poli-sci (06/05/82)
>From JoSH@RUTGERS Fri Jun 4 18:17:42 1982
Poli-Sci Digest Sat 5 Jun 82 Volume 2 Number 140
Contents: FoIA info
$1000000000
A-Bombs
MBA's
De Facto Laws (2 msgs)
Nuns Disagree with Bishops
Libertarian (?) Paradise
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 3 Jun 82 09:58:18 EDT (Thu)
From: Steve Bellovin <smb.unc@UDel-Relay>
Subject: Book on Freedom of Information Act
The ACLU publishes a booklet on the subject; contact a local affiliate
for ordering info. I haven't seen it, though, so I can't comment on
its intelligibility.
------------------------------
Date: 2 June 1982 2257-EDT (Wednesday)
From: Hank Walker at CMU-10A
Subject: how to earn a billion
Ever hear of a geometric progression? Ken Olsen is president and founder of
DEC. His stock is worth about $250M, and this came about in 25 years. Did
he steal it? Lie, cheat, etc to get it? No, he earned it.
------------------------------
Date: Wed Jun 2 20:40:17 1982
From: decvax!utzoo!henry at Berkeley
atomic bombs on Japan
The various flames on this subject have all ignored one key issue: the
Japanese view of the situation. It may well be true that the American
decision to use the bomb was motivated by political considerations such
as one-upmanship with respect to the Soviets. It is a mistake to assume
that the bombs therefore did not accomplish anything useful.
It is true that Japan was in bad shape in the summer of 1945. Submarine
warfare had imposed an effective blockade. Food was short. What navy
Japan had left was helpless in port for lack of fuel. USAAF firebombing
raids were systematically devastating the cities (causing, by the way,
far more death and destruction than the atomic attacks ever did). Japan
was suffering very badly indeed. But it is a serious mistake to assume
that the Japanese viewed the situation the same way the US did. (It seems
to be a standard mistake of Western countries to assume that everybody
else thinks the same way they do.)
Oh, it is entirely possible that the average "man in the street" thought
the situation was hopeless and surrender inevitable. It is not in fact
clear that this was the case, but it's not important. Because the man
in the street had NO SAY in the matter. None. Zero. The political
power in Japan in 1945 basically rested with the armed forces. The
Cabinet and other related bodies had major representation from the Army
and the Navy. There were still civilians in key positions, including
the Prime Minister, but their situation was increasingly precarious.
The armed forces had enough men in the inner circles of the government
that they could, at any time, (a) force the equivalent of a Vote of
Non-Confidence, and (b) win such a vote, thus toppling the government.
Given the political realities of the situation, the new government
(Cabinet, etc.) formed after such an event would inevitably have been
totally controlled by the armed forces, and in particular the Army's
General Anami would almost certainly have become Prime Minister.
What did the Army think about the idea of surrender? Well, most of
them had been trained in the precepts of Bushido, in which surrender
was the ultimate form of disgrace, such that it was literally better
to die fighting than to surrender. This is why the Allies did not
get many Japanese prisoners, why the reconquest of some miserable little
pieces of rock in the Pacific was so difficult, and incidentally was
also a large part of the reason why the Japanese treated Allied POW's
so savagely -- by their standards, men who surrendered were craven
cowards, barely human degenerates.
The Army's view of surrender in summer 1945 was, basically, total and
unconditional opposition. To even voice such thoughts was to betray
that one was a "Badoglio" (Badoglio was the man who negotiated Italy's
surrender to the Allies), both a coward and a traitor. If one was too
highly placed and had been too intimately involved with the war for
such an accusation to ring true, one had obviously been corrupted,
seduced by the Badoglios. The Army was determined to fight to the last
man, not because they thought they could win but because there was NO
other honorable course of action open to them.
The Prime Minister and most of the civilian higher-ups were in favor
of surrender, but they dared not force a confrontation. It took direct
intervention by the Emperor himself -- unprecedented and technically
illegal, since the Emperor was in law essentially a figurehead -- to
break the impasse. And despite his intervention being, LITERALLY, the
Word Of God to the Japanese of that time, he had to intervene TWICE in
the Cabinet and then PERSONALLY broadcast the orders -- the first time
most Japanese had ever heard the voice of their emperor/god.
And at that, if he'd simply ordered a surrender, he'd have been ignored,
on the grounds that he had been tricked by the Badoglios. Such an attempt
would probably have triggered a military coup; this was being seriously
considered earlier (no, this would not have been a revolt against the
Emperor: it would have been against the Badoglios who were misleading
him). At that, there WAS an attempted military coup after the decision
was made to surrender; it failed for lack of support by senior officers.
(What has all this to do with atomic bombs? I thought you'd never ask.
I'm just coming to that.)
The reason the Emperor was able, in his broadcast, to convince the Army
to go along with him was that he offered an escape from the moral dilemma
of surrender-is-disgrace. Basically, he argued that the atomic bomb was
something utterly new under the sun, so totally different from anything
that had come before that the old rules could not be expected to apply.
The new weapon was so terrible that Japan had no alternative but to
"bear the unbearable" and surrender. The situation was quite literally
unbearable to some Army officers: they committed suicide after hearing
the Emperor's broadcast. But few disobeyed; even half-plausible reasoning
sufficed, coming from their personal deity. This is why the attempted
coup failed.
Could the Japanese have been convinced without actual atomic attacks?
It's unlikely; as it was, the Army did its best to minimize the
seriousness of the situation until the evidence overwhelmed them.
The early reports from Hiroshima were widely belittled or taken to be
exaggerations. Perhaps a demonstration could have been sufficiently
convincing, but I doubt it.
In short, the atomic bombs were a key event in making Japan's surrender
possible (not desirable, POSSIBLE!). Possibly the pro-surrender faction
could have swung it without them, but it's not likely. The military
coup would have been almost inevitable, and substantial parts of the
Army would have fought to the last man regardless.
Don't forget, also, that the surrender saved more than just the lives
of the Allied invasion troops. Probably an equal number of Japanese
would have died in the fighting. And until the atom bombings, both
the Allied POW's in Japan and the Allied intelligence agencies charged
with their welfare considered it almost certain that final Japanese
defeat would result in the massacre of all Allied soldiers in Japanese
hands, orders or no orders.
For more details on the matter (a couple of hundred pages of them), the
best book by far that I have found is Thomas Coffey's IMPERIAL TRAGEDY.
Part 2 of this book is an attempt to reconstruct every detail of the
events in Japan leading up to the surrender. (Part 1 is a similar
treatment of Pearl Harbor.) Coffey is the only author whose work
I've seen whose primary sources include first-hand accounts from the
men involved (or their immediate associates, for those no longer alive).
Another good (although more limited) discussion of the subject can be
found in NAGASAKI: THE NECESSARY BOMB? (author's name forgotten, dammit,
and my copy isn't handy). Both published circa 1975, possibly still
in print.
------------------------------
Date: 2 Jun 82 22:12:47-EDT (Wed)
From: Ron Minnich <minnich.EE@UDel-Relay>
Subject: mba & business schools again (sorry!)
In the sunday nyt business section there was a short article on
Abernathy and Hayes , the two Harvard B-school professors who had the temerity
to point out the obvious.
Thought someone might be interested.
One of the two (forget which) told an interesting story. He had given
a lecture to a group of Europeans about the problems that over-regulation,
unions, and the usual bugaboos were causing American business. He noticed that
they were all chuckling, and discovered to his surprise that no one
believed him. He was shocked enough by their rejection of his ideas that
he began to reconsider them.
------------------------------
Date: 3 June 1982 1113-EDT (Thursday)
From: Robert.Frederking at CMU-10A (C410RF60)
Subject: Re: de facto laws
Besides the examples you mention, Ohio has an interesting one: there
are two kinds of speed limits, one on white signs and one on yellow signs.
The white variety are the legal limit, and you may get a ticket for exceding
it. The yellow ones are posted at road hazards, such as bad curves, and
are real (i.e., you may kill yourself if you ignore it). There is also a
nasty habit for the de facto speed limit to be clamped down to 55 without
much warning (the Feds have threatened to cancel Ohio's highway funds because
it has the fastest average rate of speed of any state (well over 55)).
On another note, Atlantic Monthly had an article on how beat policemen
enforce community standards (instead of the law) and how this contributes to
the "feeling" of public safety (I haven't had a chance to read it, however).
Also, in another sense, the legislators are even further removed from the law,
since (as a lawyer here says) the law is what the *courts* say it is, and
they often interpret it based on reasonableness, consistency, etc., as opposed
to letter-by-letter.
------------------------------
Date: 3 Jun 1982 18:09:53-EDT
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: Re: de jure vs de facto
Even people I know who hate NYC don't make that broad a claim; sounds
like deliberate exaggeration. But it wouldn't surprise me if buildings
were \passed/, entirely innocently, while not complying with all parts
of the code, as I doubt there is a single inspector who is both conversant
with all the applicable rules and allowed enough time to make sure they've
all been followed.
Application \within the law/ is always a problem. Consider the Bartley-Fox
handgun law in Mass: a year in jail for carrying an unlicensed handgun
(!!summary wording only!!). This only requires that the arresting officer
present the charge in those terms and that the prosecutor choose to
prosecute under that statute. A recent case in which one of an extended
family of dwarves got picked up on this law received national coverage.
Even more scandalous was the case of 5(?) men convicted of gang rape and
given completely suspended sentences (rape sentencing seems to land more
judges in hot water....). Sometimes I feel entirely in accord with Lafferty's
Camiroi (anybody can make a law, but it can be unmade by a few people deciding
it's silly; there are rapidly escalating penalties for having laws you make
overruled).
------------------------------
Date: 28 May 1982 19:28:44-EDT
From: wdh at mit-cipg
Subject: Nuns disagree with bishops
Yesterday, according to a UPI report in the Times, the leadership of the
1800-member National Coalition of American Nuns issued a statement
opposing the Hatch amendment, which would outlaw abortion. Said the
nuns, "While we continue to oppose abortion, in principle and in
practice, we are likewise convinced that the responsibility for
decisions in this regard resides primarily with those who are directly
and personally involved," which is a roundabout endorsement of personal
choice.
This statement underscores the divisions within the Catholic community
on this issue, since the bishop's conference has supported the Hatch
Amendment. Another interesting sign of this was the photo which
appeared in the Times a few weeks ago, of the annual conference of
bishops (I think) which showed a priest tearing banners out of the
hands of nuns. The bishops, who now support the Freeze, have been
used as a lever against feminist groups within the coalition to
force silence on the issue of freedom of choice, with the ostensible
reason being to avoid alienating the vast constituency the bishops
draw. This statement seems to show that the bishops' constituency
isn't afraid of facing the issue.
The statement urged leaders in the churches, courts and Congress to
provide "a more nurturing environment so that women will be encouraged
to bring new life into the world....
"It is paradoxical to us that the same leaders who are currently
demanding that women bring their babies to term are simultaneously
voting to cut off food stamps, child nutrition programs and related
benefits essential for the health and well-being of our children...."
At the same time, the nuns urged "women everwhere to disavow the use of
abortion as a normative means of birth control" and said that women
should educate themselves "in ways of being creatively responsible--
insofar as this is possible--for avoiding unwanted pregnancies."
(Thanks to KEB@AI for this info...)
-Bill
------------------------------
Date: 3 June 1982 21:12 edt
From: SSteinberg.SoftArts at MIT-MULTICS
Subject: Libertarian Paradise
*from: SAS (Seth A. Steinberg)
There are some neat stories coming out of that libertarian
paradise in Africa, Uganda. Ever since everyone in the army
decided that they wanted a piece of the libertarian pie there
has been NO government in Uganda, just a bunch of goons with
guns selling out to the highest bidder. There is NO income
tax, NO property tax, NO speed limits on the highways, NO
helmet law so the place is probably rife with investment
opportunities. (A lot of big banks are holding back until some
government reappears but they always follow the big trends
anyway.)
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------