ARMS-D-Request@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU.UUCP (05/30/86)
Arms-Discussion Digest Thursday, May 29, 1986 7:11PM
Volume 6, Issue 97
Today's Topics:
Older missles
High-Tech vs. Pursuasive Negotiation
Debate Style
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 May 86 9:50:42 CDT
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA>
Subject: Older missles
I heard a reference to the old "Regulus" missle the other day, and it
brought a query to mind. As I recall, during the fifties, we had a number
of air-breathing, winged missles (Matador, Regulus, etc.) for strategic
nuclear weapon delivery. Then, all such missles were replaced by
rocket-powered ballistic type missles for a couple decades. Now, we are
fielding cruise missles, which sure seem to be higher-tech versions of
the old air-breathing, winged types. Why did this happen? If cruise missles
are worthwhile now, why were the lower-tech equivalents completely dropped
from our arsenal during that intervening period? (Or were they? Maybe I
am basically wrong on this, being an Army type rather than USAF, and not
up on all the aviation/missle details.)
Will Martin
ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA USENET: seismo!brl-smoke!wmartin
------------------------------
Subject: High-Tech vs. Pursuasive Negotiation
Date: 29 May 86 09:40:00 PDT (Thu)
From: crummer@aerospace.ARPA
It seems to me that all the current high-tech activity, offensive weapons as
well as the comic-book Star Wars delusion, is at best beside the point of
providing national security. Arms build-up is a never-ending process.
(What if the Soviet Union had Star Wars in place? Would we stop
building offensive weapons and penetration aids?) What is needed is
movement toward a final resolution of the way countries handle their
differences. Since it is agreed all around that nuclear weapons
cannot be used, this pretty much removes war as an option or as "an
extension of politics by other means".
Though I am a Presbyterian I agree with the Methodist
bishops' stand condemning nuclear weapons. I feel in good company
with the Quakers, Catholics, and many other thoughtful folks. The question of
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.
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.
Perhaps the problem is this administration's lack of serious
intention and resolve to achieve a mutually beneficial, verifiable
agreement with the Soviets. Prior to the last summit all we heard
from the administration was that we shouldn't expect anything to come
of it. Sure enough, nothing did! After Nitze's earlier "walk in the
woods" with Kvitsinsky, his Soviet counterpart Richard Perle, a mere
lieutenant, was able to torpedo the process they had
begun. This is a clear indication that no one is in charge and
therefore the Geneva talks are not taken seriously by this
administration. It appears that Ronald Reagan is afraid to go "toe to
toe with the Russkies" and hammer out a mutually beneficial and
verifiable agreement.
The following is often used as an excuse for the lack of progress in
negotiations: "The Soviets are intransigent, besides, you can't
trust them anyway!" It seems to me that when one calls the
Soviets "intransigent" what is really being said is that we can't
handle them. Of course they want us to think they're intransigent!
That is what negotiation is all about. And as for trust, if we could
trust them we wouldn't need a treaty in the first place, and we do
need a treaty and so do they.
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.
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.
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.
4. When we had a first-strike capability in 1945 they did not stop
their activities. (This point is for those who hold the fashionable
trust that Star Wars will make everything all better.) and
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.
If George Hormel hired a negotiator to negotiate an
agreement with the meat packers union and all this person could do was
talk about the intransigence of the union and how they can't be
trusted, what would Mr. Hormel do? After the third or fourth time
he heard that story he would fire that negotiator and hire someone who
could get the job done!
A comment here to those who say we must negotiate "from strength": The
United States is already the strongest country in the world. We need
the will and resolve to achieve an agreement and we should
stop longing for more of the fearful (not fearsome) strong-arm "strength" of a
militaristic state like the USSR. Our form of government makes that
approach rather difficult to use consistently and effectively. Our
freedoms do not limit real strength, they ARE our strength.
(I hope the readers will forgive the perhaps polemic nature of the
above. I really would like comments on these ideas.)
--Charlie
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 May 1986 19:09 EDT
From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: Debate style
[From: Benson]
On another topic, I disagree with Herb Lin's style of debate on
ARMS-D. In general, there are so many issues, facets, facts, sources,
opinions that it is impossible for anyone to know everything
relevant to particular issues. Therefore many people intested in
the subjects discussed on ARMS-D are going to misrepresnt themselves,
the issues, the facts, etc. Indeed, I believe the nature of e-mail
make this particularly easy to do. So I prefer a style which
attempts to point out sources on subjects, and trys to be gentler
with all contributors. Almost everyone on ARMS-D is concerned: Each
brings a unique perspective. I read with interest all contributions
although I disagree with most, and accept nothing I read here as
TRUTH (Not even from Herb Lin).
Please say more. How would you characterize my style of debate? I do
insist that a person know his facts if he wants his opinions to be
taken seriously. I don't think misrepresentation of the facts is
justifiable under any circumstances. In most circumstances, I have a
great deal of tolerance for people who ask questions, and for people
who give answers if they know their stuff; I have much less for people
who give answers in ignorance. I agree that sources are good things
to point out to people.
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************