ARMS-D-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA (Moderator) (01/02/86)
Arms-Discussion Digest Wednesday, January 1, 1986 6:26PM
Volume 5, Issue 80
Today's Topics:
Sicherman re change
legitimate Soviet defense needs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 85 9:05:33 EST
From: Bruce Nevin <bnevin@bbncch.ARPA>
Subject: Sicherman re change
In 5.77 Col G. L. Sicherman affirms how technological change entails
social change, and claims therefore that we need not `cause social
structures to "advance"', contra Richard Alpert (in 5.65).
It is true that networks empower many individuals by enhancing their
autonomy, without disempowering others, whereas hierarchical structures
empower some individuals by disempowering a larger number of others;
and I agree that this `megatrend' is crucial to our survival. I even
agree that every time you use this net or any network, however facilitated
by technology, `you help to bring about the dissolution of . . . the
modern nation[-state]' with all its destructive, hierarchical,
disempowering myths and means. I only want to point out that Sicherman
appears to be in violent agreement with Alpert, only being more specific
about just how we are to `advance' our social structures.
It helps to realize that the unit of Darwinian survival is not the
individual, or even the propagating pair, but the coevolving cybernetic
system--the network, if you will--of widely disparate individuals, each
of which has all the others for its environment. (See e.g. G. Bateson,
Form, Substance, and Difference, pp 450f, in _Steps_to_an_Ecology_of_Mind,
and From Versailles to Cybernetics, ibid pp. 469-477.)
It should be obvious that I do disagree that there is `no need to cause
social structures to "advance"--but I suspect that Col. Sicherman also
disagrees, in retrospect, having indicated a very important way to
effect just that sort of "advance". I would add that we must choose
to use our technologies, whichever ones we may have access to, in
appropriate ways, and to eschew and discourage inappropriate, disempowering,
life-frustrating ways of using them.
The principle "advance" is to learn to think and act in systemic, cybernetic
terms, rather than in `independent' survival-of-the-fittest-individual
terms. Autonomy is being master in your own domain. Independence is
the delusion that you `win' by defeating challenges in your environment.
Autonomy is mastery of networking skills. Independence is the posture
of mastery without the skills. And we all are familiar with the
consequences of posturing without skill.
Bruce Nevin
bn@bbncch.arpa
BBN Communications
33 Moulton Street
Cambridge, MA 02238
(617) 497-3992
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 85 09:56:14 est
From: Walter Hamscher <hamscher@mit-htvax>
Subject: legitimate Soviet defense needs
The USSR is a contiguous country with only a handful of ports
on ice-free waters, very little coastline suitable for amphibious
assault. What's that big navy with all its submarines for?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 85 10:22:52 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: legitimate Soviet defense needs
From: Walter Hamscher <hamscher at mit-htvax>
The USSR is a contiguous country with only a handful of ports
on ice-free waters, very little coastline suitable for amphibious
assault. What's that big navy with all its submarines for?
To sink the U.S. Navy; specifically, to get the carriers that pose a
nuclear threat to the motherland.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 85 10:28:52 est
From: Walter Hamscher <hamscher@mit-htvax>
Subject: legitimate Soviet defense needs
Seems any weapon in anybody's arsenal is a legitimate defense need.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 85 16:16:02 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: legitimate Soviet defense needs
From: Walter Hamscher <hamscher at mit-htvax>
Seems any weapon in anybody's arsenal is a legitimate defense need.
Then you are arguing that the U.S. has no basis claiming that Soviet
armaments exceed what they need for their legitimate defense needs?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 85 17:10:44 est
From: Walter Hamscher <hamscher@mit-htvax>
Subject: legitimate Soviet defense needs
I'm arguing that your original challenge is meaningless:
heads you win, tails you win. There would be no way to
convince you that any weapon exceeds legitimate defense
needs, since your premise appears to be that any weapon
that's capable of doing harm to one's enemy is a
`legitimate' defense need. Show me there's a way to win
this game: give me some examples of ways that US
armaments exceed what the US needs for its legitimate
defense needs.
As regards the Soviet Navy (by which I mean primarily
the subs), if its sole purpose is to neutralize US
aircraft carrier attacks on its territory, why bother?
Land-based fighters and SAMs would seem to be much more
effective both at shooting down incoming aircraft and
sinking the carriers. This was true in the Pacific in
WWII, I conjecture that it's no less true today.
You seem to imply that the purpose of the Soviet Navy is
purely defensive-- to sink the US Navy (so if we had no
Navy, the Soviets wouldn't either) (?). No, the Soviet
Navy has an offensive role, just like our Navy: to
interdict supply lines and project firepower worldwide.
Are these still `legitimate defense needs'? If so, then
it would seem to me that just about any weapon is
legitimate.
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************