ARMS-D-Request@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (Moderator) (10/03/86)
Arms-Discussion Digest Friday, October 3, 1986 12:12AM
Volume 7, Issue 26
Today's Topics:
Autonomous weapons comment
Part of the problem or part of the solution?
Re: knowledge and being co-opted...
Administrivia
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tuesday, 30 September 1986 23:00-EDT
From: infinet!rhorn%wanginst.UUCP at harvard.HARVARD.EDU (Rob Horn)
To: arms-d
Re: Autonomous weapons comment
Posted-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 86 23:00:10 edt
I find the discussion on autonomous weapons a bit confusing. Perhaps
it is because there are two different issues here. In one case there
is the danger to civilians, non-combatants and post-combatants from
such weapons. Here I find it hard to understand why mines and even
``duds'' are not important. They were extensively used during WWII
and have very long dangerous lifespans. ``Duds'' in Flanders were
killing civilians for decades after the war was over. These things
self-destruct only through corrosion or decay. In contrast most of
the new autonomous weapons are powered and become relatively harmless
within months or years (when they run out of power).
But psychologically there is a tremendous difference. Mines evoke
fear, but not terror or horror. This is because they are just another
danger zone like quicksand or freeways. They present no new concepts
in danger, just a variation on a commonplace form of danger. These
new weapons however introduce something new: a non-human predator.
Very few people ever experience being prey to a predator, and no human
society has had to fear non-human predators for millenia. I think
that much of the reaction to these weapons (and the reason that they
are feared so much more than other weapons) is that while people can
handle the concept of a human predator this new non-human predator is
a new level of terror. I also suspect that the degrees of autonomy
will bear much more relationship to the degree that the weapon
resembles a predator that preys on people than to the degree of
control over the weapon.
Rob Horn
UUCP: ...{decvax, seismo!harvard}!wanginst!infinet!rhorn
Snail: Infinet, 40 High St., North Andover, MA
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 86 10:15:59 pdt
From: Gary Chapman <chapman@russell.stanford.edu>
Subject: Part of the problem or part of the solution?
I am particularly interested in the question of whether working in the
arms control field, especially with some technical expertise, makes
one part of the problem or part of the solution. This strikes close
to home since I actually do work in this field with some technical
expertise, and a good number of my friends do too.
I can say that this is something that is constantly debated among the
people who work in arms control and in the peace movement. There is
considerable tension between the "experts" and the "activists." Last
year there was a conference at Harvard that tried to get the two sides
talking to each other and the whole thing was pretty much a failure.
The experts believe that the grassroots and legislative activists are
too naive about the complexities of the arms race, and the activists
feel the experts have become captive to their own hermetic discipline
and have lost sight of the goal of making the world safe from nuclear
weapons. When things get extreme, the experts talk derisively about
the "rabble rousing freezeniks," and the activists laugh at the "bean
counters."
About a month ago I went out to dinner with my legislative liaison
from Washington. She has since left the lobbying business to go to
graduate school for a degree in public policy, arms control and
science. She is a smashingly bright person and a tremendously
effective lobbyist. She wants to work in the White House (under a
Democratic administration), and I suspect she probably will.
I asked her the critical question: Do you do this because it's
interesting, or because you want to save the world from nuclear
catastrophe? She answered, "Both."
That's the right answer, I think. We should never approach the
nuclear question as just another academic subject that we find
intriguing. But at the same time, one can make a career out of
studying this field without living with a daily anguish that you are
not accomplishing enough. Moving to the extreme of either pole leads
to some kind of pathology in the soul, I imagine. I know people who
calmly study the effects of "low intensity nuclear exchanges," and
consult their Rand Bomb Damage Effects wheel. I find these people
warped. On the other hand I know people who are so consumed by
anxiety over the existence of nuclear weapons that they are almost
completely ineffectual in helping to get rid of them.
In order for there to be real change in the nuclear weapons field,
there has to be some kind of reconciliation between the experts and
the activists. Experts have to understand that they are subject to
the same fate as the rest of us, and they must learn to be less
skeptical of the broad brushes of the peace movement. But the peace
movement must learn to be more patient in the process of constructing
agreements that really do make a difference. It is a complex process
and people must understand this.
The best of all possible worlds would be for the American public to
have a solid consensus on the desirability of arms control and arms
reduction, and a grateful attitude about the ability of experts to
craft agreements aimed at reducing the threat of nuclear weapons.
This is not likely to happen, however, so we must try to work
politically to bridge the gap between the public's goals--both for
arms control and for standing up to the Soviets--and the inevitable
pride and professionalism of the arms control experts.
I personally think it is possible to combine a detailed technical
expertise in some issue related to nuclear weapons with a passionate
political commitment for their elimination. But this largely depends
on one's circumstances. Such a person is not likely to thrive at Rand
or in the O-Group at Lawrence Livermore. Nor is a person with a solid
technical background likely to be appreciated at the Fellowship for
Reconciliation. There will always be a tension surrounding such a
person no matter where he or she works, but the right job in the right
time will make all the difference.
------------------------------
Date: 1 Oct 86 14:46:32 PDT (Wednesday)
From: Hoffman.es@Xerox.COM
Subject: Re: knowledge and being co-opted...
Does knowing about ... matters related to defense make a
person part of the problem rather than part of the solution?
No, but I think it's IMPOSSIBLE for an outsider to know ENOUGH about
matters related to defense to be an effective part of the solution.
The insiders always have that trump card in any argument: "Classified
information that you haven't seen and I can't tell you about proves
you're wrong."
That's why I don't try to memorize a lot of defense-related facts and
figures.
-- Rodney Hoffman
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1986 08:31 EDT
From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: Administrivia
==>> Please help with this:
Date: Thursday, 2 October 1986 00:17-EDT
From: MAILER-DAEMON%lownlab.UUCP at harvard.HARVARD.EDU
To: harvard!XX.LCS.MIT.EDU!ARMS-D-Request at harvard.HARVARD.EDU
Re: Returned mail: Unable to deliver mail
----- Transcript of session follows -----
554 :include: /usr/local/lib/mail/arpa/arms-d... Cannot open /usr/local/lib/mail/arpa/arms-d: No such file or directory
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1986 20:12 EDT
From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: Administrivia
==>> Please help with this:
Date: Thursday, 2 October 1986 09:13-EDT
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON at sdcsvax.ucsd.edu>
To: arms-d-request at BRL.ARPA
Re: Returned mail: User unknown
----- Transcript of session follows -----
550 davidson... User unknown
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************