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: ModeratorSubject: 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 *****************************