ARMS-D-Request@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (Moderator) (01/27/86)
Arms-Discussion Digest Monday, January 27, 1986 3:15PM
Volume 6, Issue 35
Today's Topics:
Burning targets using orbiting SDI lasers
Re: shoot the instigator
How Much Is Enough For Defense?
Diplomatic Rights
shoot the instigator
A Scenario on the Attack Capabilities of SDI]
Re: shoot the instigator
Re: Stalin and Hitler
Request transmittal to ARMS-D
Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V6 #32
murder disallowed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: aurora!eugene@RIACS.ARPA (Eugene miya)
Date: 26 Jan 1986 1101-PST (Sunday)
Subject: Burning targets using orbiting SDI lasers
Short innate comment:
Re: Greeks burning enemy ships <I remember reading about this in 8th grade
geometry texts> and cities
I was traveling back East (in Ohio) in October when just before going to
bed, I turned on the TV and caught a short film on how they made a
particular movie. The movie in question was the recent Caltech-like film
"Real Genius." Said movie was about students making a laser death ray .....
and realizing what they did was a "mistake." The short film interviewed
the makers of the movie. The script had been written before the SDI
announcement, and the writers chose what they thought would be a riduculous
weapon (the "Cross-bow"). Oh, well, back to the China Syndrome.....
>From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers.
--eugene miya
NASA Ames Research Center
{hplabs,hao,dual,ihnp4,vortex}!ames!aurora!eugene
eugene@ames-nas.ARPA
------------------------------
Subject: Re: shoot the instigator
Date: 26 Jan 86 11:50:30 PST (Sun)
From: jef@lbl-rtsg.arpa
Bob Carter thinks that Jim Hofmann's message about shooting the President
immediately after he launches our missiles is "scurrilous KKK-style
nonsense". My reaction was very different. When I saw Hofmann's
message, I laughed out loud and immediately told the idea to a friend
sitting next to me. He thought it was a good idea too. After all, if
we are throwing missiles back and forth, and millions of people are
dying, it simply does not matter whether one more person lives or dies.
Sure, the President is (probably) a valuable person, but he is not
millions of times more valuable than others. In a nuclear war, shooting
him would literally be lost in the noise. And if the personal threat of
a bullet in the head aids deterrence just a little bit, then I'm all
for it.
Bob, I really don't see why you object so vehemently to this idea, and
your relatively content-free message does nothing to enlighten me.
Furthermore, your advocation of censorship on ARMS-D really annoys me.
Your credibility with me currently stands at absolute zero.
---
Jef
------------------------------
Date: Sun 26 Jan 1986 15:00:10 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: How Much Is Enough For Defense?
How much money is enough for defense? It depends on what you mean by
"defense". Louis Rukyser (sp?) asked his guest this question on last
week's Wall Street Week (the guest was a financial analyst specializing
in defense investments). The guest responded that for defending *the
United States*, today's defense budget is more than adequate. Defense
is expensive because we're defending a good fraction of the rest of the
world, too.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 86 16:36:11 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Diplomatic Rights
There are no restrictions on what can be brought in by diplomatic
pouch.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 86 16:43:13 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: shoot the instigator
From: Jim Hofmann <hofmann at AMSAA.ARPA>
That in case of a nuclear war, the people who authorize the button
to be pushed on our side will automatically gain a bullet in the
head.
From: _Bob <Carter at RUTGERS>
This kind of scurrilous KKK-style nonsense has no place in ARMS-D.
You Hoffman, should d*mned well know better than to send it...
And you, Moderator, were asleep at the switch when you let it by.
Wake up. Advocating murder don't qualify as serious discussion of
defense issues in anybody's book.
Hardly. Two points in response:
As an individual, I note that Hoffman's point is that the people with
defense responsibilities are in many ways isolated from the
consequences of their action. While I have some difficulty with his
specific proposal, I believe that isolation from the consequences of
action is undesirable. Hoffman raises a valid point that should be
addressed.
As Moderator, I remind you that this list is uncensored. His specific
point should be no more (or less) objectionable as far as the list is
concerned than suggestions that the U.S. should assasinate Quaddafi.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1986 16:40 EST
From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: [michael%ucbiris: A Scenario on the Attack Capabilities of SDI]
Date: Sunday, 26 January 1986 15:19-EST
From: michael%ucbiris at BERKELEY.EDU (Tom Slone [(415)486-5954])
To: ARMS-D-Request
Re: A Scenario on the Attack Capabilities of SDI
Consider this Star Wars Scenario:
Presume that the SDI will be effective against ICBMs and also against
incinerating cities. Now, launch a complete SDI system before the enemy does.
The launcher will not only have a hegemony on ICBMs and population centers, but
also will be able to insure that it will be the only power with an SDI system.
Since in order for an enemy power to launch its own SDI system, it would have
to do so with a massive series of space launches, tantamount (as far as the
existing SDI system was concerned) to launching ICBMs.
So, the power which launches the first complete SDI under these
presumptions would have a good start on being able to rule the world with the
"minor" exceptions of cruise missiles and backpack-A-Bombs.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 86 10:48:32 EST
From: Jim Hofmann - RAMD-D <hofmann@AMSAA.ARPA>
Subject: Re: shoot the instigator
From our interest-groups file:
> The Arms-d digests is intended to be a discussion of arms control
> and weapon systems issues ...
From: Jim Hofmann <hofmann at AMSAA.ARPA>
That in case of a nuclear war, the people who authorize the button
to be pushed on our side will automatically gain a bullet in the
head.
B From: _Bob <Carter@RUTGERS>
B This kind of scurrilous KKK-style nonsense has no place in ARMS-D.
B You Hoffman, should d*mned well know better than to send it. The
B fact that it is allegedly reproduced from someplace else is no
B excuse.
B And you, Moderator, were asleep at the switch when you let it by.
B Wake up. Advocating murder don't qualify as serious discussion of
B defense issues in anybody's book.
As the first line description states, Arms-D " is intended to be a discussion
of arms control and weapon systems issues" ... what better discussion
of weapon systems issues is there than discussing the human element
and the motivations behind starting wars? As has been hammered into
my thick skull lately, man has never built a weapon without fully
using it in warfare. The motivations that cause men to use weapons
against innocent people (which is in itself "advocating murder") are
complex and worth discussion. If I hate and fear someone and want to murder
them but I can't get at the person I hate unless millions of innocent
people are killed and I am sure that *I* won't be killed, what is to
stop me from pushing that button? Certainly a bullet in the head is not
a very moral thing but do you have any other ideas to insure that such a
scenario would never happen? Or are you just into bullying people who
don't agree with your "politically correct" point of veiw?
Also, using nuclear weapons against entire populations is "murder". Therefore
paying taxes to support purchase and deployment of nuclear arms is "advocating
murder." Likewise, discussion of any kind on nuclear arms is verboten? eh?
How can people come up with ideas on arms control if you would shrilly insist
we purify our thought to agree with your point of view first? Ideas cannot
exist in a vacumn, Mr Carter. But then, I though all Libertarians knew that...
For the record, I do not agree with the idea I brought up, I merely
thought others might be interested and perhaps expound on it. I guess I
was wrong.
hofmann
------------------------------
Date: Mon 27 Jan 86 12:06:06-EST
From: RKIERAN@G.BBN.COM
Subject: Re: Stalin and Hitler
>From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA>
>Subject: Stalin & Hitler
>One thing Stalin gained by the pact with Germany was, I recall, training
>and assistance in developing the Soviet Air Force. I do not, however,
>recall reading any expert evaluation of the quality of this assistance
>that the USSR received from the Third Reich -- anyone out there have
>knowledge of this? Did the Germans really do a good job in this (which
>would, of course, have been to their disadvantage later on)?
>Will
Strictly speaking, Stalin never received any military assistance from the
Third Reich. The Weimar Republic, the democratic government of Germany after
World War I, signed a secret treaty with the Soviet Union in 1920, when Lenin
was in power. Under this treaty, Russia agreed to provide the Germans with
facilities in the Ukraine where they could carry out experiments with armaments
that were forbidden to them under the Treaty of Versailles. These included
tanks, aircraft and heavy artillery.
In turn, the German's did conduct staff courses for the fledgling Red
Army, and of course the Russian's watched the German exercises very closely.
As to specific help in organizing the Red Airforce, I have seen nothing about
this, but I would tend to doubt it. Germany was forbidden an airforce by the
Treaty of Versailles, and would have had only limited experience herself with
an air arm, and all of that was during the First World War.
When Hitler came to power and learned of this agreement, he ordered its
termination. He did manage to reap one last bit of advantage from this pact,
however. In 1936, Reinhard Heydrich, the head of the Security Service of the
SS, proposed to Hitler that a forged set of documents be fed to Stalin. These
documents proported to expose a plot among Russian general staff officers to
overthrow Stalin. Shortly after Stalin received these papers, he began the
purge of his officer corps, many of whom had attended the German-taught
courses. The forged signatures of the Soviet officers were available because
they had signed the earlier agreement of military co-operation.
As for the German's providing help which would later prove detrimental to
them: the most effective "training" the Russians received was of the "on the
job" variety. The Russians slowly mastered the strategies and tactics of the
Germans over the first two years of the war, and then applied them in spades.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 86 10:02:53 EST
From: Jeff Miller AMSTE-TEI 4675 <jmiller@apg-1.ARPA>
Subject: Soviet Defense
In response to Lin, beginning with his point:
I mean that since we spend much more money on things that don't
get listed in the balance, either the balance is more favorable to us
than crude bean counts make it appear, or we are being dumb in how we
spend out money. C3/log is supposed to be a force multiplier for our
forces, as theirs is for them. How come these effects never get taken
into account.
> I understand your point but still ask; since the majority of force
comparisons are men/tanks/artillery/aircraft or such, why should we factor
NATO * men/tanks/artillery/aircraft/C3/LOG * against WP * men/tanks/artillery/
aircraft * ? They have C3i and LOG systems too. If your are going to
question why they are never factored in, you can only be honest by asking why
they are never factored for both sides.
I find
comparisons of how much of each particular nations' own wealth is
expended to
be more interesting...
( We spend 7.5%, or half as much % of our national treasure as the Sovs.)
So what? What difference to the military balance does percentage of
GDP make?
- I don't believe there is much to be learned from just comparing dollars
spent on defense. After all, in the Soviet economy one US $ buys
a lot more
bullets and pays a lot more coporals' salaries than in the US.
True. But comparisons between US and Soviet defense budgets are based
on the analytical assumption that a Soviet corporal gets what a US
corporal gets. If the budgets reflected what they actually spend on a
corporal, our defense spending would be significantly greater than
theirs.
> To borrow a phrase; So what? What difference does the end number of dollars
spent make ? Especially considering your comment about what they spend on
their corporals, which I will attempt to link back to the original point.
You are making my point for me.
The reason it is pointless to make much of the disparity between our
expenditures and theirs ( in dollars ) is that they get so much more for the
buck. Therefor every billion buys them a greater amount of threat to NATO
than our billion buys in threat to WP. So the higher dollar figure for NATO
expenditure does NOT indicate the acquisition of more war materiel for NATO.
Since end dollar figures are not a good indicator, * because economies
differ,* then one must look for other informative statistics. Level of
effort in military spending is best depicted by looking at the percent of
national treasure invested. So if you make a formula on the lines of :
1. They get a lot more for the $
2. Their $ expenditure is not drastically lower than NATO's
3. They choose to invest a greater share of the People's treasure in
military spending.
- Sure suggests to me that they are producing a heck of a lot more than we
are. ( Besides, I already know this based on production figures.)
J.Miller
<*>
<-
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 86 12:58:46 cst
From: Bryan Fugate <fugate@mcc.arpa>
Subject: Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V6 #32
Yes, the Germans operated a tank school at Lipetsk during the period
from 1924 to about 1928. They also had other units there that were
training in chemical weapons. After Stalin began the first round of
Party purges in the late 20's, relations between the Germans and
Soviets soured. (Note: the Third Reich did not come into existence
until 1933 when Hitler took over as Chancellor).
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 86 14:19:20 EST
From: Bruce Nevin <bnevin@bbncch.ARPA>
Subject: murder disallowed
_Bob,
I think you're on that shaky ground known as missing the point.
Those who suggest making a bullet in the head the necessary followon
to top-level decision for nuclear war, with the result that the decision
maker could have no illusion about personal survival whatever his
illusions about the survival of others, probably are among those who
regard nuclear war (or indeed any war) as mass murder.
You may wish to deny that war is murder. We could get into the obvious
sophistry about whether discussions of war should be precluded by your
proposed rule. The proposal has to have been in the same spirit as
Jonathan Swift's `A Modest Proposal' in which he suggested as an answer
to the `Irish Question' that babies be eaten. Satirically, it highlights
the issues that the authors think important. As in Swift's day, a
serious protest only gets you in deeper. Another example is the
announcement at Penn in the 1960s of the napalming of a dog at a
scheduled campus rally, to protest use of napalm in Vietnam. Enormous
and violent protest arose to protect that imagined dog--and the point
was to draw attention to the contrasting apathy at the fate of very
real civilian men, women, and children.
Bruce
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************