ARMS-D-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA (Moderator) (01/13/86)
Arms-Discussion Digest Monday, January 13, 1986 3:55PM
Volume 6, Issue 21
Today's Topics:
Re: "war is obsolete" vs. "S&M is obsolete"
Re: Paranoia
Of War and Peace and Law
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 86 10:06:25 EST
From: Bruce Nevin <bnevin@bbncch.ARPA>
Subject: Re: "war is obsolete" vs. "S&M is obsolete"
Good points. Sado-Masochism is a generic term that includes war?
If so, the argument is that SM is obsolete because its more destructive
expressions are too costly for the race to be able to afford any more.
Or else we distinguish the most costly from the least costly expressions
of the SM dynamic.
Remove SM from my list, leaving cannibalism and human sacrifice, and see
how the argument fares: `At present, only small minorities of our culture
practice these horrors . . . and I think none of us is too worried about
being a victim. I would like to see warfare reduced to the same degree
of likelihood.'
In fact, SM (and the even more generic patterns of alienation, the illusion
of the separated ego, that underlies it) is I believe something to be
eliminated. But why else would we live in the kidney of the solar
system, except to eliminate toxic waste products? I didn't go that far
because I thought it was too far for readers of this list to reach.
(I'm not worried about blowing my credibility because I know we're all
grown up here and judge arguments on their merits, not ad hominem or
ad vericundiam).
Bruce
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Paranoia
Date: 13 Jan 86 08:33:09 PST (Mon)
From: foy@aero
A better way of dealing with paranoia, considering the cost of being wrong,
considering the possibility that they really do have expansionist desires
that are motivated ideologically is to:
1. Expand communications, such as President Reagan's meeting with Gorbachev.
a. This means to have much more frequent meetings of this kind.
b. This can help one to really understand if it is paranoia or expansionism.
c. If it is paranoia it helps to lower the fears.
1) This is particualry true for the one on one discussions.
2. Expand communications, such as picking up the telephone when ever there is
a reason for doing so, ie a new terrorist incident or anything else.
a. This would be particularly effective if it would be done in regard to
problems which we have in commom, ie discussion of methods of avoiding
AIDS, heart disease, alchohol abuse etc.
This would be more effective if full screen live TV on a satellite like
were arranged.
3. Improve communications by having more citizen contacts, tourist travel,
Billy Graham type travel, artist type travel, non-defense related
type travel, whatever is possible.
Communications is effective in trying to get through to paranoid individuals,
it is effective in solving almost any problem.
It should help in improving the US USSR relationship almost without regard
to where they are coming from
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 86 10:13:25 PST
From: Clifford Johnson <GA.CJJ@Forsythe>
Subject: Of War and Peace and Law
United Nations Charter: "Article 1, part(3) - All Nations
shall settle their their international disputes by peaceful means
and in such a manner that international peace and security, and
justice, are not endangered". "Article 51: Nothing in the present
Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective
self-defense if an armed attack occurs ..."
Jim McGarth incorrectly asserts that "people ignore the equally
important" United Nations provision (Article 51) in arguing the
international illegality of launch on warning. Not so: I
specifically mentioned that an exception to settling disputes
without jeopardizing the peace was Article 51, which permits such
action only AFTER an armed attack has occurred. The mere threat of
armed attack was carefully excluded from the exception ... although,
unfortunately, a recent trend has been to construe a threat as
enough to justify a pre-emptive attack under Article 51. Such
construction is, in my view, a misconstruction that defeats the
whole point of Article I part(3), which is definitive on this
particular.
The Article 51 exception applies only AFTER armed attack.
(The invasion of Grenada was thus illegal.) It is no defense against
a charge of initiating an attack to say "We reasonably thought we
were under attack"; that is only a (poor) excuse for being wrong.
The "shall" of Article I part(3) is MANDATORY, not permissive.
As I also asserted, "So what?" is the de facto state of
international law, and is the present administration's attitude
towards international law.
Secondly, Jim pointed out that a state of war need not be
declared by the US, but can result from an enemy attack; and, in
this sense, if the Soviets have launched an attack, launch on
warning is a legal response. I agree to this entirely, and
specifically exclude from my challenge to LOWC's constitutionality
cases "after the conclusively confirmed commencement of
hostilities". More interestingly, when in my case Weinberger's
attorney argued that Congress had already approved what the
President might be spending on LOWC, judge Ferguson retorted that
general budgetary authorization did not mean approval.
If LOWC is currently in effect, and if there is a consequent
risk of accidental nuclear war; however small this risk, the legal
conclusion is that the President is illegally waging an undeclared
war. Let Congress specifically approve this action, and such
conduct MIGHT be legal ...
Are the US and the USSR now at war, or have we been at peace with
the USSR for the past 40 years, as Reagan proclaims?
To: ARMS-D@MIT-MC
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************