ARMS-D-Request@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU.UUCP (12/22/86)
Arms-Discussion Digest Monday, December 22, 1986 3:20PM
Volume 7, Issue 88
Today's Topics:
Administrivia
Handguns and SDI
But are there any angels? <-- Morality of US policies.
Ethics and Morality of U.S. Foreign Policy
Christmas
Recantation <- (was) Desinformation
A couple of nuke B-52's a day keeps the Russkies away...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1986 13:11 EST
From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: Administrivia
==>> The following address is not recognized.
wayne@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU.#Chaos
==>> hiatus in the digest
The period over the holidays is usually a down one, and not much
happens during that time. Also, I am in the process of physically
relocating myself to Washington, DC, during that period. Therefore,
no ARMS-D digests will appear until perhaps December 30 or so.
I do expect to continue moderating ARMS-D, and I will keep my current
MIT-XX mailbox.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 86 10:53:40 PST
From: ihnp4!ihuxv!eklhad@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
To: arms-d
Subject: Handguns and SDI
> From: pom@along.s1.gov
> Actually, defensive or offensive cannot be defined in
> technical terms: An umbrella is used offensively, when used to attack
> unsuspecting passer-by and a long-range rifle can be used for defense.
> While some gizmos are more suitable for attack then other, arguments
> about which one is which are pointless.
> ...
> The issue I address is non-technical).
> In short: - guns and robots - do not kill people. People do .
I have heard the "people kill people" statement used to support everything
from handguns to SDI. Of course the statement itself is true,
albeit misleading. Let me make another true, and possibly
misleading statement. In short - handguns make it easier for people
to kill people. For reasons of logistics, economics, psychology,
or statistics, handguns *are* an offensive weapon.
Furthermore, their few defensive functions could probably be served by
shotguns, riffles, etc.
While a ban on handguns might be unenforceable, one should not oppose such
a ban because handguns *can* be used defensively, and sometimes are.
Similarly, *if* it is easier to use SDI offensively,
then we have a moral obligation to oppose it.
In fact, the counterforce strategy, which justifies most of our newest
military systems, may also legitimately be considered offensive.
It is not "pointless" to argue about whether a weapon is offensive or
defensive, it is imperative. Especially if said weapon
increases the paranoia of your enemy to the point where he
would consider a preemptive strike on your weapon system, or country.
karl dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1986 12:27 EST
From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: But are there any angels? <-- Morality of US policies.
From: pom at along.s1.gov
from: LIN@xx.lcs.mit.edu:
Are you aware that the U.S. invaded the Soviet Union in 1918?
That it is U.S. bases that surround the S.U.? That the U.S.
unilaterally violated Soviet air space with the U-2 flights?
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.
As for the bases: My point was clearly stated: I am not afraid of
a policeman (in US), in spite of the fact that he has a gun and I do not.
U-2 flights did not killed anybody. I think it makes a big difference.
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. Hence my comment:
LIN: to make foreign and defense
policy on the assumption that the Soviets know that the U.S. is good
and that they are bad is not likely to achieve very much.
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?
Your argument was addressing the fact that US is no angel
either.
I made no such comment. I noted that the SU fears the US, and they
have reasons that they consider objectively valid for doing so.
------------------------------
Date: Saturday, 20 December 1986 17:21-EST
From: wanginst!infinet!rhorn at harvard.HARVARD.EDU (Rob Horn)
To: ub.cc.umich.edu!John_Boies at harvard.HARVARD.EDU
Re: Ethics and Morality of U.S. Foreign Policy
Posted-Date: Sat, 20 Dec 86 17:21:09 est
>4) Since 1840 the U.S. has placed troops inside others nation's borders
> without their permission (some people call it invasion) over 250 times
> (the actual number depends on how you count multiple invasions of single
> countries that occur with in months of one another). Included in this
> total are at least two invasions of Russian soil. During that same period
(twice - Soviet Union & Independant Siberian Republic. Both
had permission in writing, but I also counted both in the
aggressions below.)
> the Russians have invaded other nations only 10-15 times (depending on
> source).
>
I wonder about the quality of this history. I took a quick look at
Major aggression - which I define to be 10,000 ground troops or more -
and limited the time span to Oct 1917 forward. I find:
Aggressions Territory Seized
United States 3 (+ WW I, WW II, Korea) 0
Soviet Union 20-23 (+ WW II) 11
I omitted the actions by both the U.S. and the Soviet Union against
German or Japanese forces in either world war, and the Korean War.
If I go all the way back to 1840 I can easily pick up another
dozen major aggressions by the tsars.
You also notice the uncertainty on the number of Soviet aggressions.
This is due to the great secrecy involving some of these actions,
leaving outsiders to guess the size of the troops involved from their
effects. This kind of uncertainty makes comparisons involving small forces
very hard. You really are comparing the skill of the secrecy
operations and the press, much more than the attitudes of the
governments involved. Major aggressions with this many troops are
hard to hide, and almost certainly represent the major policy of the
government.
I think that the history of both countries is consistent with the
official policies of both countries:
Military force is an adjunct to diplomacy that will be used when
diplomacy fails to achieve the desired result.
This kind of policy is repugnant to pacifists, and totally consistent
with followers of Clauswitz. It sits rather uncomfortably on
Americans, who vacillate between isolationism and interventionism in
foreign affairs.
Rob Horn
UUCP: ...{decvax, seismo!harvard}!wanginst!infinet!rhorn
Snail: Infinet, 40 High St., North Andover, MA
P.S. - I don't have my reference books handy, so I probably gave the
wrong name for the Independent Siberian Republic: 1917-1925?.
------------------------------
Date: Mon 22 Dec 86 11:03:50-AST
From: Don Chiasson <CHIASSON@DREA-XX.ARPA>
Subject: Christmas
This is the time for joy, celebration, and thanksgiving. I want to
say thanks to everybody in the arms-d `community' for the stimulating
discussions I see throughout the year.
Special thanks to Herb Lin for being the moderator and a frequent
contributor of well-reasoned articles.
Merry Christmas!!!!!
Don
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 86 08:30:57 PST
From: pom@along.s1.gov
Subject: Recantation <- (was) Desinformation
In my hypothesis, that the book 'Target was destroyed', could be
biased or part of desinformation campaign, I failed
to take into account several relevant facts, which the original contributor
of the posting about the book pointed out. (Pulitzer prize, interviews
with soviet officials etc). I call this recantation , since I
failed to read the book first, before spinning out the 'theories' about it.
As a pennance I have decided to get the book and read it. Unless I come back
with comments on its content, you may as well disregard my former posting.
It seems that my guess about possible attempt to manipulate media was
also a miss. (still, while " For 5M$ one can write a lot of letters",
to find an iceberg, you first look for a tip of an iceberg.)
So we still do not how the money were used. In spite off all that, please
keep in mind that just becouse I may be paranoid sometimes, does not mean
that government officials would never lie to public. Particularly in situation
in which the public is strongly polarised. We are now in the situation,
similar e.g. to one which De Gaulle faced when he decided to release Algeria
from the 'colonial bond'. Officers, conservatives etc. formed an OAS,
a Secret Army, which continued to fight, without official blessing,[ and even
(if I remember) to fight at home? I hope we will not replay that.] Since
US just skirted the colonial era, in comparison with e.g. GB, our situation
is more confusing, and it is much easier to mistake 'struggle for independence'
as 'machination of the foreign power'. It invariably happens, that the
leaders of 'self-determination movement' are labeled as marxists, and often
they are both, nationalists and marxists. It is not easy to determine the
'right' response to such movements or governments.
I guess, that what am really trying to say is, that I do not participate
in the arms-d just to show off my bad spelling. I do it because I care.
I want this country to remain at least as free as it is now. I want this
continent to remain free of the added soviet influence and I want this planet
to remain free of extra radioactivity. I think all goals can be achieved and
they should be achieved with smallest possible number of dead bodies.
It seems that to reach those goals, one has to navigate between the
Scylla of war and Charibdys of weak response to soviet subversion.
Course which I see as right, would make this country stronger than it
is now and at the same time more responsible and ethical in its use of
that power. That is, even stronger and even more ethical. And one thing, which
reinforces my view, is the fact, that when I was, in the past posting,
playing the devils advocate, wondering if the soviet army got a fair trial,
nobody questioned my sanity, I was not arrested, Nobody said:" OK Peter,
you are fired and for the next 5 years, you can choose to work as miner,
either in coal mines or in uranium mines. Nobody tried to run me over with a
car or even let out the air out of my tires. You may consider that obvious,
but an average soviet citizen would not believe it possible. The idea
that even a devil is entitled to the fair trial; the first amendment,...
all those ideas have universal validity and I do not think that want to
have them compromised at the bargaining table. And I also think that it
is silly to write to ABC to protest airing of 'America'. Both dangers,
Scylla and Charbdys exist and both are real. Any form of discussion,
artistic expression or misspelled posting, contribute to the process by
which the society forms it choice. Characteristically, soviet citizens will
see neither 'America', not the ' Day After'. Sometime people forget that
too easily.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 86 11:09:21 PST
From: wild@Sun.COM (Will Doherty)
Subject: A couple of nuke B-52's a day keeps the Russkies away...
From: John_Boies@ub.cc.umich.edu
Moreover,
it must be pointed out that for a number of years now, the U.S. has
kept few if any of its B-52s on airborne alert, although a significant
proportion (I believe over ten percent or so, if not more) are kept at
a high alert status on the ground.
Although I have no proof to back it up, I have heard numerous oral
reports that Moffett Naval Air Base, less than a mile from where I
live, sends two nuclear-armed B-52's out each and every day of the year.
Can anybody confirm or deny this, or such policies at other installations?
Will Doherty
UUCP: ...sun!oscar!wild
ARPA: "oscar!wild"@sun.com
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************