ARMS-D-Request@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (Moderator) (02/01/86)
Arms-Discussion Digest Saturday, February 1, 1986 3:58PM
Volume 6, Issue 39
Today's Topics:
carvers carved
Nuclear Winter deserves consideration in "Bullet in head" discussion
The ABM Treaty
Net Censorship and Binary Nerve Gas
Censorship of ARMS-D
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 86 8:57:17 EST
From: Bruce Nevin <bnevin@bbncch.ARPA>
Subject: carvers carved
Your explanation of the game players pre WWII and the comportment of
nations generally makes good sense to me. Re selective awareness,
I recently posted a summary of a study of press accounts of the
Reagan-Gorbachev `summit' here and abroad. Seems to me media are
to this nation, or at least the electorate, what sensory organs
and related cognitive process are to a person. To quote the song
about the boxer,
. . . but a man sees what he wants to see
and disregards the rest . . .
The fact that media are more controlled (read selective) in other countries
strengthens rather than vitiates the argument.
Had there been more open communication and public discussion of the game
and the gamesters their folly, first compounded then rescued by Hitler's
insane hubris, could have become apparent in time to have dealt with matters
differently. Where the differences would have led is of course hard to
say.
Bruce Nevin
bn@bbncch.arpa
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 86 12:10:34 EST
From: Hofmann <hofmann@AMSAA.ARPA>
Subject: Nuclear Winter deserves consideration in "Bullet in head" discussion
>From: RNeal@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA
>Subject: Bullet in the head
> Nice idea but people don't work that way.
[ Rneal, I tried to personally address a copy to you but our machine
does not recognize your system. ]
The idea was meant to take into account the seriousness of the
situation ... but you are saying our leaders would only retaliate
if they were assured their own survival (correct?) ... well, I think the
idea of conveying the terror to the principals by putting their
own life in immediate danger was to avoid a null first-strike scenario
more than anything else.
If the "other side" (whomever that may be) has launched a first
strike - what is the real use of retaliating anyway?
If the nuclear winter theory holds any account in your book, the "others"
are doomed anyway. So even if this idea was discussed years
ago on other newsgroups - it might be worth considering in light
of "nuclear winter" ...
But I imagine the nuclear winter theory doesnt hold water in your
book? yes? no?
hofmann
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 86 09:22:56 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN at MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
To: Arms-Discussion
Re: ABM Treaty
The ABM Treaty bans the testing and development of "components" of ABM
systems. There is currently a raging debate over what exactly
constitutes a "component", and how one can determine that something is
a component or not. For example, the SDIO asserts that a component is
something that can perform *all* of the functions of a sub-system
needed for missile defense -- therefore, an airborne tracker is not a
component if it cannot communicate with the ground even if it can
track more warheads than a ground-based radar.
Anyone care to flame on what differentiates components from
sub-components?
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 86 02:05:52 pst
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!amdcad!cae780!weitek!mmm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Mark Thorson)
Subject: Net Censorship and Binary Nerve Gas
So you think this is a totally free, uncensored forum? I dare you to
print this! I consider this to be the most dangerous <2K ASCII
characters in existence. More dangerous than the Bill of Rights,
Emancipation Proclamation, or English translations of the Communist
Manifesto.
[The poster of this message then includes an excerpt from a particular
U.S. patent on the production of toxic organic compounds.]
And this is just the tip of the iceberg!!!
Mark Thorson .../cae780/weitek/mmm
[See next message -- Moderator]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 86 09:22:56 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN at MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
To: Arms-Discussion
Re: Censorship of ARMS-D
The previous message brings up a point that has recurred from time to
time on the digest, namely what does it mean to say that the digest is
"uncensored"?
I invite discussion on this point, and my full position on the matter
is presented below.
I am not entirely sure, but I believe that when I took over ARMS-D I
did not claim that I would censor absolutely nothing. Indeed, the
courts have held -- properly in my view -- that the right of "free
speech" clearly does not include the right to shout "FIRE!" in a
crowded movie theater. Thus, I do implicitly -- and now explicitly --
recognize the claim that not absolutely everything should be
uncensored. For that reminder, I thank Mark Thorson.
When I stated that the digest should be uncensored, I meant it in a
"common sense" kind of way. That is, the idea in question is what a
"reasonable man" would consider appropriate -- such is the basis of
the "infringment" of free speech described above. How do I as
moderator draw the line between things that are permissible for the
digest and things that are not? For example, I would allow onto the
Digest a newspaper article (other than copyright concerns) that
contained classified information. However, I would have qualms if I
were approached by someone about using ARMS-D as a forum for leaking
classified information, and I would not do so.
Mark Thorson's message is one that is easy for me to deal with; it's
intent was clearly provocative, and illustrates a case that my loosely
stated "non-censorship" policy could not handle.
What are the criteria by which I make that judgment?
The main point is that his note was ENTIRELY technical and procedural
in nature -- it described exactly how to make certain toxic compounds.
This was not relevant to *any* policy question that I could discern,
nor to the resolution of any ARMS-D related question that had
previously appeared on the digest. Indeed, it is not clear to me how
this message would have fit with the stated purpose of ARMS-D, which
is to provide a forum for the discussion of policy issues related to
war, peace, national security, the arms race and so on. In
particular, ARMS-D is *NOT* a forum for the discussion of weapons
technology PER SE, except insofar as that is relevant to some policy
question.
Would the description of how to build a rifle or a machine gun be
included? Probably, but only because I am too lazy to keep that
message off. How about building an H-bomb? Yes. Would I have used
ARMS-D as a forum for the first release of the Progressive article
describing H-bomb construction? NO.
Part of the problem is that ARMS-D exists by the sufferance of the
powers that govern ARPANET usage. I try to strike a balance between
keeping them happy on one hand, and allowing maximal freedom of
expression on the other. Sometimes that balance is difficult to
maintain.
What else might be kept off ARMS-D? Extended personal diatribes
against persons not on the net are one possibility. No others come to
mind, but that doesn't say that there are none. ARMS-D has a
moderator and a digest for a variety of reasons, but one purpose of a
moderator is to keep the digest useful to its readership. In that
role, he must exercise a certain degree of judgment. If people want
me to give up the role because they think I am doing a rotten job of
it, then I will do so. But absent that protest, I will continue
to exercise judgment, and to make mistakes.
I ask the readership to comment on my criteria for what gets on ARMS-D
and what does not.
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************