ARMS-D-Request@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (Moderator) (01/20/87)
Arms-Discussion Digest Monday, January 19, 1987 11:07PM
Volume 7, Issue 98
Today's Topics:
Draper Correction
Soviet History / Glasnost
Soviet Internals <--> US foreign policy
Panelists sought for computerized debate
non-provacative weapons
stopping SDI by banning specific technologies
Star Wars Against Communications
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 17 Jan 1987 20:19 EST (Sat)
From: Wayne McGuire <Wayne%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Draper Correction
I doubt that anyone notices such small errors--I know I don't read
Arms-D that carefully--but I shouldn't put false words into Theodore
Draper's mouth. The passage in the previous posting
.... Kristol seems to need a Soviet messianism in order to convert
the United States to a corresponding Soviet messianism....
should read
.... Kristol seems to need a Soviet messianism in order to convert
the United States to a corresponding capitalist messianism....
Draper points out (as did Daniel Moynihan in a recent worth-reading/
worth-posting _New York Times_ op-ed piece) that Marxist-Leninist
messianism in the Soviet Union is a burnt-out case and has been for some
time. This is a peculiar time indeed to whip up messianic fervor
about the threat of a movement that is exhausted and bankrupt, and about
to collapse under the weight of its own internal contradictions.
------------------------------
Date: 16 Jan 87 14:24:20 gmt
From: S.WILSON%UK.AC.EDINBURGH@ac.uk
Subject: Soviet History / Glasnost
Interesting to know when the book (which book?) reviewed by Gillette
reviewed by Steve Walton was published. 'Glasnost' (is that how it's
transliterated?) is a relatively recent phenomenon (post-Chernobyl, I
guess) and the USSR is a large place to control centrally. Unless
the SU has lots of Winston Smiths ready to go and rewrite all its
literature at the drop of a speechmaker's phrase then presumably
we shouldn't expect to see anything we would recognise as 'fairer'
literature for a while yet.
Sam Wilson, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 87 08:39:01 PST
From: pom@along.s1.gov
Subject: Soviet Internals <--> US foreign policy
>For good or bad (and I certainly don't admire Soviet politics), the Soviet
>government is one of the most stable in the world. It is *not* going to
>go away. It is *not* going to be overthrown -- at least not during our
>lifetime..--
>Larry Campbell
>Many people are quick to damn the Soviet government, usually with good
>motivation. The hard question is, could we stand its overthrow?
>In brief, think about to what extent our peace and security is utterly
>dependant upon the stability of the current Soviet government. At least
>they are a known quantity.
>-Barry Shein, Boston University
comments by pom:
The 2 statements above are a fair examples of what I meant by "
typical american is unable to differentiate between
soviet state and soviet people".
We have a very wide spectrum of opinions. Some say SUm (Soviet
people) support Soviet Establishment (SUe), Some say whatever
they think is irrelevant (and that they (SUm) are mostly interested
in price of bread anyway), some tend to see the whole country or even
whole block as one huge concentration camp ( a la Auschwitz)......
Truth is not necesarily in the middle and I do not really think
that I will convince anybody who already has strong feeling about it.
(It would be nice to have a mathematical model of the situation
which would allow us to be quantitative about it.) Since we dont have
that, then for who-ever wants hear one more (and last)
lecture on SU, here we go again::
First a general statement about the earthquakes:
they tend to happen when the plates (separated by fault line) 'lock in place'
so that tension builds up until a major earthquake erupts. The 'single
party' countries (e.g. Philippines of the past) are like that. The democracies
such as US, adapt to changed equilibrium smoothly - in a series of minor
tremors (called elections).
There are major processes going on within SU which are not too
visible from the outside, partly because of controlled press (we did not hear
much about opposition to Shah before that Iranquake) and because we tend to
ignore details of the 'distant processes'. THIS remote process (SU INTERNALS)
is of MAJOR IMPORTANCE for our own survival. US policy can facilitate or
arrest certain developments within SU.
> as : S.WILSON%UK.AC.EDINBURGH@ac.uk said:
>A niggle:
>> "What really matters to US is what they WILL DO."
>
>There is a problem with this - what they (SU) WILL DO is
>governed by (a) what they would like to do and (b) what US does
>based on what US THINKS SU will do.
......and that depends on what SU will think that US will think....
and so on ad'infinitum.
Does this paradox have a name? For want of better name, I call
it 'parallel mirrors', since we do have the model of the other guy's model...
I suspect it has something to do with paradox of Cretean and Kurt Godel..
But let's leave that to meta-matematicians; A reasonable man knows:
The devil we know (present politburo) is not better then the other devil;
The dissident movement in SU (e.g. people on Helsinki Watch commitees) is
a proto-form (embryo) of an opposition party. We have a fairly good picture
of what their foreign policy and philosophy would be. Unless US would do some-
thing really stupid (e.g. try to annex Siberia at the moment of transition),the
problem of arms race is likely to diminish, short time after such transition.
It is important to realize that opposition in a police state (such as SU) does
not have form of guerrilla warfare; it looks more like Ghandi vs GB. Before
you accuse me of day-dreaming I will close by the following fact: People in
SU and SU occupied countries, choose to go to prisons in defense of alternative
policies. They do not expect US to send in a squad of Rambos which would
liberate them. They do not do it because the care for US or "west"..
(still the views of Barry &Larry's quoted above could hurt their feelings ).
They do that because they care about their respective nations and (finally)
found certain truths to be self-evident.....
Whatever they may create, will not be called 'US style democracy'. So far it
was called 'socialism with the human face'. Whatever it will be called,
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.
WHICH REMINDS ME that
S.WILSON%UK.AC.EDINBURGH@ac.uk wrote:
> I don't agree with the idea that 'each ethnic or other interest group has
>a right to select their own representatives (sic)'. On that
>basis you would have a congessman (sic) for blacks.....
>Sam Wilson, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
We just have a wee misunderstanding due to ambiguity of the word
"representatives (sic)(sic)".
In my dictionary it has 12 meanings and only
few mean congressman. I meant it as 'spokesperson', not somebody who has an
equal vote or official position. I am afraid, part of the misunderstanding
is due to lack of imagination. That is not a criticism: It is wery hard for
me to imagine what it would feel like to be pregnant. It must be hard for
you to imagine a society in which it is a crime to convene a comitee or
club or even a hobby related society, without an oficial blessing.
The right I was asking for is a right to say e.g.
"500 gay black females citizens signed this petition,
asking the city to fix the potholes on the High street".
I think in US it falls under right to petition the government
and first amendment... and peaceful assembly? and so on...
BUT THOSE ARE JUST IDLE (idealistic) DREAMS...
>>practical man asks: "who holds the keys, who has the Button?"
>Assuming that the Soviet political apparatus rules entirely by force
>and terror, and that if only we could vaporize all CP members the
>Soviet people would come crawling to the US for some Western-style
>democracy, is a dangerously wishful thinking. I believe the vast
>majority of the Soviet people support their government. They *want*
>a strong police force.
>Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc.
>Internet: campbell@maynard.uucp
I should not vaste time on such statements. However it looks like
author really believes this preposterous nonsense. Something like that
did cost Ford his 2nd term as president: "ask the Poles if they feel
enslaved." Rather than arguing, I am asking Larry to read (not Gulag
Archipelago - that is a hard to read documentary) but other Solzenycins
books (e.g. One day..). Does he believes that 'vast majority' of soviet
people are masochists?. If the 'vast majority' supports the government,
why dont they allow free elections? Why they need to control the press?
May be Larry also believes that 'vast majority' of Aghans wants to be
shot at; wast majority of Poles 'like discipline' and 'vast majority'
of Hungarians invited SU tanks in 1956.
Kindly tell me what are your 'beliefs' based on. Did you read something?
Or did 'little voice' tell you ?
I have never said that Soviets 'rule by terror only'. Internal
terror and internal passports are just two aspects of the multifaceted
soviet reality. Neither I advocated 'vaporising' anybody and certainly not
any of their CPs.
{-: footnote: cyrilic CCCP is latin SSSR is english USSR i.e.
Union of Soviet (CC) Socialistic Republics (CP). Vaporising
one of their socialistic republics could well trigger WWIII. :-}
I am advocating adoption of an intelligent foreign policy by US. Policy
which is based on understanding of what is going on in the outside world.
I do not think that we really have one: Under Carter we cared about the
*human rights* ; we let Somoza to fall and told Nicaragua "As long as you will
not try to sneak in any soviet missiles or bases, we do not care whom you
choose" and in Helsinki we asked Soviets to curb the most extreme violations.
Soviet dissidents (for their own purposes) responded by forming the Watch
Commitees and Nicaraguans picked somebody as their leader. Now comes US
election and we tell the world: "We dont care what Soviets do to their
'own people' ( the worse - the better, right?). Our main goal is to sponsor
civil war in Nicaragua. There are no particular rules or demands we want to
impose on them (we just like to see them fight). Then in 1988 democrats
may win and we will tell contras:" Forget your country and start
learning English (we will make a special quota for you in US) as nobody else
wants you and you cannot go home, after what you did. To the remaining
Nicaraguans we say: Sorry if your relatives got killed, (republicans did that),
and to the Soviet dissidents we say " OK guys, no more 'evil empire stuff',
perhaps we can share the planet after all. If God really wants Armageddon now,
He can arrange that without our help...
I think that MAJOR goal of US foreign policy should be to avoid WWIII while
protecting freedom for us and our allies.
As a SECONDARY goal, sort of long-term investment, we could try to export some
democracy. We surely scored a hit with Cory replacing computer as man of the
year.
I do not understand why Democrats and GOP should differ so much in their
methods and perceptions of what it takes. ( Imagine how puzzling it must
be for somebody who does not live here ).
So I suspect that neither party knows what they are doing.
If you happen be on speaking terms with one of them, tell them! pom.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 87 23:24:34 EST
From: David_S._Allan@ub.cc.umich.edu
Subject: Panelists sought for computerized debate
The Computer Debate Organization of the University of Michigan is
seeking panelists to participate in an online debate of the issue,
"Should Classified Research be Permitted at Universities?"
The debate will consist of two computer conferences (running under
Advertel's CONFER program). The first conference will hold commentary
by expert panelists and will be readable by any user of the system.
The second conference will hold commentary by the general public.
Panelists will be provided with accounts and information on how
to use the Michigan system and the CONFER program. If you are interested,
please send a brief self-description and list of qualifications to me
at the address below. Be sure to include both a mailing address and
a network address. Thank you.
David Allan, University of Michigan Computer Debate Organization
David_S._Allan@um.cc.umich.edu
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 87 10:55:35 PST
From: toma@Sun.COM (Tom Athanasiou)
Subject: non-provacative weapons
It may be useful to note that there are other terms of relevance
than "offense" and "defense". For example, many people in the
European peace movement have been talking about "non-provocative"
defense.
Sure it's true that any weapon can be used offensively. So
what? The important point is that some weapons have physical
characteristics that lend themselves far more to offense than
do others, and that some are -- basically -- useful only for
territorial defense. For example, there's been a lot of talk
in Europe about decentralized territorial defense forces that
make heavy use of short-range anti-armour missiles. Such
forces could deliberately NOT be supplied with tanks and the
infrastructure necessary to support war at a distance, that is,
invasion.
One important question is how well PGMs can be made to work.
My (uneducated) feeling is that they can probably be debugged,
given enough effort, and that it is true, as the proponents
of alternative defense claim, that new technologies tip the
scales to the defenders. (I hope we all realize that this is
not an argument about strategic nuclear forces).
I wish that people would try to stick more the the substantive
issue here -- the potential role of territorial defense forces
in a more stable security regime -- which is very important.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 87 16:51:29 PST
From: ihnp4!ihuxv!eklhad@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
To: arms-d
Subject: Re: stopping SDI by banning specific technologies
> From: Bryan Fugate <fugate at mcc.com>
> To say that we can somehow
> stop research on things that will lead to SDI would be like trying to find
> a simple way to plug up the Amazon River.
While some SDI research on lasers and software engineering is inevitable
and beneficial, the above statement is misleading.
The East Port Report is an unclassified source that provides a flavor of the
bulk of the current and anticipated SDI research programs.
Most are not widely applicable, and would not be pursued
by independent corporations, were it not for the government's program.
For example, reliable distributed battle management,
by far the most complex aspect of SDI, receives the lion's
share of the research funding. This is of limited value
outside the scope of SDI.
> This, to me, is what really scares the hell out of the Russians. In their
> hearts, they know they won't be able to compete with the torrent of technology
> that is flowing in the U.S., Japan and Europe.
While their technological position is certainly in jeopardy,
SDI would only help their cause, since they could fund valuable research projects directly,
while we must settle for spinoffs.
In short, Japan has it made.
What really scares the hell out of them (and me) is the military and
political implications of such a program, which are, at best, uncertain.
> If the Soviets plan to keep their system intact, they will have to come to
> grips with change. They will have to learn to encourage entrepeneurship and
> individualism on a scale wholly unimagined in that country. Otherwise, they
> will cease to be a relevant world power. We will produce weapons which will
> nullify their ability to harm us or our allies.
Although technological advance may change the balance
of mutual deterrence, I am quite confident we will never
be able to "nullify" their arsenal, nor they ours.
The reasoning is simple.
Bombs have become too powerful, and there are too many ways
to deliver these devices from point a to point b.
The only way to nullify a nuclear arsenal is to change the speed
of light (mass/energy conversion factor),
and that is rather difficult.
There is no "true" peaceshield, and there never will be.
The "population defense" argument has cost the SDI proponents credibility in
the scientific and military communities,
and despite subsequent backpeddling, recovery is still incomplete.
Although only a few influential individuals still believe we can
effectively counter a nuclear attack with technology, the uneducated masses
cling to this slender thread of hope with a religious
fervor that can only be explained by examining the consequences of the
nuclear holocaust that knocks patiently, yet persistently upon our door.
If SDI research is valuable, we, as an informed electorate,
must support it for the right reasons (e.g. enhanced deterrence),
rather than swallowing the dangerous fantasy of a peaceshield
that renders nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.
Although I realize you never claimed SDI could meet these specifications,
you seem to retain the hope that someday, we will construct
such a system. Each technological breakthrough will undoubtedly
resurrect this false hope,
and always with the same results.
As long as autonomous organizations possess nuclear weapons,
we are stuck with mutual deterrence.
karl dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad
------------------------------
Subject: Star Wars Against Communications
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 87 18:21:14 -0800
From: crummer@aerospace.ARPA
The reason it would be hard to focus laser energy on a synchronous
satellite has nothing to do with atmospheric effects. There are two
reasons: 1)The laser beam spreads because of the fact that light is a wave
phenomenon and the mirror must be of finite size. The spread equation is
Spread = L*R/D
where L is the wavelength of the radiation,
R is the distance from laser to target, and
D is the optical aperture diameter,
and all units are, e.g. centimeters.
Here is a summary for X-ray laser, optical laser, and microwave beam
Spot size aperture type of radiation
14 cm. 10 cm. X-ray laser
1 meter(!) 10 meters(!!) Optical laser
100 meters(!!) 100 meters(!!) Microwave beam
The only thing the transponders would see is the microwave signal. At this
kind of spread the best that could be done would be to jam the satellite.
The optical laser's energy would be too spread out to do much damage but
the X-ray laser might be able to deposit enough energy to physically damage
the satellite's electronics (I don't know how much energy would be in the
X-ray beam. I'm sure that whatever wild guess Lowell Wood would give would
be classified info.)
This, however brings up problem 2)pointing accuracy. At that distance a 1
meter object subtends about 3 millionths of a degree of arc. The position
of the satellite is not known to that accuracy even by its owner and at
that distance it could not be seen so the problem becomes one of pointing
the X-ray laser with an accuracy of 3*10^-6 degrees at an object that can't
be seen.
--Charlie
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************