ARMS-D-Request@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (Moderator) (10/01/86)
Arms-Discussion Digest Tuesday, September 30, 1986 7:16PM
Volume 7, Issue 25
Today's Topics:
Administrivia
definition of problem, participants, and solutions
re: knowledge and being co-opted . . .
knowledge and being co-opted
Added thought about co-opting
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1986 07:45 EDT
From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: Administrivia
==>> Someone please let this guy know his problem.
Message undeliverable and dequeued after 3 days:
jlynch@NSWC-WO.ARPA.#Internet: Cannot connect to host
------------------------------
Date: 30 Sep 86 09:06:00 PST
From: "ESTELL ROBERT G" <estell@nwc-143b.ARPA>
Subject: definition of problem, participants, and solutions
Reply-To: "ESTELL ROBERT G" <estell@nwc-143b.ARPA>
The notion that *if* you understand the problem, you're part of it breaks
down at the extremes. [Many arguments do.] e.g., We would not want to
argue that medical doctors are part of the problem of illness - just because
they understand physiology, etc.
On the other hand, *IF* one found a surgeon who specialized in heart trans-
plants, who urged patients to continue their reckless living, and then
repair the damage by getting a new organ, that would be at the other extreme.
Fortunately, most doctors resort to surgery, exotic drugs, et al, only as
a last resort; they urge regular checkups, good diet, rest and exercise,
and other elements of "holisitic medicine" as preventive steps.
I've spent a lot of my life around civilian scientists and Navy officers
who understand [some of] the elements of war; they do *not* recommend use
of the weapons systems they design and deploy; but they are neither going
to forget how to use them, nor dispose of them, until it's absolutely
clear that there is no more threat.
A goal of arms reduction strategy can be to reduce the numbers and types to
address threats adequately, no more. Once we realize that there is really
nothing to fear from entire "other nations" or "other races" but rather
only from "criminals and terrorists" [of wharever background], then we
won't need to devote such a large portion of our national budget to that
kind of defense. For this, the warriors need the help of statesmen.
[Continuing the medical analogy, since the Salk vaccine, hospitals have
not needed to devote much of their budget to the treatment of polio.]
Bob
Opinions are those of the author, not necessarily anyone else.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 86 16:26:51 EDT
From: Bruce Nevin <bnevin@cch.bbn.com>
Subject: re: knowledge and being co-opted . . .
Re: knowledge and being co-opted...
LIN> For the sake of discussion, here are two questions I have been
LIN> wondering about.
LIN> 1) What knowledge should everyone have about nuclear arms, security
LIN> policy, etc? I have asked this before, and ask it from time to time
LIN> to stimulate discussion.
I have an `open information' attitude. Some folks consider this naive.
Arguments I have encountered are based on keeping secrets from enemies.
My response is that restriction of information merely concentrates the
essentials in one place and makes them easier to identify. If security
is your concern, then your inevitable paranoia is well justified,
because security may always be broached. Read the article in the latest
Mother Jones, for instance, about how easy it was to breach security at
the underground test site in Nevada.
On the other hand, if all information is always and everywhere
available, the task of determining what is essential, or even what is
significant, is enormous, and grows exponentially. Machines are not
very good at this, and the ones that are any good are in our hands.
(One of the great strengths of the antiwar activities during the Nixon
administration was its decentralization and open flow of information.
There was just too much for its opponents to track and evaluate.)
(An aside that may be related: provocateurs that I encountered in those
years seemed to think anarchy means being on the brink of violence, and
that all they had to do was to start some trashing and the whole `mob'
would act in ways that justified mass arrests. However, most of the
demonstrators I dealt with seemed pretty clear that anarchy means self
control, as opposed to control by an oligarchy of `leaders'.)
On another level, restriction of information inherently conflicts with
democratic process, and inherently fosters institutions and practices
that we usually regard as tyrannical. If our way of `fighting tyrrany'
requires that we become one, what is the point? Democracy requires many
acts of faith.
LIN> 2) A related question: does knowing about (or more strongly,
LIN> professionally participating in) matters related to defense make a
LIN> person part of the problem rather than part of the solution? I have
LIN> heard the following argument: If you understand the minutae of defense
LIN> and military issues, you are accepting the ground rules of the debate
LIN> (e.g., there is a threat, force is the best way to handle disputes,
LIN> and so on). That makes you part of the problem, because the solution
LIN> lies with people NOT believing those things.
Does knowledge/participation make you part of the problem? I think not,
if you are capable of what I might call multiculturalism, on analogy
with multilingualism (being fluent in more than one language). However,
if you lack fluency shifting from one subculture to another, then yes,
participation usually means `cooptation'.
People in many other countries tend to be familiar with cultures other
than their own to a much greater extent than we are. They therefore
know one or more very different points of view with some vital
immediacy. In this country, we have little practice being polycultural.
For us, the only way to see things from a conflicting perspective is to
`convert', to `go over to the enemy'.
It takes real courage, genuinely to adopt the reality of one's opponent.
Even doing so _arguendo_ (for the sake of furthering discussion) does
change one. One must be willing to be changed. One must allow that
there are validities there, not just errors.
This is not just a matter of cultural experience. There are differences
of individual psychology as well. Milton Rokeach in e.g. _The Open and
Closed Mind_ distinguishes dogmatism from rigidity. Dogmatism is about
a belief-disbelief system as a system, and rigidity is about individual
beliefs or disbeliefs.
o Dogmatic people have closed systems of thinking and believing,
and reject ideas and people perceived as threatening these
systems. They have difficulty in the synthesizing phase of
problem solving, integrating results and other new information
with existing systems of beliefs and disbeliefs. They use
dogmatic language like `That's stupid!', `That's crazy!', and
`There's probably a catch here' when stymied in solving a
problem. They have little tolerance for ambiguity.
o Rigid people may entertain new ways of thinking and believing
easily, but reject specific beliefs or disbeliefs that disagree
with their own. They have difficulty in the analytic phase of
problem solving, identifying and altering specific beliefs or
disbeliefs that preclude solution of a problem. They answer
`yes' to many questions like the following:
I always put on and take off my clothes in the same
order. I never miss going to church. I usually check
more than once to be sure that I have locked a door, put
out a light, or something like that. I prefer to stop
and think before I act even on trifling matters.
We value decisiveness and certitude in our culture. Dogmatic people
often appear decisive and sure of themselves. Indeed, I think it is
mostly dogmatic people who reinforce this cultural value by their
put-downs of people who need some time to process the ambiguities of a
situation. The characterization `so open-minded the wind blows through'
is a dogmatic one.
So if you are a rigid rule-follower or a dogmatic party-liner, then yes,
involvement in matters related to defense probably do make you part of
the problem. But we need more people with flexible, open minds finding
out about matters related to defense if we are to find solutions to the
problems.
LIN> Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1986 09:11 EDT
LIN> From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
LIN> Subject: Autonomous weapons - source material and observations
JJ> From: jon at june.cs.washington.edu (Jon Jacky)
JJ> This theme of using fewer troops runs throughout. It is being
JJ> promulgated to the naive public.
LIN> I'd like to understand why is it bad to imagine war using fewer troops
LIN> and more automation. I can think of two reasons. (1) More automation
LIN> means more chances for computer screwups, and therefore more losses
LIN> among innocent bystanders. (2) Fewer troops mean it is easier to
LIN> commit troops to war, giving the image of a "sanitized" battlefield.
There is a third objection, the potential for abuse. Robots tell no
tales. You will never have mechanized veterans marching in
demonstrations, sitting in on the steps of the White House, writing
books to make sense of their experience.
Native peoples in this country were hunted and shot like rabbits, for
sport, in California. This continues in South America, even as you read
this. Conjure up the image of machines sweeping inconvenient life-forms
from a jungle or a desert, as in the Star Wars films. Graft this onto
the Warsaw Ghetto. Bring it as close to home as you dare.
People cannot do these things without word getting around. Machines
can.
Bruce Nevin
bn@cch.bbn.com
(This is my own personal communication, and in no way expresses or
implies anything about the opinions of my employer, its clients, etc.)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1986 19:12 EDT
From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: knowledge and being co-opted
[Eugene sent me a very thoughtful reply to the question I asked, and
invited me to trim it for posting. I have not done so, since I think
it is a very compelling piece. Here it is in its entirety.]
Date: Tuesday, 30 September 1986 13:43-EDT
From: Eugene miya <eugene at ames-aurora.arpa>
To: lin at mit-xx
Re: knowledge and being co-opted...
Disclaimer: The following opinions are those of the author and not of
the US Government or the Agency I work for.
>Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1986 02:30 EDT
>From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
>Subject: knowledge and being co-opted...
>
>
>For the sake of discussion, here are two questions I have been
>wondering about.
>
>1) What knowledge should everyone have about nuclear arms, security
>policy, etc?
This is a long-term toughie. I hasten to mention that this question
was largely decided with the creation of the Atomic Energy Act in the
late 1940s. The physicists have grappled with this and there is a
wealth of literature. The question is solely based on the advent of
nuclear weapons. Do civilians have the right to know about nuclear
arms? If so, what should they know? This would sound ridiculous to
some physicists because the principles behind nuclear arms are
relatively some (read non-Rube Goldberg). I mention this because most
physicists that I know take it for granted that nuclear information is
in the public domain. But, I know one physicist (and probably more)
who believes that (emphasis:) perhaps the Military should have kept
nuclear energy secret and that the formation of the AEC was a mistake.
Any attempt to answer the first part of your question should take this
into account (rebuttal?) because of the preexisting literature. I
personally think that everyone should be aware of the consequences of
using nuclear weapons, the scale of energy involved (compared to
ordinary "chemical-based" muntions), and regarding security policy, I
think there needs to be a better understanding about political issues
(motherhood statement obviously) ["why are we really fighting this
war?" was never brought up in WWII, but did appear in Vietnam]. I
think some people have felt duped in some engagements, others feel we
get "kicked around" by the world. A lot of this would certainly be
boring to some. I also think that discussion on the specifics of
weapons design clouds many of the issues if your concern is arms
control (aside: the autonmous weapons discussion is somewhat
interesting to me, in only perpetually relevant).
People deserve a say in these issues because their lives as
"by-standers" are affected by other people's decisions. I was raise
with the American belief in partipatory Democracy, Republic,
Federalism, or what ever you want to call it. It is the
responsibility of every citizen to educate themselves about these
issues. If we disagree, we work issues out, but we don't just let
other people run our lives (without some "choice"). This issue is
independent of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons don't come into this
except when some people withhold potentially important information. A
"free" society should have as few secrets as possible. I realize
full-well who is on this net and what they know about policy (here I
am opening my mouth, I know "nothing," expressing opinion). Somehow,
it does not seem fair in a scientific or democratic realm that people
don't express information, yet control policy (I am aware of economic
and political realities).
>2) A related question: does knowing about (or more strongly,
>professionally participating in) matters related to defense make a
>person part of the problem rather than part of the solution? I have
>heard the following argument: If you understand the minutae of defense
>and military issues, you are accepting the ground rules of the debate
>(e.g., there is a threat, force is the best way to handle disputes,
>and so on). That makes you part of the problem, because the solution
>lies with people NOT believing those things.
>
>Comments welcome.
There is a "logic of the Commons" situation here (similar to Hardin's
Tragedy of the Commons). I don't think knowing the minutae makes a
person a problem, otherwise John Pike of the Federation of American
Scientists (FAS) would be part of the problem (depending on your point
of view, obviously).
I am certain there are degrees of participating: if you are the farmer
feeding the army, etc. I face this problem because I work beside
people whose political viewpoints I disagree with. There are many
highly intelligent, motivated people in the defense, nuclear, and
military space communities. The fact we are reading this net
something about that. I can also enjoy the company of my
defense-oriented friends in off hours, but I don't think I could (in
good conscience) take a permanent position at LLNL (temporary one on
civilian programs, maybe). My dividing line is one of vague degree.
I realize that the military-industrial complex uses Apple IIs
extensively, so should I not buy Apples? I think Apples also have
other uses. Petro chemicals? I grew up near Dow's only plant which
made naplam, I would have to weigh what I thought were the issues. I
don't think looking solely at one's area of expertise is adequate.
You need a control. Do my morals transfer to another discipline for
me? I have seriously pondered leaving the United States for positions
with the European and Japanese Space Agencies in the past because of
defense involvement. I'll probably ponder that more in the near
future. I also realize that upon leaving, my voice, no longer counts.
--eugene miya
(affilition given for return mail purposes only)
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
------------------------------
Date: Tuesday, 30 September 1986 16:13-EDT
From: eugene at AMES-NAS.ARPA (Eugene Miya)
To: arms-d
Re: Added thought about co-opting
Several years ago when I was working at a Just Plain Laboratory, a
colleague received a reprint request from the Soviet Union. At the
time (Carter Admin.), the US had announced we would cut off technical
correspondence with the USSR. The scientist (20 years my senior),
held and meeting, and it was decided to compose a letter to the Soviet
Scientist explaining the ban, and why a copy was not sent (human
rights stuff). Just now, I fired off correspondence to a ARPAnet
correspondent in the defense establishment, and I thought of your
posting. Was I aiding the military (directly)? Well, yes. I felt I
was doing so to the benefit of civilians as well (I hope), but I did
have a moment of doubt. I wonder if our situation should be much
different than the US-USSR communications (should those not wishing
DOD contact cut off communiations)? I do know scientists who will not
set foot at NASA because we share land with a Navy base.
--eugene miya
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************