ARMS-D-Request@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (Moderator) (01/01/87)
Arms-Discussion Digest Wednesday, December 31, 1986 8:07PM
Volume 7, Issue 89
Today's Topics:
B-52's and alerts
B-52's don't fly out of Moffett Naval Air Station
Moffett Field (Will Doherty) (a tour)
But are there any angels? <-- Morality of US policies.
Offensive uses of SDI
"Limits" size
The Military-Industrial-Academic complex
Lessons Of Irangate
Another Interesting Vanity License Plate for ARMS-D
Soviet Perception of US aggression
B-52's from Moffet Field ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Monday, 22 December 1986 16:51-EST
From: Milo S. Medin (NASA ARC Code ED) <medin at orion.arpa>
To: ARMS-D
Subject: B-52's and alerts
There are no B-52's based at NAS Moffett Field, only P-3 Orions (ASW).
I work on base, so I'm pretty sure about this. In fact, I've never
seen a B-52 land here.
Milo Medin
NASA Ames / Bendix Aerospace
Moffett Field, CA
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 86 16:49:32 PST
From: phil@shadow.Berkeley.EDU (Phil Lapsley)
Subject: B-52's don't fly out of Moffett Naval Air Station
Having worked for a year or so at the NASA Ames research center,
which shares half of Moffett Field with the Navy, and knowing
what a B-52 looks like, I can say that they don't fly B-52's
out of Moffett Field.
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.
But this is a different matter than B-52's on airborne alert.
Phil
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 86 18:03:59 pst
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Moffett Field (Will Doherty) (a tour)
Er? 1) There are no B-52's here. The other major portion of the field
is the Navy (this is a Naval Airstation), along with the USAF
(Sunnyvale AFS [you know, you heard about those "spy" satellite
receiving station which you can lob a grenade from 237 freeway], NASA,
USDA, USGS, and a few other military and civilian agencies. Prime
Silicon Valley land. We share the runway. 2) B-52s are USAF planes.
Interservice rivalry is sometimes interesting to watch. The nearest
B-52 base is near Vallejo in the North part of the Bay. 3) The
principal plane the name has are P-3C Orions, ASW sub chasers
(defensive?). They sometimes sit with bombays open. I think they
typically use some type of airborne conventional warhead torpedo like
a Mark 48 [emphasis on like, 48s may be too frigile to air drop.
The Naval Airstation is headquarters of Pacific and Indian airborne
sub warfare. It has been featured on KPIX's Evening magazine. They
have their own separate IMP. The USAF station was featured as the
entry point in the film Wargames to the Whoppr. The Navy will neither
confirm or deny the presence of special weapons, but there is this
series of bunkers not visible from US 101: mine fields (no joke),
double electrified chainlinked fences with guard towers and dogs which
I sometimes pass while jogging or bike-riding. Most of the plane you
see are practicing touch-and-gos. I am certain there are ex-P-3 crews
reading this digest. I think they use an adjustable nuclear depth
charge which can go from .5 to 20 KT. But I am not certain, but I do
know who to ask at LLNL. In event of nuclear war, depending on Soviet
strategy, we will either be vaporized before we know it (say
decapitation or total war), or we will sit and watch some other city
be hit first (attempted controlled limited war). And, if you see this
author stop posting, some one from Washington DC will have pulled my
plug. . . . ooops.
From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
--eugene miya
NASA Ames Research Center
eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
"You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
{hplabs,hao,nike,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene
*Star War is a trademark of Lucasfilm, Ltd.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 86 09:38:12 est
From: rutgers!gwe@cbosgd.MIS.OH.ATT.COM (George Erhart)
Subject: But are there any angels? <-- Morality of US policies.
In article <8612222111.AA12791@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> you write:
>From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
>Subject: But are there any angels? <-- Morality of US policies.
>
> The degree to which they are
> afraid depends on THEIR perceptions of how much of a good guy
> that other nation is.
>
>Precisely. Do you think the SU perceives the US as a good guy?
>
Let me add a bit to that. During the "Great Patriotic War", the
Western powers strongly opposed the Soviet invasion of Finland, to the
point of granting financial aid to that country, and nearly sending in
and expeditionary force.
Later, according to the Soviets, we allowed the Germans to attack
them, and did nothing to open up a second front (they didn't count
North Africa, nor should they have). Even when we did invade the
Continent, the Eastern Front still occupied about two-thirds of the
German forces; but by that time, the crisis had passed.
Of course, the Soviets ignore American and British Lend-Lease (which
was much more important than they would like us to think). I have also
read in one text of an American offer to send troops to defend Moscow
in 1941 (the Soviets refused). Does anyone know anything about this ?
The Soviet view on this is well illustrated in
_The_Russian_Version_of_the_ _Second_World_War_, edited by Graham
Lyons. This book was translated and compiled from two Soviet
elementary school texts. The book is, of course, largely hogwash, but
is enlightening nonetheless. For example, it quotes (then Senator)
Harry S. Truman on the German invasion of Russia : "If we see Germany
winning, then we should help Russia, and if Russia is winning, we
should help Germany; so that in that way as many as possible should be
killed."
With teaching of this sort, how *could* the average Soviet citizen see
the U.S. as the "Good Guys " ? Even ignoring their propoganda, I'm not
sure I disagree, given their point of view. And the fact is, the
Second World War has colored Soviet thinking more than any act since
the Revolution. This must be remembered when "thinking like a
Russian".
Bill Thacker
------------------------------
Date: Tuesday, 23 December 1986 01:51-EST
From: august at Jpl-VLSI.ARPA
To: arms-d
Subject: Offensive uses of SDI
Could some ONE or ALL of the people who are insisting that SDI
can/will be used in an offensive manner PLEASE tell me just HOW that
might happen. I have, no doubt, missed the reasons on other digests.
Please forgive this request and point me to the appropriate ISSUE of
ARMS-D.
Thanks,
Richard
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 86 13:11:50 PST
From: Dave Benson <benson%wsu.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET>
Subject: "Limits" size
wc Limits*
173 1441 9440 Limits.1
127 1056 6849 Limits.2
300 2497 16289 total
So I was wrong. The whole thing is 300 lines, which includes a small
amount of repetition in the headers since I broke in into two parts.
This was done since 16289 bytes breaks some mailers (still!). I don't
have Herb Lin's reply, just the original.
Yes, this whole thing did appear in arms-d., in one part rather than
two. The choice to use one part was Lin's.
[I had not realized that 16K messages break mailers. Please let me
know if you have such a problem. -- Herb Lin (Moderator)]
The question about appearing in RISKS is perhaps whether there are new
RISKS readers who don't read arms-d. I believe this is quite a
sizable audience, judging from some of the more recent (last 4 months)
RISKS contributions.
Regards, dbb
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 86 21:10:49 PST
From: Steve Walton <ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Subject: The Military-Industrial-Academic complex
I read Rich Cowan's posting of Senator Fulbright's
"military-industrial-academic" complex speech, and thought about
posting a detailed rebuttal. Instead, I ask a simple question: is
there any empirical evidence that what Fulbright feared has come to
pass? Specifically, is there any indication that criticism of
Government policies is less likely in academe now than 50 years ago
(when there was essentially no government funding for research), 10
years ago, and now?
I think there isn't--quite the opposite, in fact. It is my
impression that criticism of the Reagan Administration's defense
policies on college campuses today is vocal and frequent, despite this
Administration's success in putting more R&D money into DoD than goes
into all other government-funded R&D agencies. This is the first time
this has been the case since WW II ended, yet I see no sign that the
authors in Science, Scientific American, Foreign Affairs, Foreign
Policy, et. al., are in any way kowtowing to the Administration's
defense priorities.
The things Fulbright says about the iron triangle of Pentagon,
Congress, and constituents are quite true, almost self-evident in
fact, though perhaps they were not at the time the speech was given.
(I read in Fallow's National Defense, I think, that B-1-related jobs
are in 400+ of the nation's 435 Congressional districts.) The
solution to the problem still seems to elude us, however.
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: 27 Dec 1986 13:57 EST (Sat)
From: Wayne McGuire <Wayne%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Lessons Of Irangate
What has struck me as the most noticeable feature of Irangate is this:
For a number of years now right-wing forces in Israel (and especially
Likud), and neoconservatives and neoliberals in the U.S. who are
closely allied with those Israeli interests (at _Commentary_, _The New
Republic_, and elsewhere) have taken great pains to fashion a vision
of the world and a geopolitical strategy that is founded on the
central premise that an actor called "the West" (for the most part
Israel and the U.S.) is locked in an apocalyptic war with a huge
amorphous mass of Communists, Moslems, secular humanists and others
who are usually referred to as "terrorists," either literally or
metaphorically. "Terrorist" has become the dominant buzzword in the
neocon/neolib lexicon, followed perhaps in prominence by the word
"appeaser," which is used regularly by this school to smear and abuse
America's Western European allies, American moderates and liberals,
and anyone else who is committed to anything less than a militant and
military confrontation with "terrorists" all around the world under a
crusade usually labelled "the Reagan Doctrine."
Now, of course, we have discovered that the nation which had been held
up as the supreme symbol of "the West" and the heroic leader in the
struggle against "terrorism" has been selling billions of dollars of
weapons to Iran in recent years, a nation which by nearly anyone's
measure has to be considered one of the world's leading terrorist
states. Israel, according to late reports, has been a major arms
supplier to Iran even during the period Teheran was holding American
hostages, and after it was known that Iran masterminded the slaughter
of American marines in Beirut. To make matters rather worse, Israel
and some of her neocon allies in the U.S. government, like Michael
Ledeen, then played a leading role in pressuring the U.S. to secretly
supply arms to Iran.
But here comes the good part: some of the key strategists who have
forged the anti-terrorist Reagan Doctrine, like Jeane Kirkpatrick and
Burton Pines, have been going on the record since the scandal broke
and arguing, in an uncharacteristically equivocating tone that has
replaced their usual outraged stridency on these matters, that, well,
sure, we're against terrorism and all that, but we've got to take
PRAGMATIC factors into account on these questions. Some of these
pragmatic factors seem to include the fact that (1) Israel has a
declared interest in keeping the Iran/Iraq war going at full tilt for
as long as possible so that the Iranians and Iraqis bleed each other
to death and are too exhausted to turn their hostility towards Israel,
and (2) 1/4 of Israel's industrial exports, which support its shaky
economy, consist of arms sales to buyers which include "terrorist"
nations like Iran.
And so the lesson is clear: if Western European nations or moderates
or liberals in the U.S. take pragmatic factors into account in dealing
with "terrorist" states, they are legitimate targets of verbal abuse,
but if Israel or neocon/neolibs in the U.S. government set their
thunderously stated moral principles aside and embark on the same
policy, many excuses can be found to justify the behavior.
It is quite easy to come to the conclusion that neoconservatism and
neoliberalism, setting aside the question of depravity, are two of the
SILLIEST political movements to come down the pike and actually
acquire a patina of legitimacy in the U.S. in some time. It is
appalling especially to consider that a movement as morally and
intellectually threadbare as neoconservatism, relying so heavily as it
has on promoting an anti-terrorist program, has played a decisive role
in destroying all efforts at developing arms control agreements
between the U.S. and USSR.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 86 23:24:07 pst
From: eugene@AMES-NAS.ARPA (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Another Interesting Vanity License Plate for ARMS-D
See on a van from Nevada while I was vacationing on Lake Tahoe:
SR71 SPY
From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
--eugene miya
NASA Ames Research Center
eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
"You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
{hplabs,hao,dual,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene
Note: ames-nas associated hosts will be down for the next several weeks
for machine movement.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 86 10:27:34 PST
From: pom@along.s1.gov
Subject: Soviet Perception of US aggression
pom wrote:
>> As for the bases, I am not afraid of a policeman...
LIN responds:
>I in fact think the US bases around AND the U-2 flights into the SU
>were/are good things for the US to have, but there is a cost to them.
>ON BALANCE, I feel better for having done them. But to expect the
>Soviets to consider them benign is quite wrong.
pom responds to Lin's comment:
I think that we agree, that SU perception of US threat
depends partly, on US policy, it's predictability and ethics. Since
US record is less then perfect, SU indeed views US bases as a threat.
>> American tourists on 'good will missions' to SU are fed
>> official propaganda that (1918) and WWII are responsible for general
>> paranoia and security mania of the soviet state. That is pure BS, not
>> shared by the bulk of the population.
>Not according to the analysts of Soviet military needs that I know,
>who say that the Soviet leadership is quite aware of these things. It
>is a fact that U.S. troops were on Soviet soil, fighting the Reds.
>The reasons for this may or may not have been benign from our
>perspective. But what counts is their perspective. Please tell us
>how YOU *really* know what the Soviets think.
pom responds to Lin's comments:
We may disagree about various determinants of the SU
perspective; is it past history or recent acts or words? As this issue
is important, I will devote this posting to it. (If you would provide
reference to analyses of official Kremlino-logists you refer to, it
would be easier to agree or disagree with what they say.)
Just based on your statements: Both the leaders and the population
are certainly AWARE of that 1918 intervention, since that period
(comparable to 1776 in US) is discussed at length in the classes of
history. Fact is that in 1918 everybody fought everybody. There was
no soviet state as yet.
The Great October Revolution happened in November of 1917 and reds
were busy conquering whites and what they called 'gangs of bandits'
for years to come. Amount of damage which US or GB units did was
negligeable ( from THEIR perspective!). I *know* that this is so,
since I *know* that in subsequent years, until mid thirties, there was
a lively cooperation between SU and US with US companies providing
much needed technical help to the task of 'reconstruction'. Relations
only soured when Stalin started his purges, and between thousands of
other victims, put group of american engineers on trial as spies. ( I
do not remember if they were executed or released) but THAT was the
turning point in SU - US relationship. That is very old history and
attention span of nations is about 50 years ( I am willing to support
that statement). Just the fact that SU treats US, GB, and CSR
differently, in spite of their similar role in that 1918 mess, proves
that
SU is not an elephant (-: but rather a rhino :-) between nations.
The question of 'what SU *really* thinks' is complicated by the fact
that 'apparatus' - the party, thinks differently than masses, to a
degree which has no analogy in US society. Just as an example, the
Ukraine-ans welcomed Hitlers troop as 'liberators' in 1940, since they
did not shared the perspective of comrad Stalin and Mr. K. ( known
within SU as 'the butcher of the Ukraine'). Needless to say, the
masses were somewhat disappointed. That ( 45 years old ) history
still has considerable effect. The recent history, however, has more
of an effect. As argument to support that, I suggest that you compare
the tone of SU newspapers from J.F.Ks and Reagans presidency. In
spite of about the same number of bases and in spite of the Cuban
crisis, I stipulate that you would agree that they are much more
afraid of our present posture.
Our present 'contempt' of UN and of international court in Hague has
something to do with that. ( I suppose that one 'should' abandon
institutions which do not work; but 'one should' also propose
alternatives or changes if he wants to stay within the realm of
'constructive criticism' )
Present US foreign 'policy' (if it can be called that) is
unpredictable and appears to many nations as arbitrary. After reading
that the Lybian strike was not quite as black and white as originally
presented, even I sometime wonder what 'they will do next'. Present
admin (and forces which still support it) failed to project coherent
image of the US foreign policy. Mix of the of signals ranges from
pre-summit rhetorics to 'Evil Empire' raps, which evoke the images of
Armagedon, of (holy) war against godless barbarians of the North,
against "Gog and Magog". Do 'they' think that communists do not read
Bible? Even if they would not, all of them who graduated from high
school were required to read War&Peace (by Tolstoy) and it is all
there ( Pierre Besuchov believed that Napoleon is the biblical 'beast'
( even got 666 from the anagram of his name) and was planning his
asassination - as delightfully paraphrased in Woody Allen's movie,
Love & Death .... )
So, what SU thinks is a somewhat neurotic double-layer of an ongoing
dialog (or rather argument) between the 'party' and the majority, the
'party-less' masses. An argument which can be monitored by reading soviet
papers. I think I presented enough arguments to back-up my 'flat
assertion of fact' that US intervention of 1918 is not an important
determinant of SU thinking and policies and indeed is rarely mentioned
in their internal dialog, in their press.
SUMMARY: Way you ornamented and capitalised your question suggests
that you doubt both 1) that i know what SU thinks and 2) that it is
useful to split SU thinking into a) presenting a facade and b) real
happenigs behind the facade.
Statements about mental processes of others must be treated as
working hypotheses; you judge them by the fruit. 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. Here is another tree; please look at it and tell me what you
think you think.
Then, tell what YOU *really* think::
Both US and SU suffer from what Bacon called 'the idol of the cave' ;
they project their own thought processes onto quite different
mentality of their partner (or opponent). That US born SU journalist
(what's his name?), stated truthfully that SU masses like 'american
people' and say to US messengers "tell your government that we want
peace". The masses assume, (I am adding) that it is the US government
which is responsible for most of the problems. They think that there
is a wide gap between official american opinion and US public. Those
masses would be quite disappointed, (again) if they would be allowed
to find out what an average american thinks about the 'rooskies'. So,
the SU government, by protecting them from 'knowing', performs a
useful service, in preserving their (fragile) self-esteem. Americans
on the other hand, do not differentiate clearly beetween the acts of
state and thinking of the masses and tend to interpret the most
callous and repulsive acts of the SU apparat as 'russian mentality'
and barbarism. That's how that neurotic double-layer is maintained,
both within SU and across the continents. -Sigh-
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 86 12:19:38 PST
From: JAM%CCC.MFENET@nmfecc.arpa
Subject: B-52's from Moffet Field ?
I rather doubt that the Navy flies B-52's from any Naval air station,
they are Air Force planes. I would think that any large plane flown
from Moffet field would be a P-3 Orion Submarine Hunter. I would like
to believe that these planes are armed with Conventional torpedoes or
depth charges, however I do not know and Nuclear Torpedoes and Depth
charges do exist.
Jim Morton
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************