ARMS-D-Request@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (Moderator) (01/31/86)
Arms-Discussion Digest Thursday, January 30, 1986 7:00PM
Volume 6, Issue 38
Today's Topics:
Bullet in the head
re: SDI attack capabilities
carving up Poland
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 86 07:24 MST
From: RNeal@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject: Bullet in the head
I'll tell you one thing, if it came to getting shot in the head (or
having to cut the access codes out of someone) and letting the people
who thought up the idea go up in smoke, there would be a lot of charred
bodies around. If my hand was on the button, missiles were coming, and
someone had a gun to my head, I think I would sit tight in my bomb
shelter and watch the rest burn..Think about it. This idea is right up
there with "pay all congressmen and senators the average income of their
state to insure only people honestly interested in the people would take
the low paying job". Nice idea but people don't work that way.
------------------------------
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Date: Wed Jan 29 08:28:40 1986
Subject: re: SDI attack capabilities
If anyone deploys a large SDI system in space, they will use 2nd or
3rd generation shuttles, which can take off and land at conventional
airports. Few, if any, large vertical boosters would be used. I think
that the ASAT capabilities would be more important in preventing another
SDI system from being deployed. Assuming that the SDI system can defend
itself against current ASAT technology, it would be difficult to destroy.
Maybe this is a good reason to develop an independent, shared SDI system
that defends everyone that contributes to its construction. Then only
one is needed.
Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn
------------------------------
Date: Thursday, 30 January 1986 13:13-EST
From: prandt!mikes at AMES-NAS.ARPA (Peter O. Mikes)
Re: carving up Poland
Apparently-To: amelia!ARMS-D-Request%MIT-MC.ARPA@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
But, if war with Germany was inevitable, couldn't Stalin have fought
just as much of it on Polish soil by sending troops to Poland when
Germany attacked it? Why should he let someone he knows he will be
going to war with gain more territory?
Lynn Gazis sappho@sri-nic
This is not just a reply to the above and a (critical) comment to (all)
other comments made so far on this 'Hitler vs Stalin (vs Chamberlain)' issue.
The explanation of 'what really happened before WWII' is followed by an
attempt to generalize this episode into one of those infamous 'lessons from
history' ...
What happened between 1935-1940 in that dark corner of world?
Everybody knew that Germany will start war. That was Hitlers stated
program and reason for spending "on Kannonen" rather then "on Butter".
The game was about the direction of the attack: Stalin wanted him to go west
and West wanted him to go east. That was reason for both "Munich Accords"
and "Carving of Poland".
Inset on psychology of nations (which can be skipped) : Why do people
on this net call Russians paranoid? I not think that they are paranoid.
I do not think that Americans are paranoid in distrusting them.
I do not see how one can be paranoid when living with a horde of heavily
armed bandits who are constantly waiting for a moment in which to get one.
All one can manage under such circumstances is to misplace one's concerns
and thats exactly what happened in Europe:
With benefit of hindsight we see that West was wrong: If Hitler would go east
and digest Russia he would become strong enough to finish off the rest of
Europe. Similarly so, if he would do what he promised to Stalin. Fortunately
for us, Hitler was even bigger idiot then his fellow players and attacked on
two fronts, thus forcing East and West to cooperate on his destruction...
I will skip the lesson for now and just comment on the "communication aspect":
I used to believe (as many non-americans do) that problem is that
"Americans just do not understand other nations" - the implication being that
"they are uninformed or even dumb". After reading this digest for a while
I cannot maintain that belief any more. May be that every nation requires
a different model of what happened in the past, because different nations
need to do different things (and past controls the future). Or may be because
American nation had a different history than most, its reality (or it's per-
ception of reality) should be different that the reality perceived
by the others. After all - the players themselves were 'emotionally involved'
and so non-objective. Whatever the reasons - it looks like the nations (as
people) do have ability to selectivly pick the pieces of evidence which fit
and disregard the rest. Certainly the explanation offered above makes "no
sense" to this distinquished forum - or does it?
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************