ARMS-D-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA (Moderator) (01/08/86)
Arms-Discussion Digest Tuesday, January 7, 1986 5:50PM
Volume 6, Issue 12.5
Today's Topics:
See #12.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 86 13:49:39 EST
From: Bruce Nevin <bnevin@bbncch.ARPA>
Subject: cybernetic process
What I was describing was a process of communication and
metacommunication that has been intensively studied and is well
documented. The particular message content that I chose for my example
(`War is obsolete', borrowed virtually without comment from the Beyond
War people) was not the point of the example.
`Sociobabble' seems to me just an insult, pure and simple, all
metamessage and no message. I suggest you learn something about
cybernetic explanation (Bateson, Watzlawick, Pask, and the rest) before
cavalierly dismissing it as a kind of cute bastard cousin of
`psychobabble' (another empty derogative). Opinionated language helps
no one.
As to my attitude about the `war is obsolete' slogan: as a slogan, it
appears pretty effective. I believe it is a true assertion as well, and
for pretty much the same reasons that you have given, given a broad
enough definition of the `cost' of war: the `cost' is too high. I
agree with you that more refined alternatives will replace war, Indeed,
they have been replacing warfare for some time. These include not only
terrorism, but also more subtle and effective means of economic and
political coercion and `persuasion'. Kwitney's _Endless_Enemies reviews
`our' use of some of these more refined alternatives.
My point was that the process of communicating in the way I described
was in many ways more important than the specific content at any given
time. This is because the process itself conveys metacommunication
about willingness to communicate, etc., and can be made to convey
metamessages that can lead to `back door' agreement about such things as
the fact that war is obsolete.
Bateson's studies of animal communication are instructive here. The
only way a dog can communicate that it is not going to attack another
dog is to initiate an attack and then not in fact attack. Animals lack
means to communicate negation except thus ostensively. This is
evidently the evolutionary origin of such behavior as smiling, laughter,
and play. It is why dogs (and the new kid on the block) must fight
before they can be friends. Nations are stuck in the position of
animals, lacking a way to communicate a negative other than ostensively.
In the case of nations, NOTHING ELSE CAN BE CONVINCING.
What this means is that treaties and agreements are effective only as
part of a more comprehensive process that demonstrates intention rather
than just talking about it. I believe this is pretty familiar ground in
international relations studies.
Bruce
------------------------------
Subject: Congressional lying
Date: 07 Jan 86 10:35:33 PST (Tue)
From: foy@aero
Jim Miller is one of the few people who sees that it is we the people who
create the lying by our elected leaders. When and if more of us recognize
this perhaps the effectiveness of lying will become obsolete.
------------------------------
Subject: KAL007 Mission
Date: 07 Jan 86 10:30:21 PST (Tue)
From: foy@aero
Michael Joseph Edelman states that there is no concievable mission that the
KALoo7 could have accomplished that could not have been accomplished better{
by other craft...
How about a mission to determine if it is possible for a civilian aircraft
to overfly Soviet military installations.?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 86 12:26:46 PST
From: ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To arms-d-request (mod.politics.arms-d moderator)
Subject: Beyond War Policy Requires International Force
> Armies are needed because war is an practiced method of resolving
> international conflict. ... If
> playing GO were, then both sides would have GO players.
This is a false analogy, and a rather naive position.
An expert GO player is of no value in a non-GO conflict resolution context.
The same cannot be said about armies.
In a world of doves, a hawk has a tremendous advantage,
a go expert does not.
Does this inescapable fact prohibit any long term global
non-violent conflict resolution strategy? I think (hope) not.
Fortunately, we have a few successful models to study and emulate.
The United States (among others) is a country
subdivided into regions, where each region possesses some autonomy.
When conflicts occur, individual states do not raise armies and fight.
At worst, Wisconsin might sneer across the lake and say
"Your upper peninsula?? See you in court!!".
The federal government would not tolerate inter state fighting,
and it has the power to prevent this.
This, I think, was the primary point of the PBS series on war.
Without an international agency to settle conflicts and prevent
inter country war (by force), wars are inevitable.
Nations must be willing to give up control of their military,
trusting an international organizationn consisting of representatives
from each country.
Of course, individual veto power would be (is) absurd.
Majority, or 2/3 majority should be enough to cause this international agency to
take interventionist actions, including nuclear demonstrations if necessary.
Yes, trusting such an agency would be risky,
but not as risky as the current arms race.
Some have said the "beyond war" supporters are naive.
I might agree (partially).
Their goal is essential to long term survival,
but the "no more wars" policy must be an international law,
enforced and unopposable by any individual country.
Best of luck to us all.
karl dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad
------------------------------
Date: Tue 7 Jan 1986 16:23:21 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: cybernetic process
I'm sorry if "sociobabble" was insulting. Take it to mean that I
found your note delivered little information to me; this may be the
fault of the receiver. Try using small words with us laymen, ok?
I agree that "war is obsolete" is a slogan. Effective slogan? What
is trying to accomplish -- make itself true? I don't see how the slogan
can have any effect on that.
I am disturbed by your assignment of individual properties to
collectives; i.e., nations. It is imprecise and misleading to
assert that nations communicate, have intentions, can be harmed,
or perform actions (unless these terms are redefined to be quite
different from their usual meanings when applied to individuals).
Serious error may result from this kind of confusion; for example,
to assert that nuclear war will harm a nation, therefore the nation
will not initiate it. In fact, the nation isn't the actor initiating
the war; one or more individuals in the government are, and their
best interest might be served by a war.
------------------------------
Subject: WWI,WWII & Beyond War
Date: 07 Jan 86 09:07:29 PST (Tue)
From: foy@aero
Jim McGrath states ... like it or not.. on the battle field we don't have a
chance to turn the other cheek...
I don't recall any of my postings saying one should turn the other cheek.
Of course one does have a chance of turning the other cheek on the battle
field. One must of course recognize that the probable consequences are that
one would be killed.
It seems to me that many people don't want to recognize that there are a
number of uderlying motivations in operation in battle. Fear or the drive
for self preservation is one. Psyiologically it is related to an increase
in the flow of epinephrine from the adrenal glands. Another is related to
the flow of nor-epinephrine. The emotion involved is more that of
excitement. It is associated with a desire to identify with the group and
to be important to the group and to protect the group. The group may be
kin, friends, tribe, clan, nation, gang, family or any other group that
one perceives as important. A friend of mine who was a bombadier in WWII
clearly indicated that for him (and probably for most air crews) the group
that he was fighting for was the air crew.
In the Beyond War orientation they show historical films related to battle.
They show the leaders discussing how new weapons are too horrible to use.
They show the soldiers being led into the charge with the martial music
playing. Then they show the soldiers falling like blades of grass. The
thing that I found interesting, is that in spite of my current attitudes
about war, that when the martial music was playing I felt the same
excitment that I felt during various moments in WWII.
I recommend the book "The Caveman & the Bomb Human Nature,Evolution, &
Nuclear War" by David Barash & Judith Eve Lipton for those who want to
learn more about the emotions and genetic drives related to war. Those
who are Creationists and those who are convinced that more weapons
lead to more security in todays world probably would not find it
interesting.
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************ARMS-D-Request@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (Moderator) (07/25/86)
Arms-Discussion Digest Friday, July 25, 1986 12:30AM
Volume 6, Issue 125
Today's Topics:
MEECN
Acronyms
The "going to the moon cost nothing" argument
High-Tech vs. Persuasive Negotiation
radiation and danger to people
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1986 16:23 EDT
From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: MEECN
From: Kurt F. Sauer <ks%a.cs.okstate.edu at CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
... There is a procedure called
'SELREL' which is part of the joint U.S.-NATO 'NUWEP' (Nuclear Weapons
Employment Policy). It permits the NCA to authorize packages of nuclear
weapons to be used on predetermined target areas...
But, of course, the use of these packages must be approved by NCA to ensure
that their use on particular targets is consistent with warfighting goals.
If you have a reference on this one, I'd like to see it. I don't know
what you mean by "the NCA must approve the use of a package." My
understanding is that the theater commander would request from the NCA
the authority to use nuclear weapons as he saw fit, though subject to
certain general guidelines. It is hard to imagine that the NCA would
specify the coordinates of a nuclear lay-down in Central Europe
against an invading tank army.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1986 16:33 EDT
From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: Acronyms
A reader complained recently about acronyms in a recent set of
messages. He was right. Here's my translation; assistance welcomed.
SIOP forces are centrally controlled and directed; targets are
selected directly by the NCA. NSNF are under the control of the
with other, non-nuclear forces, and C2 to them is much more difficult.
SIOP = Single Integrated Operating Plan = menu of attack options,
specifying lists of targets to be destroyed by which strategic forces
on what timetable.
NCA = National Command Authority = President + Secretary of Defense
NSNF = non strategic nuclear forces
C2 = command and control
... To wit, once a system GEP is "destroyed," it
requires replacement before it becomes usable.
GEP = ground entry point = place at which information can be entered
into a land-based system.
... E-layer disruption does not
necessitate equipment replacement.
E-layer = a particular atmospheric layer in the ionosphere (55-95 miles up)
... Chirpsounders and other pieces of equip-
ment can also help MEECN operators determine MUF, LUF, and FOT information.
Chirpsounder = ? transponder to help locate ground equipment.
MUF, LUF, FOT = ??? I don't know.
are certain (probably CONUS-located, but not necessarily so) weapons held
CONUS = Continental US
of PD-59, what with the idea of protracted warfighting and all.
PD-59 = Presidential Directive 59, by Carter, giving guidance on how
to fight a strategic nuclear war.
can be SELREL and ones which are 'held back'?
SELREL = selective release
MEECN is shifting AWAY from HF, as the central role of the EHF MILSTAR
HF = high frequency band of radio communications
EHF = Extremely High Frequency (Gigzhertz)
MILSTAR = MILitary Strategic and TActical Relay satellite
in the strategic C3 network will illustrate when it is deployed.
C3 = command, control, communications
The nuclear SLCMs are regarded as a strategic reserve, as are the
SLCM = sea-launched cruise missile
SSBNs (in some ways).
SSBN = Navy designator for nuclear powered missile launching submarine
SSN = nuclear powered attack submarine
SS = non-nuclear powered attack submarine
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 86 19:48:00 PST
From: epiwrl!epimass!jbuck@seismo.CSS.GOV (Joe Buck)
Subject: The "going to the moon cost nothing" argument
>5. SDI need not cost as much as some fear it might. For example,
> going to the moon in the '60's cost the USA nothing!
> Miniaturization of electronics, and encapsulation for space led directly
> to domestic products like the now common "pacemaker."
> The DIFFERENCE between tax dollars paid by those wearing pacemakers, and
> the "aid to their families" that would have been paid had those heart
> patients died or been disabled, is more than $25 billion.
> [Data from a CPA friend of mine.]
The notion that a program can be justified by its "spinoffs", it it ever
was valid, is obsolete. The Japanese have an organization called MITI that
organizes industry to go after technical goals directly (like targeting
specific high-tech industries for domination) while we wait for the
defense-funded research to be declassified. That $25 billion dollar figure
is obtained by assuming that none of the technical advances achieved by the
space program would have been accomplished if it hadn't been undertaken.
If DOD takes over all computer science research (they already fund a good
deal more than half of it) our children will buy their computers from the
Japanese (or the Koreans), because anything notable that is achieved by US
researchers will be classified to keep it out of the hands of the Soviets,
and "the best and the brightest" will work for DOD contractors rather than
for commercial industry.
>answer. Unlike some readers, I have no direct source of information about
>what Mr. Reagan and Mr. Weinberger REALLY think; I only have the press
>summary of their summary of closed sessions in the Pentagon and White House.
>That's third-hand information.
Mr. Reagan has on several occasions explained what his goals are in
language comprehensible to the layman - to make nuclear weapons "impotent
and obsolete". If the real goal is something else, it's up to the
administration to say so, as this is a democracy.
--
- Joe Buck {ihnp4!pesnta,oliveb,csi}!epimass!jbuck
Entropic Processing, Inc., Cupertino, California
------------------------------
Subject: High-Tech vs. Persuasive Negotiation
Date: 24 Jul 86 06:51:31 PDT (Thu)
From: crummer@aerospace.ARPA
comment by POM on "What to do" by crummer@aerospace.ARPA
..nuclear weapons, in addition to being a political issue, is a moral,
ethical, and profoundly religious issue. The churches rightly have chosen
this as an issue especially since no political administration,
especially the Reagan administration, has ever evidenced the slightest
understanding of the effective long-term political use or even the horror
of the military use of nuclear weapons. In fact the serious religious
community is on the frontier of the investigation of the meaning and
use of nuclear weapons.
POM: I do not discount the effort. However, global peace is not
a religious issue for all. It is for people who derive their morality
from religion. There are other, just as moral. In Soviet Union, e.g.
there is a lot of influential people who are not religious. By putting
the issue under a banner of any particular ideology, you are already
setting yourself up for a failure -- or limits on spiritual freedom.
- - -----------------------------------------------------------------------POM
By calling this a religious issue I do not mean to isolate
and confine it to religion. I am just saying that
attempts by the administration or anyone else to exclude
people from discussion or advocacy on this subject should
be taken merely as another sales pitch. In fact I believe
that anyone's considered opinion is valuable, even a child's.
--CAC
It is sometimes said that the anti-nuclear people have no alternative
to nuclear weapons other than surrender. Here is an alternative;
perhaps the way we and our children can survive in freedom.
POM: What is your alternative? To survive in freedom is the goal.
How are you, or the Religious Group proposing to achieve it?
CAC: I am not proposing to speak for a religious group. This is
not a partisan issue. The alternative I meant to propose
is the process of serious negotiation and the achievement
of verifiable, enforceable treaties with the Soviets or
any other "threatening" power.
Perhaps the problem is this administration's lack of serious
intention and resolve to achieve a mutually beneficial, verifiable
agreement with the Soviets.
POM: Sure, there is a lack of motivation, and it is not limited
to this administration. National governments have a job of
protecting selfish interests of the nations, (and disregarding
the $70 ashtrays, for the moment) they do it efficiently.
CAC: I agree. There are any number reasons why this bureaucracy
functions like it does but, as NASA is finding out, reasons and
excuses are no substitute for results, namely true national
security.
I think these points are self-evident:
1. The Soviet Union is not going to go away or change it's form of
government to suit our wishes.
POM: there is some some space for mutual acomodation.
CAC: There is no serious alternative to mutual accomodation!
2. We want the Soviets to stop threatening us and our allies; get
out of Afganistan, out of Nicaragua, out of the third world, etc.
POM: And they want the exactly same things from us; that is
the problem.
CAC: Yes, and as long as we espouse freedom and the rights of
man and then prop up repressive regimes we will have
no leg to stand on to demand that the Soviets make good
their claims that they are the champions of truth and justice.
3. They will only stop if somehow they decide to; no matter what we
do it cannot in itself be a substitute for that decision on their
part.
POM: what we do, will affect their decisions.
CAC: Of course it will but THEY must make the decisions as to
what their actions and policies will be.
4. When we had a first-strike capability in 1945 they did not stop
their activities.
POM - they did not stop all their activities,
such as growing corn; but military balance surely has an
effect on what they (and we) percieve as to be in their(our)
selfinterest. See your point 5.
CAC: They did not "go away" as a threat (perceived by the
U.S.). I'm just saying that there is no indication
from history that weapons will solve the problem of
the coexistence of nations.
5. The Soviets can only be trusted to act in what THEY perceive to
be their own self-interest.
The only rational conclusion that can be drawn from this is that we have to
show the Soviets that it REALLY IS in their own self-interest to
stop threatening us and the rest of the world. This means pursuasion;
bargaining, yea NEGOTIATING with them until an agreement acceptable to
both sides is achieved.
POM: But what if it IS NOT in their interest to
stop, wielding the sword, under present global system? There is a limit
on what you can acheive by propaganda, particularly when you do not
have a physical control of the 'brainwashee'.
CAC: Then someone (nation) has to see to it that the present
global system is changed. If by propaganda you mean words
meant to pursuade people of the veracity of a lie, then there
is a problem. In the New Testament the gospel is propaganda
meant to pursuade people of the veracity and relevance of
certain truths. In this case physical control of the
brainwashee is not required. The U.S. has a "gospel" and
shouldn't be using the first kind of propaganda. This
"gospel" is what we purport to believe are the rights of men
and the power of a democratic political system.
(I hope the readers will forgive the perhaps polemic nature of the
above. I really would like comments on these ideas.)
POM: and I would really appreciate your reaction to
my comments. I am not trying to be flippant - just realistic.
The issue you raised is relevant - I would like to understand
what are you proposing. To double the size of the SALT team?
CAC: I have just finished reading a paper entitled "A New
Inter-American Policy for the Eighties" by The
Committee of Santa Fe of the Council for
Inter-American Studies. I suspect that this policy
is basically that of the Reagan administration.
The policy put forward by
this group is based on fear of the Soviet Union. This
committee believes that we are already fighting WW III
and also believes that the Monroe Doctrine in a narrow
interpretation should be the basis of the U.S.'s
inter-American policy; the propaganda of the
Americas' need for U.S. protection even at the expense
of the loss of freedoms in the "lesser" American
nations versus the "gospel" as enunciated in our own
Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. But
this propaganda is exactly what the Soviet Union
preaches to their people to pursuade them to continue
to endure that repressive regime. Doubling or
tripling the SALT II (now all but defunct anyway) team
won't make any difference as long as the U.S. pursues
a hidden agenda that in not commensurate with the
"legitimate" self-interest of the nations involved,
i.e. that part of their self-interest not threatening
to our REAL national security.
I am proposing that the U.S. get SERIOUS about working
the problems of its interaction with other nations.
This means dropping the fear that makes us think we
have to lie and manipulate other nations in order to
survive.
--Charlie
------------------------------
Date: 24 Jul 1986 05:51:40 PDT
subject: radiation and danger to people
From: Jerry Mungle <JMUNGLE@ADA20.ISI.EDU>
Re: Jan Steinman's TMI message
I haven't read "Killing Our Own", but isn't it possible that the 260
excess infant deaths during the TMI accident were the result of increased
stress levels on the mothers-to-be? In fact, to be attributed to radiation
damage, one would expect the pattern of deaths to continue for 9 months
after the accident (fetal damage would not be restricted to those at the
end of gestation).
Back to the arms-d end - where is it documented that it is the *rate*
of change in radiation level that is the dangerous quantity? That seems
not to be the case - when the sun comes up, there is quite a large change
in the flux levels of high energy radiation on the earth, yet I've never
heard anyone claim sunrise is dangerous. All the evidence I've seen supports
only flux related risks, not flux-change risks.
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************