ARMS-D-Request@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU.UUCP (02/04/87)
Arms-Discussion Digest Tuesday, February 3, 1987 6:30PM
Volume 7, Issue 101
Today's Topics:
"offensive"
Amnesty International, Huge terminology flame..
MacNeil Lehrer debate on talent diversion
The Force Prevails
Strategic Deception Revisited
Re: I'm Warning You!
Bolt-out-of-the-blue
Kinetic energy of smart rocks
Global Arms Control
US/SU Intentions
Economics of SDI
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 87 19:31:05 pst
From: pyramid!utzoo!henry%hplabs@hplabs.HP.COM
Subject: "offensive"
Larry Campbell writes:
> >From: pyramid!utzoo!henry@hplabs.HP.COM
> >Groan. Please name three real weapons that are, by your definition, clearly
> >and inarguably defensive and not offensive.
>
> Assuming these are all placed in your own territory:
>
> 1) Tank traps. 2) Land mines. 3) Nautical mines. And, for extra credit,
> 4) Fixed anti-aircraft batteries. 5) Fixed artillery emplacements.
By the definition I was criticizing, all of these things are offensive
weapons, since they help blunt a counterattack. Personally, I agree that
these things and others qualify as defensive.
I would also note Freeman Dyson's observation that the classification of
some types of weapons depends on how they are used. Attack submarines are
potent weapons of both offence (attacks on shipping) and defence (defence
against missile subs operating under the arctic icecap, which are almost
impossible to reach with other antisubmarine weapons). Tanks can clearly
be used either way. And so forth.
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 87 11:51:30 PST
From: pom@along.s1.gov
Subject: Amnesty International, Huge terminology flame..
Subject: Audrey II in White House Basement?
subject: Amnesty International
pom wrote:
>>it will be less paranoid, deceitful, cruel and warlike. The least US can
>>do, is to be aware of that struggle and not sabotage it. If YOU want to do
>>more, contact Amnesty International for specific facts.
> Larry asks:
>I hope you are correct and yes we should be aware of that struggle. BTW,
>how does one join Amnesty International? Do you have an address?
>
pom responds:
There are two ways of joining. 1) You call our local (California)
office at (415) 563-3733 and ask to be put on their mailing list.
They will send you an introductory packet. You than decide if you
want to send contribution, order literature, concentrate on particular
country or even adopt particular prisoner of conscience.
2) You call 411 and ask for phone #
of AI office in your state. They may or may not have intro packet.
In either case you start recieving their regular mailings. Often a
group adopts one person and keep writing letters until 'their prisoner'
is released. Suprisingly perhaps, it works quite often.
SU is just one of the countries covered. AI is non-political and
is concerned with political (non-violent) prisonners of all shades in
all parts of the world..
subject: Huge terminology flame
Yesterday White House spokesman (Speakes) reffered to the soldiers
participating in the tragicomical coup attempt against Aquino as 'dissidents'
Few month back, when Mr. Hasenfus was tried in Mannilla, White House
reffered to his trial as a 'show' trial. I am quite happy that Hasenfus
was released and could celebrate X-mass with family. Nevertless,
I feel that I must protest such missuse of language by the White House.
I have no official mandate to protest on behalf of anybody. I do
neverthless believe that thousands and millions of those who cannot
protest, feel the same way:
I may be wrong on the general meaning of the term 'show' or 'monster'
processes. If I am wrong, please correct me. As far as I know,
the 'show trials' were 'processes' staged during Stalin's years in
Soviet Union and occupied countries. Victims were invariably non-violent
political prisoners. Orvell's description pales when compared to gory
reality. Believe me, you do not want to know the details. If that's the
meaning, Speakes insulted thousands of inonncent victims of Stalin's terror.
The word 'dissident', particularly as reffering to the SU dissidents
aplies to those engaged in non-violent struggle. To use it to refer to
participants in attempted 'coup etat' is a demagogery of the worst type.
The contras in Manilla and Nicaragua are not dissidents. Acording to
your political beliefs, they may be called either 'freedom fighters'
or 'terrorists', let's settle on neutral 'contras'.
So why I am yelling at you guys? You are'nt responsible for the
White House. ( Aren't you really? ). It is because statements such as:
ampbell%maynard.UUCP@talcott.HARVARD.EDU (Larry Campbell)
>> ... many of the guerrillas in the world today are "our"
>>guerrillas, in places like Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Angola, and
>>Cambodia, and our support for most of them has elicited little public
>>dissent. =============
========== They for sure are not 'mine'. Yes, under Carter we have been
humiliated as a nation. If we want to demonstrate our capabilities,
let's go and clean up Libanon of terrorists. Picking up fights with
small nations who never did anything to us, will not impress anybody.
I wonder what we have do to show our dissent. Break up windows and
overturn cars? In the last elections, the vote was about %60 for contras, %40
against. That was before our moral bancruptcy was made public. I think
now it would be majority against the senseless sloughter.
We should not go to war unless 66% is for it. Yes, it's either undeclared
war by out nation or a conspiracy to murder foreigners by private
US citizens. US law does not condone either. May be, one day it will be
enforced.
subject: Audrey II in White House Basement?
Yes, during the Carter's years we, as nation were humiliated and insulted.
So, how many lives of Iraquis, Iranians, Nicaraguans, Afganistanians we will
demand in vengenace? I am not too religious. If anything I would describe
myself as 'spiritual' or aware. Can somebody explain to me, how all those
religious fundamentalists and fanatics are able to reconcile present
oficial policy of this country with "Thou shall not kill?" Why are we
doing that? There must be some conservatives (neo or para) on this net.
Please explain!
The only reason I could have come up with is huge Audrey II living
in the White House basement, just next to empty Ollie's office. It keeps
Saying' " Feed me, feed me. It must be blood, It must be fresh..."
( note: If you do not know what I am talking about, go and see movie
Little Shop of Horrors. Excelent horror musical and black comedy in one). pom
------------------------------
Date: 29 Jan 1987 1857-PST
From: Rem@IMSSS
Subject: MacNeil Lehrer debate on talent diversion
On MacNeil-Lehrer's news hour tonight, guests debated the issue of
whether our immense "defense" industry is diverting talent away from
industry toward military applications that have no direct industrial
spin-off and furthermore are classified so it's difficult for the
technology to be converted later to industrial use. Also mentionned
was diversion of talent to "Wall-Street" (financial) and legal work.
They seemed to bring up most of the points we previously discussed on
arms-d on this topic, although of course they didn't have time to
really dig into any particular point like we do ad infinitum.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 87 04:36:40 PST
From: ihnp4!mhuxd!wolit@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: The Force Prevails
"Martin Marietta has dubbed its new space pointing and
tracking facility in Denver "R2P2," for Rapid Retargeting
Precision Pointing. 'I can't believe they did that,'
Lt. Gen. James A. Abrahamson, head of the SDI program,
said. He has been trying for years to bury the 'Star Wars'
label attached to SDI. 'We can't get rid of it,'
Abrahamson said, 'it sticks.'"
Aviation Week & Space Technology, Jan. 26, 1987, p. 19
------
Jan Wolitzky, AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ; 201 582-2998; mhuxd!wolit
(Affiliation given for identification purposes only)
------------------------------
Date: 2 Feb 1987 03:22 EST (Mon)
From: Wayne McGuire <Wayne%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Strategic Deception Revisited
In past seasons Arms-d has seen discussion and debate about the
infamous "Libyan hit squad," and about the nature and extent of the
present Administration's use of disinformation. In last Saturday's
_Washington Post_, Bob Woodward and Charles R. Babcock present the most
reliable account of the "hit squad" media flap I've encountered, and at
the same time implicitly raise the question of whether the dissemination
of disinformation by the Administration, to the world at large and to
American citizens, has been extensive, systematic, and longstanding:
The Central Intelligence Agency warned at least a year before
Iranian arms broker Manucher Ghorbanifar became a key
intermediary in the Reagan administration's arms sales to Iran
that Ghorbanifar was a "fabricator" who had intentionally
supplied false information in 1981 about a Libyan "hit squad"
being dispatched to assassinate President Reagan and his top
aides, according to informed sources.
The "hit squad" intelligence, though unverified, was publicized
by White House officials at the time and caused a news media
sensation. The CIA and the National Security Agency had other
sources on the purported Libyan threat, sources said, but a CIA
report on the incident concluded that Ghorbanifar was the main
source who kept the threat alive for several months.
The report by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on the
Iran-contra affair notes that the CIA was so distrustful of
Ghorbanifar that it issued a warning to other government agencies
in August 1984 that he was unreliable. Two knowledgeable sources
said this was chiefly a reference to his role in the 1981 "hit
squad" episode.
One intelligence source with firsthand access to the CIA reports
of the incident said, "Though not an agency [CIA] asset,
Ghorbanifar emerges as a man with shadowy motives and several
masters who was pushing U.S. officials to open a channel of
communication with the Iranian government through an arms deal.
Sources said the CIA considered him to be tied to both the Iranian
and Israeli intelligence services, and that he had made up the
Libyan story in order to cause problems for one of Israel's
enemies, Libya....
Ghorbanifar's main supporters at first were the Israelis and
Michael A. Ledeen, a part-time NSC consultant who was active as
a contact with the Israelis and then Ghorbanifar in the early
months of the affair....
Ledeen said yesterday that he had found Ghorbanifar "an extremely
reliable source of information. He was really quite truthful."
With regard to the larger issue of the value of strategic deception,
one might argue that in political warfare the _truth_, effectively
presented, is the most powerful weapon, and that strategic deception
should only be employed as an instrument of last resort. When strategic
deception is used as a standard operating procedure, and particularly in
a democratic society with a free and inquiring press and by persons who
imagine they are wily and swashbuckling characters from a Robert Ludlum
novel, ruination is nearly inevitable. SD is a double-edged sword: use
it at your own risk.
------------------------------
Date: Monday, 2 Feb 1987 09:30:24-PST
From: jong%derep.DEC@decwrl.DEC.COM (Steve Jong/NaC Pubs)
Subject: Re: I'm Warning You!
I would view planning on a day's warning of a Soviet attack to be a
major weakening of our posture, and it would make me very nervous. While
it's certainly realistic to think that a nuclear war would probably arise
from escalation of some ongoing crisis, a "bolt from the blue" attack is
not at all inconceivable.
(I mean, what would happen if Mr. Gorbachov decided one morning, "Today
I'm going to nuke the buggers," and gave the order? If we were expecting
a rational situation and a day's warning, most
dir
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 87 17:11:31 PST
From: "Clifford Johnson" <GA.CJJ@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Bolt-out-of-the-blue
> The assumption [is] that the US needs to prepare for a
> ``bolt out of the blue'' as redefined in the nuclear age.
> Is this a realistic assumption? What would happen to our
> position if we relaxed our perception of ``warning''?
That's certainly a scenario with which the Air Force is obsessed.
The presently perceived danger is from Soviet subs., which could
conceivably deliver a decapitation strike with absolutely no
"strategic" (pre-launch) warning. Weinberger says "We can
never neglect the risk of a surprise attack 'out of the blue'"
(Annual Report FY83 p. I-19), and goes on to talk of the severe
readiness requirements the risk imposes on strategic forces, and
notes how history proves that surprise succeeds. The readiness
seems both paranoic and dangerous, but it gives the Air Force a
dramatic mission, and a sense of purpose, even in perfect
peacetime. See Betts' book "Surprise Attack," 1982.
To: ARMS-D@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 87 08:43 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET>
Subject: Kinetic energy of smart rocks
> The high-speed projectile (smart rock) would be capable of accurately
> delivering meteorite-like energy on the ground. (The kinetic energy of a 1
> kg. mass at escape velocity is equivalent to about 1 ton of TNT!)
Uh, no. The kinetic energy of a 1 kg projectile at 11 km/sec is 60 megajoules,
or about 14 kilograms of TNT.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 87 10:56:50 est
From: rutgers!gwe@cbosgd.MIS.OH.ATT.COM (George Erhart)
Subject: Global Arms Control
At the Iceland meeting, a proposal for large-scale disarmament was
made. Supposing that this plan had been approved, how would it have impacted
the other nuclear nations ?
Specifically, what provisions in arms control have been made to include:
Great Britain France Peoples' Republic of China
Indonesia South Africa India
Israel Iran ???
While it seems certain that England, for instance, would ratify almost
any treaty between the US and SU, I feel that other nations listed above
are not so predictable.
Bill Thacker AT&T Network Systems Columbus, Ohio
cbatt!cbosgd!gwe
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 87 10:37:44 est
From: rutgers!gwe@cbosgd.MIS.OH.ATT.COM (George Erhart)
Subject: US/SU Intentions
I wish to solicit the Forum's opinion on the following.
What are the ultimate intentions of the Soviet Union ? Do they seek
world domination, global communism, etc. Do they merely wish to
survive ? Similarly, what are the goals of the United States ? We are
lead to believe that the US wants to maintain the status quo.
With respect to these points, let me offer a hypothetical (actually,
fantastic) scenario. Suppose the slime creatures from outer space landed
on 1 April '87 and, for a joke, vaporized the entire arsenal of the US.
What would be the Soviet reaction ? Would they actually attempt to occupy
the US ? Would they install a new government ? Or grap western Europe ?
Were the shoe on the other foot ("Soviet Military Disappears, Film at Eleven")
what would the US do ?
This is not idle baiting... I really don't know, nor do I have a well-
informed opinion (that's what I'm after). Naturally, this issue is basic to
arms control, foreign policy, etc.
[Aside to Moderator : I am a recent subscriber (~ 4 months) and realize that
this subject was very likely covered previous to that time. If so, please
append a note to my article suggesting Email replies rather than followups.
Or don't bother posting it at all, if you already have a summary of prior
discussion. Thanks.]
Bill Thacker AT&T Network Systems Columbus, OH
cbatt!cbosgd!gwe
------------------------------
Date: Tuesday, 3 February 1987 01:15-EST
From: Imprint <imprint%watmath.waterloo.edu at RELAY.CS.NET>
To: ARMS-D
Re: Economics of SDI
Newsgroups: mod.politics.arms-d
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
>From: Larry Yaffe <princeton!pupthy.PRINCETON.EDU!lgy@seismo.CSS.GOV>
>Subject: Economics of SDI (Request)
> Most of the SDI discussion in this group (and in the media) seems
>to focus on ethics, philosophy, or technology, but not economics.
An interesting idea posed by Harper's magazine, Dec. 85, if I recall
correctly, and based on interviews with scientists and politicians in
both SU and US, stated that the Soviets view the arms race as a war,
being in second place in a frantic race with the US calling the pace.
The piece further maintained that Pentagon policy was not so much to
build a missile-proof umbrella (a long-shot at best) but to up the
ante on the Soviets, so that the cost to the SU would be debilitating.
The assumption is that the US can more easily afford a dollar on
defence than the SU. Like trading chess pieces when you're a piece
ahead, you eventually win. The result of that, supposedly, is economic
collapse of SU.
When you look at Japan putting multi-billions into 5th Generation
computers and the like, hoping to dominate the market in a decade's
time, while SU and US keep putting multi-billions into "defence",
potential gross economic problems loom.
The US is already having lots of trouble competing internationally,
and its technological edge could succumb to major efforts by the
Japanese, for example, who see economics and not SDI as the way to
world domination.
Japan, among others, has learned the need for cooperative competition
to succeed in the world. Out-selling rather than out-gunning. Both SU
and US risk perfecting the ability to out-gun at the expense of the
ability to out-sell. This bodes very ill for the future. A dollar
spent on a tank is a dollar spent. A dollar spent on new industrial
capacity is a dollar invested in new wealth. Half the world's
scientists work for the military.
These are not solutions, but the questions beg . . . .
Doug Thompson
(disclaimer)
imprint@watmath.uucp
-------------------------------Imprint--------------------------------
| CSNet: imprint@math.waterloo.edu Campus Centre Rm. 140 |
| uucp: {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,utzoo} University of Waterloo |
| !watmath!imprint Waterloo, Ontario |
| CDNnet: imprint@math.waterloo.cdn N2L 3G1 |
| arpa: imprint%math.waterloo.edu@ (519) 885-1211 x 2332 |
| csnet-relay.arpa (519) 888-4048 |
------------------------University of Waterloo------------------------
Imprint is the student newspaper of the University of Waterloo.
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************