something about 'defensive shield'. Please bear in mind that I am not
 responsible for what he sais and nobody but me is responsible for what
 I say.} 
 Essential point is that US has no plans and reasons to attack SU, and
 its history (not just words) show that it was using it's power in a
 responsible ( i.e. ethical ) way - i.e. for selfdefense and just goals.
  Pseudo-arguments for SDI, such as (it's defense only, it will provide
 spin-offs, ..and what not,} were made, but it is silly to  take them
 seriously and argue with them.

  Why  should we not agree, that mere fact that US is strong ( which
 means it is using whatever appropriate technology becomes feasible)
 does not necessarily means that it's policy will be more aggresive.
 There is a moral judgment made, before US would use that strength, is it not?
 If we  do agree on that, why we must have a uproar about  as each new
 technology comes to point in which it can be  applied.( Please note,
 in this posting I do not argue that SDI is technicaly feasible or
 cost-effective. The issue I address is non-technical).
   
  In short: - guns and robots - do not kill people. People do . 
 I hope we all agree that it  is wrong to  kill - except in selfdefense,
 do'nt we? 
  Now do you really think that SU is killing Afghans in self-defense? 

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 15 Dec 86 22:18:08 EST
From: John_Boies@ub.cc.umich.edu
Subject: Morality of U.S. Foreign Policy/Offensive Uses of SDI

I made an error in my last submission to the arms-d forum.  In point
nine of my submission I mistakenly stated that the U.S. kept its B-52
force at high rates of airborne alert (33% during the fifties and
early sixties, and 6% more recently).  It has been pointed out to me
since I wrote the submission that the 33% airborne alert was only kept
up during relatively short crisis periods (such as the Cuban missile
crisis) and that the common airborne alert status was 6%.  Moreover,
it must be pointed out that for a number of years now, the U.S.  has
kept few if any of its B-52s on airborne alert, although a significant
proportion (I believe over ten percent or so, if not more) are kept at
a high alert status on the ground.  That is, they are kept fueled and
loaded with bombs with the crews nearby; they are supposedly able to
takeoff within six minutes or so (the amount of warning time the
airbase would have if an attack was launched from a fleet ballistic
missile sub).

------------------------------

Date:  Tue, 16 Dec 86 02:14 EST
From:  Paul Schauble 
Subject:  Prisoner's Delemma

A while back this digest carried some notes on studies of the Prisoner's
Dilemma game as a metaphor for the arms control problem.  I can't find
this in the local archives.  Can someone provide me the issues that
contain this, or provide pointers to other references in the literature?

Please don't write to me asking for copies.  I will post results to the
digest if I get anything worth posting.

          Thanks,
          Paul 

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 16 Dec 86 09:20:18 PST
From: Steve Walton 
Subject: SDI, WSJ, CIA, DoD, and BS

     The editorial page of the December 16  Wall  Street  Journal
contains  a  long  signed editorial on the Soviet's own strategic
defense efforts, written by William  Kucewicz,  described  as  "a
member  of  the Journal's editorial board."  I suppose it is thus
as close as an official statement as the WSJ makes.  Not surpris-
ingly,  it  is strongly pro-SDI, essentially claiming that Soviet
efforts so far exceed those of the US that the SU might very well
be able to deploy a functioning multi- layer strategic defense in
the near future!
     Some of the statements of "fact" from  the  editorial  which
are  used  to bolster their position (mostly from DoD and CIA re-
ports):
(1) The SU's spending on strategic defense have averaged  $15  to
    $20  billion  since  1970.  [Does this figure include air de-
    fense?]
(2) The SU has been upgrading the ABM system around Moscow,  with
    new  tracking  and  battle  management radars and modernizing
    their interceptors.  "In a gross violation of the 100-missile
    limit  of  the  ABM treaty, the Soviets' silo-based launchers
    are reloadable and reloads have been tested."  [Confirmation,
    anyone?]
(3) The Soviets have at least 12 radars under construction  which
    the  article  says "appear to be part of a nationwide defense
    system.  The radars are similar to one  near  Krasnoyarsk..."
    [Twelve!!   I guess we all agree that Krasnoyarsk is a viola-
    tion.  Are there really eleven others?]
(4) They are developing a modular ABM system which will allow new
    ABM sites to be constructed in a matter of months rather than
    years.
(5) They are far ahead of us in laser and particle-beam  develop-
    ment;  the  editorial quotes intelligence sources which claim
    we have learned most of what we know about particle beams  as
    weapons from Soviet work in the field.
     I think such a major pro-SDI item deserves a major rebuttal,
and  I think that several people on this net are capable of doing
so.  I might volunteer, but I don't consider myself  knowledgable
enough  to  respond  in  detail.   However,  I offer some general
points which such a rebuttal should probably contain:   There  is
absolutely no reason to think that the Soviets are ahead of us in
any type of technology, particularly the sophisticated  computers
needed  for  truly  effective BMD.  Even the Japanese can't build
such computers yet :-).  The same arguments advanced  as  to  why
such defenses won't work for us apply to the SU system.  There is
no evidence in the article that they have made  any  progress  on
boost-phase  intercept,  without  which  the whole idea is pretty
hopeless.  The Soviet BMD effort is being driven by the same sort
of  people  that  are running SDIO and High Frontier, but without
any opposition;  in fact, it seems likely to me that  one  reason
they're  so scared of SDI is that their own people have been tel-
ling them such a thing is possible for years, and have eliminated
from  the  government everyone competent who said otherwise.  Fi-
nally, the entire article is full of the attitude  that  the  So-
viets  are  10 feet tall (aren't are people just as capable?) and
that if the Soviets are doing it, it must be worth doing  and  we
should match them dollar-for-dollar even if we KNOW that it won't
work.
     This is much longer than it should have been,  but  the  WSJ
just  pisses  me off (sorry).  I have a question:  are their edi-
torials preaching to the converted, or do  they  actually  change
minds  of  persons  with influence?  If the latter, then they are
the most irresponsible bunch of reprobates since Chicken Little.
                                        Steve Walton

------------------------------

Date: Monday, 15 December 1986  14:17-EST
From: Peter O. Mikes 
To:   ARMS-D
cc:   pom at mordor.s1.gov
Re:   Morality of U.S. Foreign Policy/Offensive Use of SDI
Newsgroups: arms-d
Organization: S-1 Project, LLNL

>   Ethics and Morality of U.S. Foreign Policy/Offensive Use of SDI
>
>Subject: Killing in self-defense
>Date: Fri, 12 Dec 86 11:55:07 -0800
>From: foy@aerospace.ARPA
>
> pom writes:

>
>........
>>  Now do you really think that SU is killing Afghans in self-defense? 
>........
>
>And do you really think that US was killing Vietnamese in
>self-defense?  And do you really think that US (by proxy) is killing
>Nicaraguans and El Salvadoreans in self-defense?
>
	Response by POM: Of course not. What makes you think that I would 
 believe such  absurd statements? Ortega was accussed of many 'crimes' but
 never of attacking US -- there are even hints that he may pardon Mr. Hasenfus
 -- speak of bending backwards..
>

------------------------------

Date: Monday, 15 December 1986  19:45-EST
From: Clifford Johnson 
To:   LIN, arms-d
Re:   Weinberger corrects goof

In my final LOWC message I reported that Weinberger's attorney had
claimed that presidential order was not required for the launch of
nuclear missiles.  In reply to my opposition to this, he completely
about-faced on this issue, introducing the testimony of a Pentagon
nuclear planner, Colonel Hope.  He testified that his job (in the JCS)
was nuclear war planning, and particularly concerned nuclear release
procedures:

"Under these procedures only the President can authorize the use
of our nuclear weapons.  There are positive controls to preclude
the use of such weapons without presidential authority.  The
specific details of our nuclear release procedures are highly
classified."

------------------------------

Date: Saturday, 13 December 1986  17:55-EST
From: infinet!rhorn%wanginst.UUCP at harvard.HARVARD.EDU (Rob Horn)
To:   arms-d
Re:   U.S. motives
Posted-Date: Sat, 13 Dec 86 17:55:34 est

The US did not invade Russia in 1918.  The actual situation was much
more complicated, and not relevant to Arms-d.  This ``invasion'' has
been a stock item of Soviet propaganda for decades and does influence
Soviet thinking.  British, French, and US troops did fight the Soviets
but the motivations and behaviour of the US was neutral to pro-Soviet,
and you can make a better case for the US intervention saving Lenin's
coup than you can for it attempting to destroy it.  The strong Soviet
propaganda on this matter may be relevant, but don't confuse it with
the truth.

I do think it important to realize that while US forces did fight Red
forces during the russian civil war, it was motivated by a desire to
defeat Germany and to preserve the liberty of the russian and eastern
European people.

Following the WW I Armistice, the British and French intensified their
activities and formed a campaign to defeat the Reds and return the
Whites to power in Russia.  The United States ended its alliance and
tried unsuccessfully to act as a mediator and bring about a peaceful
end to the Russian Civil War.  It succeeded in pleasing nobody.

If you think people would be interested this is a very brief summary.
People who want to get more should contact me by mail.


				Rob  Horn
	UUCP:	...{decvax, seismo!harvard}!wanginst!infinet!rhorn
	Snail:	Infinet,  40 High St., North Andover, MA

------------------------------

Subject: Offensive vs. Defensive; Ethics of US vs. SU
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 86 16:17:31 -0800
From: crummer@aerospace.ARPA

... a response to:

>Date: Wed, 10 Dec 86 12:43:43 PST
>From: pom@along.s1.gov
>Subject: Offensive vs defensive
>
> Essential point is that US has no plans and reasons to attack SU, and
> its history (not just words) show that it was using it's power in a
> responsible ( i.e. ethical ) way - i.e. for selfdefense and just goals.

None of us knows what the plans of the US are.  The history of the
US's use of power is that it has many times been used irresponsibly,
in the judgement of many people, and offensively.  (see John_Boies
reply to POM)

>
>  Why  should we not agree, that mere fact that US is strong ( which
> means it is using whatever appropriate technology becomes feasible)
> does not necessarily means that it's policy will be more aggresive.
> There is a moral judgment made, before US would use that strength, is it not?

Please attempt to make the case that ANY state uses moral judgement in
the use of strength.  A possible exception was Nazi Germany.
According to Nietschean ethics weakness was immoral; morality was
DEFINED by the ubermensch.

> ...   
>
>  In short: - guns and robots - do not kill people. People do . 

Shades of the famous NRA bumper sticker!  One of the goals of of
military training is the establishment of a strictly authoritarian
system where the child-warriors act as mechanically as machines, viz.
Gwynn Dyer's book on war.

> I hope we all agree that it  is wrong to  kill - except in selfdefense,
> do'nt we? 

Yes, but that's all the license anyone ever needed.

>  Now do you really think that SU is killing Afghans in self-defense? 
>

Yes.  Do you actually think a good Russian Communist could not give a
"rational" argument for the Afganistan invasion on the basis of
self-defense?

  -- Charlie

------------------------------

Subject: Reaganism and Rationalism
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 86 17:28:18 -0800
From: crummer@aerospace.ARPA

This is a response to Bill Thacker's note on "Public Opinion and Summit".

Assuming that all "rational" humans (I haven't met one who claims to
be unrational or irrational.) use unerring logic in deduction, the
differences must arise due to different axioms and postulates and that
boils down to WHOM (not what) you believe, i.e. take on blind faith.
There is little, if anything, on the subject of international
relations that any one of us has direct personal experience of.  Even
Herb Lin, who must be one of the best informed contributors to this
list, has to refer to human sources for his information.

People with an authoritarian bent believe the ones in authority when
they speak and THEN rationalize their beliefs.  When pressed, these
people will justify their belief in the authority by claiming that the
authority has "inside information" that we ordinary people are not
privy to, besides, we elected them so we should keep out of their way
and let them do their jobs.

As has to be demonstrated every once in a while, Watergate and the
current Iranscam are examples, our system of government isn't set up
that way.  There is no one person or branch of government in which
resides the "authority".  Our constitution and 3-branch system makes
all "authority" subject to law.  You may agree with Ronald Reagan but
that won't make much difference if and when his actions and those of
his men are judged illegal.

  --Charlie

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 16 Dec 86 12:43:46 PST
From: pom@since.s1.gov
To: ARMS-D@xx.lcs.mit.edu

 Message-ID: <134@mordor.s1.gov>  rfr: Arms-Discussion Digest V7 #84                                           Date: 1 5 Dec 86 16:55:28 GMT
 Subject: Desinformation anyone?
 Keys:  (KAL007, PACs and Dimwitted_scientists).
 Type: Long but (-: extremely :-) interesting.
                              
POM:   I find it to be an interesting coincidence that two times
      in few weeks, we had two reports, featuring soviet army
      as bunch of bumbling idiots:

DIMWITs:		 First was an obviously planted
 'report by Dr. Franz' about soviet technician 'squirting oil'
  on computer board to fix it 'blowing all circuits'. 

KAL007:			Second apears to be the book 'analyzing'
  the KAL007 incident, and concluding that 'it was not malice,
  but utter incompetence' which caused the tragedy. To adopt such
  as-if unpartial view, absolving the target from bigger crime
  is a favorite technique of desinformation professionals.

if (you are tired of KAL007) goto PAC on next page.
  
--summary of facts:------------------------------------------ 
  A plane was in the soviet air-space for a long time ( over 1/2 hour);
   (Thats a rare event). It happened while soviets were conducting
   secret and sensitive large scale test (that's another rare event).
  
   Charge was made  (by soviets) that KIA used civilian plane for
      spying, endangering lives of inocent civilians. 
   Charge was made (by circles within our intelligence
   community) that soviets shot down inocent civilian plane,
     through incompetence or (being barbarians) pure sadism.
--Conclusion:-------------------------------------------------
    Both charges were made by parties, whose honesty and truth-
   fulness was repeatedly and recently demonstrated to be
   lacking. In absence of any credible witness or testimony,
   I think that both alleged culprits (soviet army and KIA)
   must be presumed inocent until proven guilty. Indirect
   evidence (coincidence of two rare events) nevertheless
   points to the KIAs connection.
--------------------------------so what?------------------
    I would not waste screen-space on it; I do becase:
a)   a campaign 'to portrait (potential) enemy as stupid' 
      is particularly reckless and dangerous undertaking and 
b)   some people seem to accept that (possible des)information
     uncritically:
    >From:     John Allred 
  >While it may be true that the Soviets did not maliciously shoot down
   >KAL007, they *definitely* were malicious during the attempts to
   >recover KAL007's black box....	                   and
c)  another coincidence happened today, which directed
   my attention and memory banks to this topic(Des-info). That was the 

PAC connection: Yesterdays papers reported that some of the illegal
    Iran_deal profits were diverted to extremist PACs such as
    Endowment for the Preservation of Liberty and used for
    'publicity campaign'.
Now:   For 5 M$ you can buy lot of commercials.(-: in my incarnation      as an amateur private investigator Vrana :-) I want to pose the
   following (crucial)
QUESTION:: Did you noticed any big publicity campaign on behalf
        of contras???
May be I did:  About a week before November elections, I noticed
      in local paper (Oakland Tribune) a "letter to the editor"
      which cought my attention (: attention of self-proclaimed 
      desinformation sleuth expert :-). It had that characteristic
      combination of crude simplistic language ( They aim at simple
      uneducated people) with  subtle and clever psychological
      edge. 
It went (from memory) like this: Congressman XYZ is one of that group,
     which always votes against our neglected national defenses. He
     is a good friend of totalitarian Ortega and one of those who
     voted to let down our friends for freedom....

I remember that reference to the Nicaragua vote, that
	peculiar expression "Friends for Freedom". 
        Is he referring to so called 'Fifth Freedom?' I wondered.
The final question:
       Does anybody recalls reading similar, or even identical (except
       for XYZ) letter in the local paper, just before the election?
	If such letter writting was part of the centrally 
	organised campaign, it may well reveal itself by use of 
        the same peculiar phraseology.

 I apologize for the length of this posting - but imagine that together we may help to solve the 'mystery of the missing 5 Megabucks'

 Past and Future: Several people raised issue with my (POMs) statements
	in "Offensive vs. Defensive' posting, such as:
        'US has NO plans to attack SU' and 'was ethical in its past use
	of force'. I appreciate the feedback and will clarify and
	respond soon. Now,  I have to do some work. POM.
Disclaimer: I hope that it is clear  that the participants
	 of this net  who contributed the topics on
         KAL007 and Dr. Franz were  acting in good faith,
	 wondering about  what they read.  :-|.Their 
	 contribution is  sincerely appreciated :-{ .

------------------------------

End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************