ARMS-D-Request@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU.UUCP (04/06/87)
Arms-Discussion Digest Sunday, April 5, 1987 8:23PM
Volume 7, Issue 112
[Note: #110 was never sent. I may have lost some messages -- if yours
never appeared, please resend. -- Sorry! Moderator]
Today's Topics:
citing Arms-D Notebook [sic] in traditional media
Erroneously Sent Message
Selective Service System phone number
Zuckerman cites ARMS-D in NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS.
Sadarm Anti-Armor Munitions
Paradigm Shift (was US foreign policy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject:citing Arms-D Notebook [sic] in traditional media
<JJ> From: jon@june.cs.washington.edu (Jon Jacky)
<JJ> Subject: Zuckerman cites ARMS-D in NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS.
<JJ> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 87 09:38:41 PST
<JJ> In the April 9, 1987 issue of the NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS, p. 39,
<JJ> Solly Zuckerman ("Lord" Zuckerman, no less) cites material that appeared
<JJ> in the ARMS-D digest, ... Zuckerman cites it
<JJ> in a footnote, as "Arms-D Notebook (November 24, 1986)."
<JJ> ... I wonder
<JJ> if any benighted souls will go to their libraries asking to
<JJ> look at the back issues of "Arms-D Notebook."
To make matters worse, he didn't call our forum by exactly the same name
we call it. The full name is Arms-Discussion, although that's not crucial
because we usually call it just Arms-D, but he calls it a Notebook,
whereas we call it a Digest or Newsgroup or Mailing-List. Even if some
library has put into their obscure-journal database our correct name and
how to get back issues by contacting the moderator by snail-mail and by
various network-mail methods, the difference in name may lead someone to
think the citation is not about us but about some other forum with a
similar name, or more likely some actual print medium with a similar name.
<JJ> Those without net access may find themselves excluded from the mainstream
<JJ> of discussion and debate.
This is nothing new. Everyone except high-brass in military and the
executive branch of the federal government has been excluded from the
mainstream of weapons and defense debate for as long as I can remember.
We haven't formed the first Arms-D clique, rather the first one outside
official channels (at least the first one WE know about; there are
probably many other forums whose mere existance is secret).
The proper forum for major discussion of this topic is Human-Nets.
Has Human-Nets been discussing this problem (citation of electronic
media, access by non-net people, hassles at libraries, ...)? Can
somebody currently/recently on HUMAN-NETS give a brief summary of those
discussions insofar as they apply to this question, to this forum?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 87 11:08 EST
From: Bruce Boghosian <bmb@Think.COM>
Subject: Erroneously Sent Message
The message that I sent last week (Open Letter to Congress on SDI) was
intended only for local distribution where I work, but accidently wound
up in the Arms-D Newsletter thanks to an error on my part. I really
don't want zillions of people contacting me, so please ignore the
message.
Thanks,
bmb@think.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 87 12:39:39 PST
From: wild@Sun.COM (Will Doherty)
Subject: Selective Service System phone number
Just in case anyone was wondering, the toll-free (for us, not for them)
number for Selective Service (Involuntary Servitude) System is:
800-621-5388
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 87 21:18:24 PST
From: ihnp4!ihuxv!eklhad@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
To: arms-d-request
Subject: Re: Zuckerman cites ARMS-D in NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS.
> Reviewing the debate over SDI computing,
> Zuckerman first cites AT&T VP Solomon Buschbaum's testimony to the Senate
> Armed Services Committee that the telephone system is a good model for the
> 'Star Wars' battle management computers. In reply, he cites AT&T scientist
> Karl Dahlke's reminder that AT&T's software is also buggy when first
> delivered, and requires debugging after installation. Some of you may
> remember Dahlke's posting in ARMS-D several months ago. Zuckerman cites it
> in a footnote, as "Arms-D Notebook (November 24, 1986)."
I am flattered. I guess we better take seriously what we submit here!
In the future, those who wish to site either statement may
reference "Physics And Society" April 1987, p6-9.
It is a relatively new journal, so be patient with your library.
If you cannot get copies, let me know.
> This is the first example of which I am aware in which a traditional
> publication cites an electronic communication as a scholarly reference.
True, and I think this is suboptimal.
Understand, I am not partial to print; it is simply a matter of
public access. If you submit something that you
(and other arms-d participants) feel is a significant scholarly
contribution, please make an effort to publish it.
Several of you asked me to do this, and I have
(though a bit late for Zuckerman's article).
Unfortunately, it takes quite a while to get anything published;
it is so easy just to type something up and send it off.
> Those without net access may
> find themselves excluded from the mainstream of discussion and debate.
Since the "mainstream" discussions require security clearences,
I doubt they will ever take place over the net.
However, the decision makers (for the most part) *are* isolated
from many important facts, necessary for making those decisions.
It is not just they who lose; we all lose! Governing intelligently
requires more and more technical knowledge and wisdom each year.
I honestly believe a technically (and economically) informed congress would
allocate under 1 billion per year for ABM research,
aimed primarily at research (not development) on ground based
site defense, that *might* actually be cost effective at the margin.
Instead, many feel the "peaceshield" possibility
is worth another 3 billion, several arms control treaties, etc etc.
I don't quite know what to do; except to keep talking and writing.
karl dahlke ihnp4!ihlpa!eklhad
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 87 09:23:30 est
From: rutgers!gwe@cbosgd.MIS.OH.ATT.COM (George Erhart)
Reply-To: rutgers!cbosgd!gwe (George Erhart)
Re: Sadarm Anti-Armor Munitions
A quick summary of the status of Sadarm;
Sadarm can be ejected from rockets or artillery shells. On
ejection, a parachute is released , causing the munition to slow and
spin; look-down sensors (millimeter-wave radar and two-color infrared)
locate a target. When the target is within range and properly aligned,
a dense kinetic penetrator is fired (undergoing explosive formation),
striking the target at ~8000 ft/sec, usually on the deck armor.
In April, 1985, Honeywell conducted two successful firings against
M-47 tanks. The munitions were ejected from 8-inch howitzer shells; Honeywell
claims there would be no trouble downsizing to fit the 155-mm howitzer. Cost
is estimated at $2000 per unit. Avco and Aerojet are Honeywell's competitors
on the Sadarm project.
(Excerpted from "Special Report : Anti-Armor Technology" (Defense Electronics,
August, 1986)). I would reccommend this article as a good basic review of
anti-armor technology.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Thacker AT&T Network Systems Columbus, Ohio
(Usenet) cbatt!cbosgd!gwe
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 87 17:35:35 PST
From: pom%under.s1.gov@mordor.s1.gov
Subject: Paradigm Shift (was US foreign policy)
Subject: Does future control the past?
Or perhaps : Multiple World interpretation of the arms-d debates
i.e.: mostly prophecies, some premonitions (no revelations, this time)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Warning: VERY long and terribly serious - ( no political jokes this time)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Before I will tell you about the future, Ineed to to mop-up some left-overs
of my past discussion with John Boies and Allen Sherzer. Apparently, we,
me and the two of them, are still on the oposite side of the ideological
baricade, BUT in spite of the enormous differences of views, we managed some
communication and remained completely non-violent. I learned something
(e.g. that 75% of US public supported Vietnam war....
(speak of learning from the history!))
and I want to thank them both for taking time to decifer my 'English'.
This one is from John: (i.e. John_Boies@ub.cc.umich.edu)::
>The world is a lot more complex a place than I think POM realizes.
>Societies and nations do not just up and try and invade each other
>at a drop of a hat... If the world was as simplistically tooth and claw as
>POM suggests you would think that nations with more military power would have
>long since gobbled up all the nations with less military power.............
>The U.S. is an excellent case in point. The resistance to the US entering WWI
>and WWII was tremendous. During WWI some sources suggest that as many as...
pom: This is true. I have a tripple quote on this topic: In the book
"Computer Networks and Simulation III (N.Holland 1986)ISBN:0 44 70053 6, p269
authors write: " Society needs more sophisticated tools to deal with complex
global problems which so overhelm the world's leaders that they are tempted
to simplistic solutions. Nightingale (1985), writing about a playwright,
spoke of M. Frayn's concern for 'the awesome complexity of the world'
and our desperate attempts to reduce it to nice, neat shape". Gleick (1985)."
..
We all do that. We (as individuals) do not percieve the world; we are
only conscious of our specific view of it. And how much of that view is
shaped by reason and how much by our past, by our emotions and by our
hopes for the future?
[answer will be given in the next issue - but mail me your guess now]
John, disagreeing with my answer (SU would invade US) draws on his group
experience ("The U.S. is an excellent case in point") and I suppose that
what he says is true in his world. One of my first remembrances (age 5) was my
father actually yelling at me (first and perhaps only time) and making
terrible fuss, just because we were playing outside during the air raid.
(we just did not hear the siren - big deal - right?). I was ten when puppet
government was installed and 14 when I (by chance) picked up a book with
transcripts of the monster trials. (Monster trial is a special kind of
the show trial. It takes up to 2 years of 'interogation' to properly
prepare 'defendants' for the actual trial). I did not needed any commentary,
some things you 'get' instantly. But past only directs us to 'see' things:
Yesterday I 'saw' (at SF int. film festival) film called "General Report
on Chile" (good movie: shot clandestinely in Chile, with some documentary
segments of 1973 'putch' and bombing of presidential palace. [Very messy
job - like that botched-up attempt to 'smoke up' that Chicago commune].
So what? There were many 'interviews' in the film; One young man (25)
said:" I was only 11, when it happened and I remember how things changed..."
( meaning : the political trials, executions, 'missing people'..."
('it' = Allende was killed and Pinochet's puppet government was installed)
Yes, I remeber that too. There is a shared experience between us.
Experience which does not exist in John's and Allen's worlds (That may be,
why I 'see' two of them on the same side of the barricade. They may see
that as very bizare view...
Interesting aspect of the two life-stories is that the puppet
government I remember was marxist. Allende's government was overthrown
because it was marxist (Is not the nationalization of copper mines, which
belong to US companies and stock-holders, terribly marxist thing to do?)
And yet, we remember the same things. How could we possibly be on the
'same side of the barricade'? Answer is called a 'paradigm shift'.
This peculiar beast is 'visible' only to some (read the revelations).
In the new paradigm the criterion 'marxist' vs 'capitalistic' and
'revolutionary' vs 'contra-revolutionary' is useless. You are either with
Pinochet ( and Markos, Breznev, Somoza, Kadar, Kissienger, Shah, Stalin,
Kermit Roosevelt, Ollie North, Hacha, Mr. Quisling, ... LONGer list deleted]
or you are with their opponents, Ms Aquino etc etc etc.
The Paradigm Shift (PS) must be why I see such a bizare logic in some Allen's
statements. Here are few examples of what I mean: Between line '[[['and
the ']]]' line is copy of past dialog between
(A = Allen Sherzer= SHERZER%NGSTL1@TI-EG.CSNET) and pom.
------------------------------------------------------It is old, namely from
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 87 08:01:50 PST
From: pom%beneath.s1.gov@mordor.s1.gov
RE: American foreign policy ( pro and contra)
but we never finished that
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
------------ Here isfirst 'pearl' of the tortured logic:
A:> As to the human rights situation, Regan
>has a much better track record with human rights than any recent pres. (El
>Salavador, Guatamala, Argentina, The Philipenes, and perhaps Haiti,.....
pom : no comment needed if you can 'see', none useful if you can't
-------------another one:
pom>> And it 'bothers' me, because certain incompetent
>> people, who twisted the control of Iran from our British allies
>> (who were doing just fine) and lost it to chaos or to soviets in 30 years.
A: >Are you saying that the Iranian people should have remained a colony?
pom: No. I am saying: Read Kermit Rooswelt's book on takeover of Iran
--------------another one:
A:> As to the second point [e.i. Auudry II..]
>if someone wishes to fight for their freedom, I have no problem with helping
>them. This does not mean that I need to fight myself (it is not MY country).
>I saw an interview with a Contra leader who said he did not want American
>troops fighting with him for that exact reason.
pom: It is NOT HIS country, he sold it to YOU for $50,000,000
------there is more, but there is no point in continuing the debate; I just
----- wanted to illustrate how 'things' look differently in old and new
------paradigms. The next and last quote shows how 'differently we think':
A>>> It is a shame that the people the contra's are fighting
>>>don't allow voting or demonstrations of dissent.
pom>> The other day, I was called to serve as a juror in the murder trial;
>> we were told that because of the circumstances of the crime ( multiple
> >kidnaping and murder ) capital punishment may be sought. One prospective
>> juror said:" Let's just execute the bastard and get over with it. He did not
>> held any trial before he killed his victims." The man was excused. Is it not
>> a shame?
> A:No it is not a shame as we insured the trial was fair. The juror in question
> was excused and another was put in his place. The juror was not jailed and
> was not prevented from expressing his view. He was not, however, allowed to
> have his view prejudice the trial and interfere with the defendants right to
> was not prevented from expressing his view. He was not, however, allowed to
> have his view prejudice the trial and interfere with the defendants right to
> a just trial. It is illegal in Nicaragua to express views that are contrary
> to the government policy. I don't see the connection in your analogy.
pom: I was not cricising our (US) legal system, Allen. Analogy was asking:
Do you really think that 'trial' which Ortega's government got was fair?
First 'you guys' said they must stop giving arms to ElSalvador They stopped,
(needed them I guess). Then you said: All they have to do is accept the
"CONTANDORA" and they did, again. So, you changed again - but what it is they
would have to do 'to be legit'? What is the law? There is none; You just
want Ortega dead (period). There is NO LAW; the one which used to be in Hague
we destroyed. This is very serious: For the first time in history are the
CONTANDORA countries (their leaders - not commies) criticising US policy;
very very carefuly, as carefuly as Romania criticised Brezhnev's caper in 68,
- that is a VERY serious sign, Allen, which may be invisible in your world...
]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
Chile may be ready in couple years, ready to recover from the tyrany and blood
bath which US sponsored. It's a question of one generation: My generation,
which grew up with terror, is different from the one of my parents. It's
a matter of adaptation. Orwell pointed that out in character of Julia.
Recovery of Argentina is not Regan's credit anymore than spring equinox.
Countries have a long, long memory and whole region is changing. US does not
have much time left. I think that we agree that we do not want to have South
and Central America (SCA) under Soviet control. There is more than safety
of our borders involved: Such 'success' would reverse the 'thaw' in SU and
could lead to the real war. This is very visible in my universe.
I typed this long and boring posting on paradigms in order to offer
'some rational) explanation' why I may 'see' other things then you 'see',
in the near future. We do have a common goal after all: we do not 'really'
want the WWIII. But in your universe , Allan, it may not being decided right
here, in the US backyard. We do differ diametrically on how we should
prevent the Soviet takover of SCA. Herb believes that the 'masses' under
tyrany do not matter ( and is too busy , counting misiles ) to read SU
history on the fall of Mr. K. But I know otherwise. The subjugated masses,
in one generation, can became indifferent to blood and death. It is very
dificult to control them by fear only, in the long run. It is a process of
human adaptation. And very soon, in eight to fifteen years, we, US, may need
friendship of lot of the people who happen to live in SCA, very badly.
So, do we have to give them 'our' copper mines, to win their friendship?
Of course not. I know too much about marxism to be able to consider it a
good model of economical and political reality. We cannot buy their
friendship, the friendship of the subjugated masses, anymore then we got
friendship of the contras. The marxism-icity of governments was
the old-paradigm criterion (do you remember that)? What we need to give them
is a fair deal and a chance. Good old virtues. New paradigm criterion has
little to do with marxism. It is based on
"democracy/free_debate/consensus/ human_rights" vs "fear/censorship/violence"
Allen's 'bottom line' in:
A: The bottom line is that we need to pick
>between an agressive government with poor human rights that we have no
>influence over or a peaceful government with poor human rights that we do
>have influence over and can steer towards democracy later.
is old paradigm thinking: "In thirteen years of Pinochet's dictatorship,
how much steering to democracy we did?" Now, it is the other way round:
You give them a degree of autonomy and justice, and economic opportunity,
and they will discard marxism, in few years and on their own.
In this country (US) we have lot of the poor people, some of them very poor;
and yet, they do not run around 'nationalising' other people's copper
mines, do they? I met some marxists here (in Berkeley) and not only
nobody tried to kill them, nobody really cared about them or even listened
to them. Why? Is it because "in SCA they ain't got any education, while we
are the civilised dudes?" No. It is because we have laws and jury trials:
If state of Nevada would want to 'nationalize' casino, which Mr. Rich of
California owns, he does not have to hire contras there, to overthrow
the Nevada's government. And those contras do not have to kill their
Nevada's governor and hang their fellow Nevadan's by their arms in the
dungens, while the good people of California are 'steering the new governor
of Nevada towards democracy' and ..
..and analogies of Ollie North do not have to (in their amaterish
parody of the the soviet profesionalism) attempt to lease a LUXURY cruiser
to proclaim the new imported puppet government for Nevada ( and so make
California a laughing stock of both (second and third) worlds....etc etc
This better and more efficient method, I am describing, is called
the WESTERN civilisation. And in the new paradigm, I just described, the
fact that this great invention stops at our (US) SOUTHERN border, is called:
tortured logic.
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************