ARMS-D-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA (Moderator) (01/02/86)
Arms-Discussion Digest Wednesday, January 1, 1986 6:06PM
Volume 5, Issue 79
Today's Topics:
Issue #78 does not exist
conflict resolution and armaments
Choosing Sides
Better Red Than Dead
Beyond War
Beyond War
Sicherman re change
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lin@mit-mc
the MC mailer is screwed up, and creates digest problems for me. Sorry
that digest number sequencing has been so bad.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 85 11:51:33 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: conflict resolution and armaments
> From: alpert@harvard.HARVARD.EDU (Richard Alpert)
>
> The thrust of any movement to prevent the destruction of humanity must
> not focus too closely on the technical aspects of the means by which
> such a deed might be accomplished. Of course, these details are
> important, but are short-lived when one considers the life span of the
> larger issue, that of conflict resolution. ...
Most of the arguments about the need to improve relations and resolve
conflict without violence miss an important point. Even relations
between friendly nations require armed forces in the background,
because relations do change. No one would argue that better relations
between nations are a good thing, but no nation would disarm even if
it had good relations with all the world, becasue no one could be sure
that those relations would last.
------------------------------
Subject: Choosing Sides
Date: 30 Dec 85 10:56:16 PST (Mon)
From: foy@aero
Richard Alpert comments that "no superpower can claim to be more correct than
the other" and that the two sides are really "the governments and the people.
This reminds me of some recent historical writings about WWI. After awhile
the men in the trenches became almost friends with the men across no mans
land. They realized that they had more in common than they had with the
Generals. So they would do their shelling and their shooting in a manner
that was well calculated to inflict minimum casualties on the other side
while at the same time being sufficiently convincing to the Generals that
they were fighting.
I haven't seen it yet but the Phil Donahue peoples summit, which was aired
in Seattle on KING on Dec 29 and will appear on NBC after the Orange Bowl,
I believe illustrates the same thing. We have more in common with the
Soviet people than we do with our President, Senators, and Conmgresspersons.
And as Col G. L. Sicherman suggests each time we use this net for serious
discussion, we are helping "to bring about the inevitable dissolution of
countries, and with them the threat." He suggests that "net government is
far more powerful and efficient than hierarchical government." I agree.
There are many other examples, in addition to this net, to support his
statement. I am not sure if it would help or hinder the "dissolution"
process, but in any case I wish it were a requirement for all of our
representatives that they have a terminal connected to the NET.
Even more strongly I wish that some one somewhere would connect one of
the nets to countries of the other superpower. I would even accept censoring
if that were the only way we could get it.
------------------------------
Subject: Better Red Than Dead
Date: 30 Dec 85 10:35:49 PST (Mon)
From: foy@aero
My view of WWII is perhaps a little different form Nicholas who thinks
that all of us who were involved in WWII were "self appointed defenders
of principle". As I recall WWII: We didn't enter it until we were
attacked, Russian didn't enter it until she was attacked, Engalnd didn't
enter it until it was pretty clear that she would be attacked. Who, pray
tell, were the defenders of priciple as contrasted with the defenders of
their own skin. The only people who were really fighting an ideological
war were the Nazis, and perhaps the Japenese and Italians. Our side were
all fighting for more pragmatic reason. It is true perhaps that the
Patriotism of people like myself was encouraged by words from our leaders
about principle, but that isn't the reason we went to war.
richard foy
------------------------------
Subject: Beyond War
Date: 30 Dec 85 10:25:15 PST (Mon)
From: foy@aero
Spencer calls the Beyond War Awards a farce if Argentina, Greece and India
didn't say anything about their own conflicts with UK, Chile, Turkey and
Pakistan. They of course did not. However that doesn't make the Awards a
farce.
Beyond War says that in a age of nuclear weapons all wars are an obsolete
form of conflict resoltion. I don't intend to discuss their logic in this
forum. It is too extensive. I would be very interested however in one of
the more pro arms members of this forum getting a subscription to their
news letter or going to one of their oreintation meetings to hear the logic
first hand. I would then be very interested in hearing their comments on
the Beyond War logic. I am so interested that I would pay for the
subscription if someone would volunteer to read and comment.
The Awards were not a farce for several reasons. Spencer did not seem to
be able to include Sweden and Tanzania in his comments. Aargenmtina has
had a complete change of government since the Falklins/Malvenas incident.
I doubt very seriously if the current government of Argentina will try
to solve either the UK or the Chile territorial dispute by violent means.
Though my knowledge of both disputes is not complete, it is sufficient to
know that there is merit on both sides of both disputes. The fact that the
new President of Argentina has not seen fit to conceed to the UK or to
Chile on the dispute in no way invalidates his concern about the need to
find other ways of conflict resolution that with nuclear arms.
I am not as knowledgeable about the dispute between Greece and Turkey. I
also doubt that Greece is seriously considering going to war with Turkey
over this dispute.
The current Gandhi is certainly not as skilled as the first one in the use
of non-violent means in conflict resolution. This in no ways invalidates
his comments about nuclear war.
The fact that I may not have settled all of my disputes with my wife, boss,
fellow workers, or people on this net in no way invalidates my comments
about nuclear war, nor does Spencer's personal disputes if he has any give
credance to his comments on nuclear issues. Disputes between nuclear powers
are qualtively different from disputes between non nuclear powers; unless
the disputes between the non-nuclear powers are between client states of
the two nuclear powers. The Falklands dispute and our response to it is
and excellent illustration of this point. Both Argentina and UK are on our
"team". Thus we had a difficult time figuring out how to respond to the
Falklands/Melvinas dispute/war.
Col G. L. Sichermans comments in a later digest about nation states and
technology is probably also pertinant to the Beyond War Awards which, I
believe was an approapriate use of modern technology and like this net
is transcending the nation state social structure.
------------------------------
Subject: Beyond War
Date: 30 Dec 85 11:16:43 PST (Mon)
From: foy@aero
PS. Spencer also neglected to include the President of Mexico in his comments
about other countries who have disputes. That makes 50%. Not bad.
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************