ARMS-D-Request@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU.UUCP (12/19/86)
Arms-Discussion Digest Friday, December 19, 1986 9:25AM
Volume 7, Issue 86
Today's Topics:
Administrivia (also bounds for debate)
SDI, WSJ, CIA, DoD, and BS
Irresponsible Chicken Little?
reply to Steve Walton's bit on 16 Dec
Disinformation anyone?
bomber force alert figures
But are there any angels? <-- Morality of US policies.
Dumb Russkies
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tuesday, 16 December 1986 22:05-EST
From: LIN
re: Administrivia (also bounds for debate)
==>> Someone at SU-FORSYTHE please tell XB.K98 that he is not a legal
mailbox.
==>> RELAY.CS.NET does not recognize the following address:
'arms-d@FARG.UMICH.EDU' for the reason: ' Illegal hostname or
address "FARG.UMICH.EDU".'
==>> I have received a dozen responses on the question of terminating
the Cowan/Lin debate. There is no consensus on this issue. Some have
threatened to leave the list if such drivel doesn't vanish from the
list, others say that it is the most important thing to appear in a
long time.
My decision: I will put out special digests, devoted to certain --
extended discussion -- topics, and flag that in the header. That way,
you can delete the entire thing if you don't want to read it. (This
idea is from Dick King, who was the only one with an idea for actually
resolving the situation.)
------------------------------
Date: Wednesday, 17 December 1986 11:46-EST
From: LIN
Re: SDI, WSJ, CIA, DoD, and BS
From: Steve Walton <ametek!jaguar!walton at csvax.caltech.edu>
(1) The SU's spending on strategic defense have averaged $15 to
$20 billion since 1970. [Does this figure include air de-
fense?]
Yes (if this is a per year figure).
(2) ... "In a gross violation of the 100-missile
limit of the ABM treaty, the Soviets' silo-based launchers
are reloadable and reloads have been tested." [Confirmation,
anyone?]
The Treaty prohibits more than 100 launchers and 100 missiles at ABM
ties. It also prohibits *rapidly reloadable* launchers. In any case,
reloads per se violate none of the treaty provisions.
(3) The Soviets have at least 12 radars under construction which
the article says "appear to be part of a nationwide defense
system. The radars are similar to one near Krasnoyarsk..."
[Twelve!! I guess we all agree that Krasnoyarsk is a viola-
tion. Are there really eleven others?]
They would be legal if on the periphery and oriented outward.
(4) They are developing a modular ABM system which will allow new
ABM sites to be constructed in a matter of months rather than
years.
The ABM Treaty specifies no mobile systems. Rapidly constructable
systems are not included. In addition, the U.S. has developed modular
ABM systems as well.
(5) They are far ahead of us in laser and particle-beam develop-
ment; the editorial quotes intelligence sources which claim
we have learned most of what we know about particle beams as
weapons from Soviet work in the field.
In some ways, quite true. But almost no one thinks the real issues
are in DEW development; the consensus is that the hard part of the
problem is survivability, lethality (coupling of energy to target),
and command and control. On the last, we are certainly ahead.
I think such a major pro-SDI item deserves a major rebuttal,
and I think that several people on this net are capable of doing
so.
Fear not; I am quite sure that there will soon appear letters to the
editor (not by me).
I have a question: are their edi-
torials preaching to the converted, or do they actually change
minds of persons with influence?
I've been told that the WSJ is one of the three most influential
newspapers in the nation. (Others are the NY Times, Washington Post)
------------------------------
Date: Wednesday, 17 December 1986 13:50-EST
From: Bruce Nevin <bnevin at cch.bbn.com>
Re: Irresponsible Chicken Little?
The WSJ piece leads me to wonder if there is not a campaign being
mounted by the radical right when we consider it together with the
forthcoming ABC miniseries `AMERIKA'. This 12-hour, $44M production has
been widely regarded as the Far Right's `equal time' WRT the movie `The
Day After' aired on ABC in 1983 (as though that were a production of the
far left!). It appears that the idea came from columnist Ben Stein,
with contributions from Reed Irvine of Accuracy in Media (AIM) and
Phyllis Schlafley's Eagle Forum, among others on the far right. I have
articles at home at which I have only glanced (in the last issue of the
the magazine Mother Jones) that give much more detail.
Here is a summary of the script of AMERIKA excerpted from column "The
politics of `Amerika'" by Jeff Gottleib, Los Angeles Herald Examiner,
June 3, 1986:
A copy of the 579-page "Amerika" script obtained by the Herald
reveals the following:
The USSR has swallowed Turkey and Afghanistan and parts of Iran and
Pakistan. Central America is called Greater Cuba. Troops from the
United Nations--controlled by the Soviets--make up the occupation
force. American farms lie fallow and cities are filled with the
unemployed. The Soviets call the House of Representatives into
session, massacre most of its members and set fire to the Capitol.
The Soviets and their allies are prepared to crush a defenseless
population, and are not afraid to use nuclear weapons.
A Soviet general says, "They (the Kremlin) want the final solution
to the American problem resolved--quickly. Otherwise they might
just selectively attack four or five American cities. . . . Missile
attack on five American cities."
In another scene, UN troops make an unprovoked attack on a rural
camp of Americans who have been kicked out of their homes. Tanks
and attack vehicles smash through tents and trailers, killing and
injuring scores.
The Soviets in the miniseries are portrayed as racist and
licentious. A Soviet referring to blacks says, "We have a slang
word for them: `monkey in a tree.'"
In another instance, before briefing his aides on the latest plans
for the US, a Soviet general points to the strange women in the
room:
"A gift from the Chairman. Party girls--for compansionship."
In yet another instance, the hero's sister is raped by four members
of the UN force, including soldiers from Vietnam and Angola, two
countries with close ties to the Soviet Union today.
Given that many Americans rely almost totally on TV for information, the
programming of TV (a public channel) is without question a matter of
concern, to say the least, to policy makers. Might it be an instrument
of policy? (Said he, disingenuously.)
Here is a contact at ABC if you wish to send them objections or
encouragement:
Brandon Stoddard
President, ABC Entertainment
2040 Avenue of the Stars
Los Angeles, CA 90035
It might do to point out to enthusiasts that the scenario in "Amerika"
amounts to reductio ad absurdum of the arguments on the Radical
Right--but perhaps I am being too optimistic about ABCs audience.
Here are contacts for information:
Equal Time
PO Box 1462
Madison, WI 53701-1462
Committed to obtaining balanced programming from ABC. Have
begun a petition drive. Will send reprinted articles, and for
cost of printing and mailing will send the 1046-scene script.
They also distribute assorted scenes from the script in a
package called `Propaganda Alert'.
Fellowship of Reconciliation
Box 271
Nyack, NY 10960
Attn: Beth Kingsley
Also encourage letters, telegrams, and petitions to ABC, and
send reprints of articles to enquirers.
American Friends Service Committee
1501 Cherry St.
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Attn: Chris Wing or Bruce Birchard, National Coordinators of AFSC
Disarmament Program
------------------------------
Date: Wednesday, 17 December 1986 17:34-EST
From: ROBERT ESTELL <estell at nrl>
Reply-To: ROBERT ESTELL <estell at nrl>
Re: reply to Steve Walton's bit on 16 Dec
EVENTUALLY, you will get a copy of this message from my NWC account.
Please just toss it out.
Our MAILER is sick - again; so I'm using my NRL account.
Notwithstanding any return address above, send any reply to:
estell@nwc-143b.arpa
---
No, the Russians are not 10 feet tall; nor are they dimwits.
Like us, they are average; and the range goes from inept to genius.
Their athletes, scientists, artists, and politicians are clearly
similar to ours. [Businessmen and farmers are another story.]
It follows that they neither have an insurmountable lead in defense
technology, nor lack the ability to do some very brilliant things.
About SDI technology:
1. It is *NOT* necessarily true that "SDI" [ours or theirs] *MUST*
be predicated uniquely on "super-sophisticated computer technology."
Our most powerful computers do NOT necessarily have the most exotic
architectures, nor the most elaborate instruction sets; our most
productive programming languages do NOT necessarily have the most
involved syntax. Quite the contrary; "RISC" architecture has been
recently [RE]discovered by the popular computer press; Seymour Cray,
whose computers have topped the performance list for 20 years now,
never forgot RISC. And the major criticism [by Dijkstra et al]
of PL/I and Ada is that those languages are too complex; they
prefer Pascal, Modula, et al.
2. We [in the USA] are doing some "high energy beam" stuff that's
pretty impressive, at least to me, a non-physicist. This is NOT
the place to say more - not that I know a lot more.
You're on your own to dig the details out of Aviation Week et al,
or pry them out of the Pentagon.
My point is, following the intro paragraph, if we're doing it, why
are you so sure that WSJ is wrong in claiming that the USSR is too?
Bob [estell@nwc-143b.arpa]
------------------------------
Date: Thursday, 18 December 1986 10:00-EST
From: jong%derep.DEC at decwrl.DEC.COM (Steve Jong/NaC Pubs)
Re: Disinformation anyone?
As the poster of an item that POM suggests is "disinformation,"
I feel compelled to reply.
We all rely on external sources for information. I have no direct
knowledge of ancient history, so I have to rely on the word of others
that Socrates of Jesus lived, did the things ascribed to them, etc.
To some extent, we must make judgements as to the veracity of the
information we get, and the sources (as Herb Lin points out).
The Soviets have a large and powerful disinformation machine, and it
runs all the time. I recently read with interest a discussion on
a private electronic forum on a news item (CIA researchers synthesized
the AIDS virus, then loosed it on unsuspecting world) that appeared
in a number of newspapers, including the London Sunday Mirror (?).
The item was traced back to the Soviet Union. End of story. Besdies,
the story didn't make sense.
My submission was about KAL 007, a senseless tragedy. Making sense out
of the incident is difficult, but I agreed with the author's premise
that the Soviets screwed things up. In my judgement, that is more
plausible than that they tracked a known airliner for hours, then
shot it down over the ocean at the last moment. (How did they expect
to recover any spy gear that way?)
Let's not rehash that -- people are starting to object. Let me say
this: I am disturbed at what I see is a tendency to dismiss information
that supports an opponent's position as "disinformation." That is
a dangerous tactic in a free society. As I pointed out in my review,
the author of the book in question is a Pulitzer Prize winner. I
would be astonished if he were either a Soviet double agent or an
unwitting dupe, even though he went to the Soviet Union and interviewed
some of the authorities. In fact, that makes him far more qualified
to write on the matter than I am (and most of us are).
Anyway, if someone spent five million dollars to defeat liberal
candidates in the last US elections, as POM also mentions, I hope it
was spent on more than letter-writing! You can write a lot of
letters for five million bucks.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 86 08:38:27 -0800
From: Dave Suess (CSL) <zeus at aero2.ARPA>
Re: bomber force alert figures
With regard to the figures on bomber force alert status (one recent
guess was >10% on alert at all times), I cite "Department of Defense
Authorization for Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1982," Part 7,
Strategic and Theater Nuclear Forces [and] Civil Defense, hearings
before Senate Committee on Armed Services, late February and early
March of 1981, page 3799:
(General Ellis): "With regard to the bomber force, we keep
approximately [deleted] (sic) percent of the bombers and
supporting tankers -- roughly [deleted] aircraft -- on
constant alert. They are at the appropriate alert levels,
so that they could escape prior to the impact of SLBM weapons.
"If we suffer a strike out of the blue, a surprise attack, we
accept the probability that THE OTHER 70 PERCENT of the force
would be destroyed. ..." [emphasis mine]
This is one of my favorite illustrations of the value of reading the
often tedious but often informative records made available to the public
and world at large by our legislators (it's often a useful way to find
out obscure details not available through "normal channels" on projects
on which one works).
Dave Suess (not a spokesman for my employer)
------------------------------
Date: Thursday, 18 December 1986 14:50-EST
From: pom at along.s1.gov
To: LIN
subject: But are there any angels? <-- Morality of US policies.
was: defense vs offense
From: pom at along.s1.gov
Essential point is that US has no plans and reasons to attack SU, and
its history (not just words) show that it was using it's power in a
responsible ( i.e. ethical ) way - i.e. for selfdefense and just goals.
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?
pom: Yes, I am familiar with SU history: In 1918, territory
which now forms large part of SU was torn by civil war, with Ukraine hoping
for independence ( are you aware of fact that Ukraninean do not speak
russian (as their native language) and use latin(ASCII) alphabet, rather then
cyrilics?) and Lenin, still dreaming of global revolution, was negotiating
a separate peace with Germany and fragments of Habsburg empire.
American tourists on 'good will missions' to SU are fed
official propaganda that 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.[ Another person mentioned this fact,
and seems to believe that that 1918 caper has effect on soviet policy. I
guess the reason soviets use is becouse it tends to make the "Americans"
feel guilty. If you do not accept this flat statement of fact, please yell
and I will elaborate. It is important for us to understand SU psychology].
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.
It is because I believe that he is subject to, and obeying a law, which I know
and understand. I know he will not fire, unless I atack him. I am afraid
of a mugger, since he is unpredictable, subject to no moral law I know of,
and his, out of the blue atack, is quite arbitrary.
U-2 flights did not killed anybody. I think it makes a big difference.
This is a good topic for discussion though. Can somebody explain how
is the air-space defined and what concensus (if any ) exists. Do the
over-flight by satellites or space based weapons violate national rights?
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.
I stated no such assumption. You should know by now that my arguments are not
that simplistic. I said that nations (like people) are not automatically
afraid of weapons stockpiled by other nations. The degree to which they are
afraid depends on THEIR perceptions of how much of a good guy that other nation
is. This happens to be true for both SU and US and most other nations, in
all the worlds. Hitler was feared, not because he re-armed Germany, but because he ALSO subdivided people into 'human' and 'sub-human'. It was OK, according
to his followers, to kill the latter and re-use their "Leben-raum" (resources,
land) for the "master race". When he attempted to implement that, lot of the
other nations, including US and SU got so scared, that they united to
defeat him ==> Wars are not caused by arms, but by active claims.
Your argument was addressing the fact that US is no angel either. I did not
said it is. To the extent, to which US violates the moral law, it is feared.
My main point was that foreign policy, which ignores ethics and
perception of ethics and self-restrain by nations, confining itself to
counting of warheads, ' is not likely to achieve very much.'
( and indeed, so far it did not ). POM.
P.S. The 'slogan' " Guns and robots do not kill, people do" , was conciously
and intentionaly borowing from the NRA bumper sticker. I am happy to see
that somebody noticed.
------------------------------
Date: Thursday, 18 December 1986 09:05-EST
From: Hank.Walker at gauss.ECE.CMU.EDU
Re: Dumb Russkies
I don't view the Russians as bumbling buffoons, but the two stories of
incompetence are believable. There are lots of technicians in the
Soviet Union. It is possible that one is stupid enough to squirt oil
on a PC board. In "MiG Pilot," Viktor Belenko said that he wouldn't
let this one alcoholic mechanic near his plane. The scenario
described by Seymour Hirsch in "The Target Is Destroyed" is also
believable when you consider history. In the earlier KAL case, a
Soviet fighter shot at a KAL Boeing 707 that had managed to get 180
degrees off course in the Arctic. The plane was hit and reported as
destroyed, but it actually went into a dive which the pilot managed to
pull out of, and then fly along at a low altitude undetected for a
long time until finding a place to set down. Some officials were
executed for this incompetence.
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************