ARMS-D-Request@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU.UUCP (01/06/87)
Arms-Discussion Digest Monday, January 5, 1987 7:16PM
Volume 7, Issue 90
Today's Topics:
B-52's don't fly out of Moffett Naval Air Station
Censorship by the powers that be
Soviet Perception of US aggression
Re: Offensive uses of SDI
zero ballistic missiles, good or bad?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1987 21:14 EST
From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: B-52's don't fly out of Moffett Naval Air Station
From: phil at shadow.Berkeley.EDU (Phil Lapsley)
They *do* fly P-3C ASW ("sub-hunting") aircraft, and on a fairly
continual basis. Whether these are nuclear armed nobody that
I've talked to will confirm or deny.
It is a matter of public record that P-3 Orions are capable of
carrying nuclear depth charges, but it is very hard to believe that
they are nuclear-armed on a routine peacetime patrol.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1987 22:12 EST
From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: Censorship by the powers that be
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene at ames-pioneer.arpa>
Re: Moffett Field (Will Doherty) (a tour)
...And, if you see this
author stop posting, some one from Washington DC will have pulled my
plug. . . . ooops.
Eugene brings up an interesting point. Some of you may know that I
have taken a position in Washington DC with the House Armed Services
Committee. I intend to keep moderating ARMS-D, but prudence dictates
that I lower my profile considerably. Consequently, I will continue
handling administrative requests, and making the judgments that
moderators are called upon to make, but my substantive (?)
contributions to the digest will be curtailed.
As for my pulling anyone's plug, I will adhere to the policy I laid
out some months ago in the digest; this policy is repeated for your
reference below. For the record: the fact that I allow a submission
into the digest does not necessarily indicate its truth or falsity,
nor my judgment of its truth or falsity. Neither does it represent
the views of anyone but its author.
***ARMS-D CENSORSHIP POLICY***
From time to time, people have challenged the "non-censorship" policy
by posting procedures for making nerve gas and the like. Here is my
working policy on censorship.
When I state that the digest should be uncensored, I mean it in a
"common sense" kind of way. That is, the idea in question is what a
"reasonable man" would consider appropriate -- such is the basis of
the "infringment" of free speech described above. How do I as
moderator draw the line between things that are permissible for the
digest and things that are not? For example, since I have no security
clearances, I would allow onto the Digest a newspaper article (other
than copyright concerns) that contained classified information; how
would I know that such information were indeed classified? [Note
added in this edition: This part of the policy may change if and when
I do receive a clearance.] However, I would have qualms if I were
approached by someone about using ARMS-D as a forum for leaking
classified information, and I would not do so.
Contributions that are was ENTIRELY technical and procedural in
nature, for example, describing exactly how to make certain toxic
compounds, are suspect. If such contributions are not relevant to
*any* policy question that I can discern, nor to the resolution of any
ARMS-D related question that had previously appeared on the digest, I
will omit them. Indeed, it is not clear to me how messages that fit
this description would fit with the stated purpose of ARMS-D. In
particular, ARMS-D is *NOT* a forum for the discussion of weapons
technology PER SE, except insofar as that is relevant to some policy
question.
Would the description of how to build a rifle or a machine gun be
included? Probably, but only because I am too lazy to keep that
message off. How about building an H-bomb? I would allow a summary
of the Progressive article describing H-bomb construction. Would I
have used ARMS-D as a forum for the first release of the Progressive
article? NO.
A second issue regarding censorship has also arisen. I received for
posting a note that involved a fee for service arrangement. The
service to be performed would have been of interest to some segments
of the ARMS-D community: it described itself as a new research and
documentation service designed to provide up-to-date detailed
information about military contracting and companies involved in
military work. The organization providing the service was non-profit
and tax exempt, but it charged money for the service.
The general policy of the DDN network is given in the June 1984 issue
of the "DDN Directory" gives on page 12:
"The DDN is an operational DoD network and is not intended
to compete with comparable commercial service. It is intended
to be used solely for the conduct of or in support of official
U.S. Government business."
It is the vagueness of the term "official U.S. Government business"
that forces me to make a judgment call on what activities constitute
"support of U.S. Government business." ARMS-D exists to discuss
policy issues related to war and peace, national security and the
like, and in doing so provides support for many individuals doing work
for the U.S. government. But what activities should be excluded?
It is clear that advertising for-profit activities or activities for
personal gain would be against this policy. I have made a judgment
that it is appropriate to decline any submissions that involve fee for
service transactions.
Part of the problem is that ARMS-D exists by the sufferance of the
powers that govern ARPANET usage. I try to strike a balance between
keeping them happy on one hand, and allowing maximal freedom of
expression on the other. Sometimes that balance is difficult to
maintain.
What else might be kept off ARMS-D? Nothing else comes to mind, but
that doesn't say that there are none. This moderator reserves the
right to refuse submissions in other categories if he deems them
inappropriate.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1987 22:31 EST
From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: Soviet Perception of US aggression
From: pom at along.s1.gov
For 40 years now,
well meaning intelligent men, such as yourself, worked hard to
negotiate with the soviet establishment a stop or reversal of the arms
race. Perhaps the reason they failed to achieve anything, has
something to do with their assumptions; perhaps they bark at the wrong
tree.
I disagree with the premise. In my judgment, arms control has had
successes sufficient to warrant continuing those efforts. On balance,
I believe we are now better off for having pursued arms control than
we would have been had we not done so.
Here is another tree; please look at it and tell me what you
think you think.
I believe the Soviets do what is in their own self-interest. I don't
care what the Soviet people believe -- what counts is what the Soviet
leadership believes. THEY don't trust the U.S. Maybe they should,
but they don't. I'm not concerned with what they "really" think,
because that is not something I am privy to, nor do I think that
anyone else can be privy to. What counts is what they DO, in the past
and in the future.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 87 11:25:34 PST
From: pom@along.s1.gov
Subject: Soviet Reality, International Stability and ethics
From: pom at along.s1.gov
>> For 40 years now,
>> well meaning intelligent men, such as yourself, worked hard to
>> negotiate with the soviet establishment a stop or reversal of the arms
>> race. Perhaps the reason they failed to achieve anything, has
>> something to do with their assumptions; perhaps they bark at the wrong
>> tree.
>I disagree with the premise. In my judgment, arms control has had
>successes sufficient to warrant continuing those efforts. On balance,
>I believe we are now better off for having pursued arms control than
>we would have been had we not done so.
That belief is hard to test. Before the last war (WWII) the talks went on
until the Germany left the League of Nation and started the war. The
disarmament talks which do not deal with the issues, but with symptoms
only, are either smoke-screens, placebo or an empty ritual. You are wrong
to call it 'arms control'. The arms race is 'out of control'. What is going
on are 'dis-armaments talks' which belong on talk.politics at most.
>> Here is another tree; please look at it and tell me what you
>> think you think.
>I believe the Soviets do what is in their own self-interest. I don't
>care what the Soviet people believe -- what counts is what the Soviet
>leadership believes.
I want us to be clear on where we will agree to disagree, where we part
company. You are wrong in not caring what majority thinks, on both counts,
as a matter of ethical principle and and as matter of practical politics.
That in itself would not stop the debate. The stop comes from the different
world views and from your lack of interest in comparing your view with mine.
In your model of the world there is something called "Soviets",
and you have some ideas about what they may do, what their self-interest may
be, and how 'they' may respond to this or that. We do agree on certain facts,
location and geography of country called SU. In my model, in my picture of the
world, there is also word 'soviets' and it means what it indeed means to
inhabitants of the Soviet Union. 'Soviets' are councils; there are local,
'municipal soviets' and all the way up to the 'supreme soviet' of the union.
All these councils and all their members "will certainly do what is in their
self-interest" (or rather what they believe to be their self-interest).
We agree on that. To me, all their intertwined self-interests represent
an interesting dynamics, about which one can may guesses and see those guesses
confirmed or denied by future events and actions. In a similar way, you can
make guesses about what "US will do", what "US will consider to be it's
self-interest"; To you, such outcomes may depend on whether Republicans or
Democrats will win presidency in 1988 and you may have a feel for that.
If I would be asked to bet on your guess vs. guess of Ivan Gregorievich
who always lived in Moscow, a guess of e.g. 'what US will do with Nicaragua?',
I would bet on you. Your model is more detailed and you have more facts.
Typical citizen of Germany is not able to differentiate between Republicans
and Democrats, but is be able to see them as two competing parties. Ivan
Gregorievich does not even see that; for him the two players are 'masses'
vs 'government' and his guesses are likely to be quite bizzar (and wrong).
> THEY don't trust the U.S. Maybe they should,
>but they don't. I'm not concerned with what they "really" think,
>because that is not something I am privy to, nor do I think that
>anyone else can be privy to. What counts is what they DO, in the past
>and in the future.
What really matters to US is what they WILL DO. In particular, will they
attack US or USs european allies, will they agree to XYZ and will they
stick to it? I have made it clear that my description of the soviet reality
is not empty moralizing about 'what SU leaders *should* do'. I was trying to
explain to you how that society works. I have presented that as a model,
a predictive model, of their behaviour. Sure you are not privy to what
anybody else thinks, yet we all make assumptions about what is going on
in other peoples heads. If you want to discuss THAT issue, I suggest we
move to comp.cogn-eng. To stick with the issue at hand: You cannot select
a good rational strategy for dealing with SU establishment if you ignore
the relevant factors and determinants of their self-interest. In particular,
you can be friends either with the jailer or with the prisoners. You certainly
can go and say to Mr. Gorbachev: It's fine with me if you kill all the Afghans
and Lithuinians and Kazachs (etc etc), but promise that you will not do that
to me and my friends. But when you do that, you forfait your chance of
friendship with Afghans and Lithuinians (etc etc) - and who will be left?
You said " I do not care what soviet people think " . What soviet people?
SU IS THE JAIL OF NATIONS. Once you discard all those ethnic groups, you are
left with jailers only, the apparatchicks , the members of all those soviets.
And whom do they represent? Did the Poles elected them? Did the Ukranieans
selected Mr. Gorbachev to speak for them? You do not care, you are a practical
man and ask: "who holds the keys, who has the Button?" This indeed is the
BASIC PROBLEM OF US foreign policy. We (US) were 'friends' with Shah,
friends with Batista and Somoza - and we did not care what the people
of those countries thought and we lost them all. You do have right to
your choices. But my vote and support will go to those politicians
who are able and willing to look behind the facade. There are few, but
they exist. People who were able to withdraw the support to Marcos and
contributed to our intelligent interaction with Phillipines; people who
are now supporting transition to majority rule in South Africa etc etc.
Because I believe that the 'stability' in international affairs can only be
based on moral principles. On the principle that each ethnic or other interest
group has a right to select their own representatives. I believe that
Poles and Nicaraguans etc etc have that right and that this planet
WILL NOT ACHIEVE PEACE until that basic right is recognised and if
necessary enforced by large number of people.
Any treaty, based on counting of weapons while ignoring ethics , any such
deal which you can negotiate, will ressemble division of territories between
the mafia dons:" If you will not interfere with my racket I will let you kill
whom-ever you want in your territory".
We all know that such treaties are not very stable. They are based
on medieval concepts of politics, on ideas of Machiavelli, Metternich, Stalin
and other such 'practical politicians'. They are not suitable for 20th
century;
They are not suitable for planets with nuclear technology.
Either we outgrow them or we perish. Howgh.
------------------------------
Date: Monday, 5 Jan 1987 11:56:46-PST
From: jong%derep.DEC@decwrl.DEC.COM (Steve Jong/NaC Pubs)
Subject: Re: Offensive uses of SDI
Some proposed elements of SDI, if they actually worked, would make
dandy offensive weapons. Any boost-phase intercept method would have to
reach down into the atmosphere over the Soviet Union and destroy ICBM's
on their way up. If boost-phase intercept can do that, it could destroy
civilian targets on the ground, assassinate leaders from space (now
THERE's a tempting thought in a crisis!), and destroy soft military
targets such as parked aircraft.
Either boost-phase or mid-phase weapons would also work well against
Soviet satellites. I think either side would consider a mass attack on
its satellites to be an act of war.
Nuclear-powered X-ray laser battle stations in orbit might be viewed as
orbiting nuclear weapons by an unsympathetic foe :^)
Such weapons would probably be able to strike without warning, as well.
Personally, I don't think these ultra-exotic flavors of SDI will work.
If they did, though, they'd be perceived by the other side as dangerous.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1987 19:15 EST
From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: zero ballistic missiles, good or bad?
Reagan proposed at the recent Iceland summit to eliminate ballistic
missiles from the arsenals of the U.S. and the S.U. Is this a good
idea? Why? What do ballistic missiles give the U.S. that we would
not have without them?
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************