ARMS-D-Request@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (Moderator) (01/16/87)
Arms-Discussion Digest Thursday, January 15, 1987 8:42PM
Volume 7, Issue 94
Today's Topics:
administrivia
Aviation-Week is to -Leak as Arms-discussion is to -?
Hitler vs. Stalin
just who wants SDI, anyway?
Reagan Doctrine
Soviet VS American forign policy
Offensive uses of SDI
support for the Soviet government
The Reagan Doctrine
German/Soviet non-aggression pact of 1939
Lasers to Hawaii
SDI AS ANTI-SDI
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1987 14:24 EST
From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: administrivia
==>> "greyzck terry%e.mfenet"@nmfecc.arpa has been removed from the
list because of mailer rejections. Someone please tell him.
------------------------------
Date: 1987 January 10 14:45:00 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Aviation-Week is to -Leak as Arms-discussion is to -?
"Leak" is a play on the word "Week", a rhyme. "Arms-Discussion"
wouldn't be "Arms-Leak" as you propose because it isn't any play on
words. We need a synomym for "Leak" that sounds like "Discussion".
Checking my Roget's International Thesaurus (a wonderful reference in
cases like this) I immediately find "Divulgence" as one of the
defining categories in the index, which rather sounds like
"Discussion", so I propose maybe "Arms-Divulgence" as our joke name.
I'll look further for anything better... well, only "Disclosure",
"Blabbing" and "Exposition" come close. What's your choice? (I'm
leaning toward Arms-Disclosure) Roget also has "Evulgation" which
sounds even better except it's not in either my Doubleday nor
Webster's-College dictionaries. Anybody have that word listed in their
GIANT library-class dictionary, or happen to know what it exactly
means?
Arms-Evulgation
(Any toastmasters out there? Make "Evulgation" the word of the day!)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 87 22:29:40 PST
From: tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick)
Subject: Hitler vs. Stalin
>Stalin was Hitler's peer in inherent awfulness
>by almost any realistic measure.
You might argue that Hitler was a minor leaguer compared to Stalin.
For example, Allen Dulles in one of his books quotes Hitler as
saying he wished he had followed Stalin's example and annhilated
the upper classes in Germany.
Don't forget Stalin's empire is still with us, while Hitler's dream
has vanished. A thousand years from now, I wouldn't be surprised if
the 20th century is looked on as being the "century of Stalin".
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 87 22:50:26 pst
From: pyramid!utzoo!henry@hplabs.HP.COM
Subject: just who wants SDI, anyway?
> But, I asked them, don't you wonder who wants SDI enough to spend lots of
> tax dollars on it? None of them admitted to having asked the government to
> erect a "peace shield", even though they were in a prime strategic area...
If perfect defensive technology were available off the shelf at modest
cost -- say the "force shields" of science fiction -- do you seriously
think they would not ask for it, indeed insist on it? They have not
asked the government about SDI because they doubt that asking would
have useful effects. (They are almost certainly right.)
> ... Apparently, they felt safe from the Russian
> menace, or they would have left the area in search of safer places ...
> They liked the area, and the threats they felt were ... not strategic...
If you ask them, and they give a thoughtful answer, I doubt very much
that you will hear that they feel safe from the "Russian menace".
What they probably do feel is that the probability of nuclear attack
is low enough that major expense and inconvenience to avoid it are not
justified. (It is not necessary to the hypothesis that this view be
defensible by a strict cost-benefit analysis, since they probably (a)
have never done one, and (b) would still back their gut feelings even
if they did do one.) You said that they are opinionated but divided
on SDI; if they truly felt safe, one would expect a unanimous "not a
penny of my taxes for such useless nonsense".
I live and work in downtown Toronto. In the event of a major nuclear
war, my life expectancy would be about half an hour. I do *not* feel
safe and do *not* think the possibility utterly remote. Moving to New
Zealand would have its points. Yet I don't, for about the same
reasons.
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
------------------------------
Date: 11 Jan 1987 14:21:59-EST
From: Hank.Walker@gauss.ECE.CMU.EDU
Subject: Reagan Doctrine
I believe that Wayne McGuire misstates the "Reagan Doctrine." My
understanding is that the Reagan Doctrine is the informal policy of
aggressively supporting "freedom fighters" around the world. If you
think about it, 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. The Reagan Doctrine doesn't have anything to do with Israel
per se.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1987 14:37 EST
From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: Soviet VS American forign policy
From: "NGSTL1::SHERZER%ti-eg.csnet" at RELAY.CS.NET
If you goal is to defend, then you need to deploy as many assets as
possible
because you don't know when the attack will come. On the other hand, if
your
goal is attack you can maintain a much lower state of rediness because you
get to pick the time when you will attack.
Consider the other side of the argument. If your goal is to attack,
you need to deploy as many assets as possible, because if you attack,
you don't want the enemy to know that you are going to attack, so that
forces in the field make it possible to mount a much larger attack
from a standing start with minimal warning. Similarly, if you have
few forces deployed, you can't mount a significant first strike
without giving lots of warning and prompting the possibility that your
enemy will attack you pre-emptively.
I intentionally make no reference to who has what posture. Both sides
believe that their posture is defensive.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1987 14:41 EST
From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: Offensive uses of SDI
From: hplabs!pyramid!utzoo!henry at ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
> Nuclear-powered X-ray laser battle stations in orbit might be viewed as
> orbiting nuclear weapons by an unsympathetic foe :^)
Probably, although my recollection is that at least some of the treaties
on such matters refer to "weapons of mass destruction" rather than "nuclear
weapons"; it is not clear that a pulsed beam weapon which can't penetrate
atmosphere would qualify under the strict definition.
The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 refers to "no nuclear weapons OR other
weapons of mass destruction." (emphasis added)
------------------------------
Date: 12 Jan 87 08:27:12 PST (Monday)
From: Schuster.Pasa@Xerox.COM
Subject: support for the Soviet government
In response to Larry Campbell's assertion that: "by and large, (the
Soviet Government) has the support of its people.", I would like to add
my concurrence, for what it's worth.
I've felt for some time that this ploy of either side's government
claiming that they love the people of the other side; it's just their
government that's the villain of the piece, is usually a lot of hogwash.
The Soviet goernment/press is forever proclaiming that they love the
American people but that our government is a bunch of warmongers. And
we're saying similar things about them. The fact is that despite some
disagreements with particular government policies at various times, you
can't decouple the people and their government's to that degree. We
generally favor our government's policies. The people aren't always the
good guys wearing the white hats while their governments aren't the bad
guys with the black hats. That's baloney, or worse.
It may be a little more valid when we say it about the USSR because the
government there doesn't have to be as directly responsive to its people
as ours does, but even then, as Larry said, there is a great distrust
and lack of understanding of the kind of freedom we have among the
Soviet people. First of all, they have never experienced it. They went
right from Czarist rule to Communist Party rule with only the briefest
interlude of representative government. Freedom of our kind is equated
with instability and uncertainty by most of the people there. And as
much as some of the Soviet people want the right to express themselves
and not to have to wait in endless lines to obtain inferior goods, they
like the security that strong government control brings too.
This viewpoint is well expressed in Hedrick Smith's book "The Russians".
For some evidence, see the remarks made by some of the recent Soviet
returnees. While only a small percentage don't make it and return, their
viewpoints are still illuminating as to how many Soviet people who never
leave Russia think. And the comedic movie "Moscow on the Hudson" also
deals with some of these serious ideas.
By the same token one can say that we've never experiencd their form of
government. So how could we know if we wouldn't like it? Well there's
certainly SOME truth to that. However, we DID have a taste of what it
would be like during WWII when some personal freedoms were curtailed and
rationing was imposed under the wartime conditions that prevailed, and
no one liked it. Also, a long way back we came from a legacy of
non-representative government when we were a colony. So we have been
there, at least to some extent. They havn't at all.
I believe that for the most part, people tend to get the kind of
governments they deserve and want. And this business of "love the
people, hate their government" is a bunch of sophistry and demogoguery.
Norm Schuster
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 87 09:09:45 PST
From: Steve Walton <ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Subject: The Reagan Doctrine
In Arms-D V7 #93, Wayne McGuire writes (in the context of Israel's role
in the Iranian affair):
But you miss the main thrust of my posting. My criticism was targeted
not so much at Israel, but at the monumental hypocrisy and foolishness
of two very powerful political movements in the U.S.--neoconservatism
and neoliberalism--which have stridently (and often abusively)
promoted something called a "Reagan Doctrine," which is founded on a
highly moralistic crusade against "terrorism" and which invests a
special value in the state of Israel as a symbol of the civilized
"West" in this struggle.
A new one on me, who consider myself more-or-less a neoliberal, or at
least someone who agrees with much of what Michael Kinsley and James
Fallows write. My understanding of the Reagan Doctrine is that it
calls for the United States to actively aid those who are engaged in
armed revolt against Communist governments, with the express aim of
"rolling back" the Communist gains of the last decade. This is
connected with the Iran affair only insofar as aid for the Contras is
the most controversial part of the implementation of the Reagan
Doctrine (aid to the Afghan rebels is another part).
This is not a bad policy, but its application has been flawed. In
Afghanistan, we are aiding a genuine, indigenous opposition which is
active and has the support of the local populace. In Nicaragua, the
US has tried to manufacture an opposition group out of whole cloth. I
do hope that debate over the appropriate role of the US in these
situations will not become another part of the acrimonious and largely
emotional argument about US-Israeli relations.
Stephen Walton ARPA: ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu
Ametek Computer Research Div. BITNET: walton@caltech
610 N. Santa Anita Ave. UUCP: ...!ucbvax!sun!megatest!ametek!walton
Arcadia, CA 91006 USA
818-445-6811
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 87 12:01:19 PST
From: pom@along.s1.gov
Subject: German/Soviet non-aggression pact of 1939
>>> and > = Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>>>The Soviet Union was Hitler's *ally*, and fellow land-grabber, until...
>
>> The way I remember the history I was taught is that the non-aggression
>>pact between the SU and Nazi Germany was a temporary treaty of
> How do you *know* Stalin deeply mistrusted
> and hated Hitler? Even if he said so, was he telling the truth? Ultimately
> it is necessary to judge people by actions, not supposed motives...
> My original comment was a response
>to an article that seemed to imply that both the US and the USSR had gone to
>war with Hitler because they recognized his inherent awfulness. This seemed
>dubious to me, especially since Stalin was Hitler's peer in inherent awfulness
>by almost any realistic measure. (Henry)
As author of that 'original article' which indeed implied that both US and SU
recognized danger of Nazi's germany, I want to clarify the scene of 1939 :
The following >>>> is my (poms) original statement and >>> is Henry's comment:
>>>> ... When [Hitler] attempted to implement that, lot of the
>>>> other nations, including US and SU got so scared, that they united to
>>>> defeat him ...
>
>>>Although individuals within both nations may have been scared, neither the
>>>US nor the SU moved against Hitler until he (or his allies) actually attacked
>>>them.
pom: We have discussed the game of 1939 about a year ago. I
will reiterate what the final (i.e. un-opposed) statement was, while also
commenting on the following (interesting and mostly correct) posting by Bill
on SU history textbooks:
>Bill Thacker comments::Later, according to the Soviets, we allowed the
> germans to attack them, and did nothing to open up a second front
That is true partly. According to SU official view, it was GB and France
which tried very hard to direct Hitler eastward, not US. ( I am afraid that
Soviets either are right on that point ( see: The infamous Munich Dictate).
What they do not say, is that SU tried equally hard to point Hitler westward.
They do not mention the SU-German treaty (in the textbooks) but try to justify
'5th division of Poland'. US gets blamed for (maliciously) delaying the second front. The description of War in Pacific and Pearl Harbor is very cursory.
We *know* that Stalin did not trust Hitler *from his actions*: e.g. Stalin
made the most cruel purge of his army officers becouse he believed in so
called 5th squad (soviet citizens secretly helping Nazis). Such information
was faked by nazis and made (as if by error) to fall in Stalin's hands.
As for US motives, It is true that Pearl Harbor was the trigger, but here
we come to the point of when we need more detailed model then 'US wanted'.
There were isolationists in US and there were people like Roosevelt who
were able to see that if Hitler is allowed to conquer Europe AND SU, he
would become a real threat to US itself. I tend to believe claims that
he 'let the Pearl Harbor to happen', but even without that, the Land-lease
was intended to help SU to fight Hitler. My statements that SU and US
cooperated to defeat Hitler becouse they were aware of the danger, stands.
The fact that Stalin was 'also awful' has no bearing on my statement.
Subject: is our SDI debate intelligent?
>SDI AS ANTI-INTELLECTUAL
> The bulk of the arguments for SDI are emotional. This country is
> a democracy, and there should be intelligent and responsible
> discussion of something as consequential as SDI.
-Paul Kalapathy
ehm, uh. I thought that we are engaged in a responsible debate right here
on arms-d. Was I wrong?
The general argument advanced so far (as I understand it)is: SU may or
may not (sometime in the future) consider costs/benefits of attacking
NATO countries. Existence of strong capability to respond to such
(potential) attack is likely to make the (eventual) attack more costly
and so less likely to be profitable. Ergo, soviet may decide not to
attack us. That is considered to be a good thing.
Please, do not take this as 'a vote for SDI'. There are other issues
which can affect 'suitability' of SDI, such as cost. I am just noting
that you have omitted this argument in your 'enumeration of arguments for'.
1) Is this argument emotional? 2) Since I consider myself 'an intelectual'
can you please explain what SDI will do to me?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 87 11:18:39 PST
From: Steve Walton <ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Subject: Lasers to Hawaii
In responding to Henry Spencer in Arms-D V7 #92, Steve Jong mentions a
Space Shuttle experiment which involved sending a beam of light to a
mountaintop in Hawaii, and more-or-less wonders about SDI applications.
The Lunar Ranging Observatory (LURE) is a geophysics experiment,
intended to make precise measurements of the earth-moon distance by
use of the laser reflectors left on the moon by the Apollo astronauts.
As such, it is equipped with a reasonably high-powered laser by lab
standards, that is to say, 10 watts or so of radiated power. The
bounce signal (and the Shuttle signal) are detected by telescope with
a primary mirror 48" in diameter. Even so, the signal is pretty weak
on a moon bounce. LURE is located on top of Haleakala on the island
of Maui at an altitude of 10,000 feet, above about half the atmosphere
and (more important) nearly all of the water vapor.
In short, while the Shuttle experiment was undoubtedly a useful
test of a system's ability to track a STATIONARY ground point from low
earth orbit, it probably had very little relevance to SDI.
(I spent a lot of time on top of Haleakala using the Mees Solar
Observatory for my thesis research. You haven't lived until you've
watched LURE range on satellites just before a Haleakala sunrise!)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 87 19:38:03 pst
From: pyramid!utzoo!henry@hplabs.HP.COM
Subject: SDI AS ANTI-SDI
> SDI components placed in space are fully capable of striking at
> Soviet SDI components placed in space, and vice-verse...
> ... One side could entirely eliminate the other's
> space assets in a fraction of a second, with no warning. This is
> probably the most unstable situation thinkable. In a crisis
> situation, SDI begs to be used...
I think almost everyone (alas, not quite all...) accepts Nitze's first
criterion, that a viable SDI system must be survivable. This is not by
any means inherently impossible (although it's not easy), and hence its
impossibility is not a legitimate argument against strategic defence in
general. (It can be a legitimate argument against specific systems.)
> This is the situation, then, if both sides have their own SDI. Each
> side must shoot first or be completely vulnerable...
No, it is the situation if both sides have their own *unsurvivable* SDI.
Is it asking too much for such crucial distinctions to be made in the
"intelligent and responsible" discussion you request?
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************