ARMS-D-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA (Moderator) (01/04/86)
Arms-Discussion Digest Saturday, January 4, 1986 10:42AM
Volume 6, Issue 3
Today's Topics:
Aircraft Carriers
Appropriate Technology
conflict resolution
Lybia
People's Summit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri 3 Jan 86 18:43:37-PST
From: Jim McGrath <J.JPM@Epic>
Subject: Aircraft Carriers
Reply-to: mcgrath%mit-oz@mit-mc.arpa
While I agree with most of what "Morton Jim" had to say in issue 86, I
differ in one area. Aircraft carriers, with their associated task
forces, should be able to stand up to various Third World powers, and
thus are very valuable because they provide an alternative to ground
bases (which are often politically difficult to get, as in the middle
east). The Falklands provided the classic example in a negative
sense. The British were severely hampered by their lack of large
carriers. The small ones they used could only handle Harriers. While
these are remarkable aircraft, the engineering compromises involved in
making them limit range, payload, and performance rather severely.
When people talked of US assistance to the British, the strongest form
it could take was to lend them an aircraft carrier.
But in a major conventional/nuclear war with the Soviets I have
problems with aircraft carriers. Not only do the Soviets pose a far
greater conventional threat, but the nuclear option has a significant
probably of being used. That is, Soviet doctrine appears oriented
towards considering nuclear sea strikes seriously, and while they have
moved away from their earlier reliance on LOW/LUA, they are still
committed to preemption. Successful US resupply of Europe would be just
the thing to prompt a preemptive sea, and possibly land, strike.
So while I think there is a role for carriers, I do not think European
resupply is one of them. Prepositioning of supplies and the
development of greater sea transport, and particularly air transport
capacity is desperately needed. I would quickly trade a carrier task
force for a bunch of C-5's or their equivalents.
Jim
------------------------------
Date: Fri 3 Jan 86 18:47:44-PST
From: Jim McGrath <J.JPM@Epic>
Subject: Appropriate Technology
Reply-to: mcgrath%mit-oz@mit-mc.arpa
From: Bruce Nevin <bnevin@bbncch.ARPA>
... we must always and consistently choose appropriate uses and
appropriate ways of using technology, no matter how insignificant
the context seems.
The problem here is that this attitude is used as a pretext to upsurp
the RIGHT to choose. So that if others are not choosing correctly,
you'll do it for them. It is this that I sharply disagree with. We
should concentrate on presenting options for people, and educating
them so that they can exercise their free will. That is also the way
to further technological advance as well (I have nightmares that IBM
has taken over and is "standardizing" everything to death).
Jim
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 86 15:27:28 EST
From: Bruce Nevin <bnevin@bbncch.ARPA>
Subject: conflict resolution
It is a fantastic thought, `what if they gave a war, and no one came?'
But Alpert and Lin are talking about something more than a kind of grand
conversion of the masses to antiwar Luddites.
One piece is the recognition that war is obsolete as a means of resolving
conflict. Establishing this relatively unemotional premise is the
program of the Beyond War people. (Any takers on that request for a
hostile reviewer, by the way? I would very much like to see that.)
Another piece is on the analogy of juxtaposing soldiers on a static
front in WWI, or even not so static in WWII, so that they can no longer
hallucinate convenient images of orcs and goblins projected onto The
Enemy to shoot at. Direct exposure to `enemy' populations on a personal
level does indeed tend to convert the masses to antiwar Luddites. The
`other' summits, the telecommunications links of all kinds, and numerous
visits by citizens of each country to the other, force our imaginations
to populate the USSR with people instead of ghouls, and thus erode the
mentality essential to conducting war.
High technology warfare of course insulates those who conduct it from
its consequences, but no war yet has ever been conducted without ground
troops in direct contact with `the enemy', and none is ever likely to
be. (One of the principle reasons I was a conscientious objector during
the Vietnam War was that I could not contract to obey orders given by
people who were not in direct contact with the consequences thereof.)
The third piece is that we are dealing with communication, and so with
cybernetic feedback loops. Each player in the conflict resolution game
must be convinced, not only that war is obsolete (that its costs are too
great under any circumstance), but also that the other players are
convinced likewise. And, for each pair, A must know that B knows that A
knows that . . . war is obsolete. This seeming infinite regress is
better thought of as resonance, sometimes called system interlock, more
familiarly known as rapport. The prerequisites include informational
proximity (efficient communication paths) and frequent exchanges, where
no single message needs to convey a lot, but where many individual
messages and the process of communication itself conveys the metamessage
that A knows that B knows that A knows that . . . war is obsolete.
(Complicate this now a bit by saying that A knows that B and they [the
other players] know that . . . war is obsolete.)
The non-feudalistic use of technology, which we have discussed recently,
is what makes the building of this kind of resonance not only possible,
but an ongoing, inescapable fact.
So keep those messages going, friends! Think of all the pernicious
illusions about alien `others' that get wiped out with each exchange!
Bruce
[Disclaimer: nobody has to take responsibility for my opinions but me.]
------------------------------
Date: Fri 3 Jan 86 18:46:48-PST
From: Jim McGrath <J.JPM@Epic>
Subject: Lybia
Reply-to: mcgrath%mit-oz@mit-mc.arpa
From: Jim Hofmann <hofmann@AMSAA.ARPA>
I have heard people say that Kadafi's recent remarks are paramount
to a declaration of war and that we should respond by attacking
now particularly before he builds his long-range nuclear missile.
Actually, before he beefs up his anti-aircraft defenses (a few weeks).
Israel is apparently preparing to do this right now. Question is:
will Egypt let Israel go through its territory to attack Libya's
weak side.
There is no love lost between Egypt and Libya, but I expect not. It
is dangerous letting folks send an army through your territory. And
Egypt cannot be seen in the Arab world helping Israel that blatantly.
However, they may allow aircraft to over fly them, supplies to be
ferried, and even may attack themselves if the moment looks right.
If we join Israel in a "surgical attack" (of which the present
administration is fond of talking about) will Russia react militarily?
I doubt it. Russia will step up support, as they did in 67, 70, and
73. But they lack the force projection and, quite frankly, the desire
(Lybia is not a central interest of the Soviets). But if the strikes
kill Russian technicians and/or servicemen, then things will get hairy
very quickly. In the past the Russians have been careful to remove
themselves from harm's way, thus avoiding direct superpower
confrontations - I expect they will do the same this time.
Jim
------------------------------
Date: Fri 3 Jan 86 18:44:50-PST
From: Jim McGrath <J.JPM@Epic>
Subject: People's Summit
Reply-to: mcgrath%mit-oz@mit-mc.arpa
> From: foy@aero
> Is there anyone out there who also saw the Peoples Summit or the
> Childrens Summit who would like to discuss them a bit?
The problem with these "exchanges between citizens" is that the Soviet
side suffers under a lot of constraints. No one can seriously believe
that they are free to speak their minds at such an event. Anyone who
would, for instance, oppose the war in Afghanistan (provided they knew
what it was) would be risking their neck.
Moreover, while I am sure than the US government was not involved in
screening our participants, I am equally sure that on their side the
KGB was involved. Thus anyone predisposed to risk their necks by
opposing the official party line would have been weeded out before
this point.
While I am all in favor of more social contact between our two
peoples, I feel that these media side shows are, if anything,
counterproductive. Instead of hearing the Soviet people, free from
government intrusion, we get nothing much more than a propaganda
exercise. While they may learn something from us (was it broadcast
uncensored in the USSR? Or did just the audience learn from us?), I
doubt we'll learn anything we could not have learned by reading MG's
latest speech.
Jim
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************