ARMS-D-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA (Moderator) (12/29/85)
Arms-Discussion Digest Sunday, December 29, 1985 11:30AM
Volume 5, Issue 77
Today's Topics:
Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V5 #65
Choosing Sides
still better red than dead
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 85 14:07:00 EST
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!rocksanne!sunybcs!colonel@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Col. G. L. Sicherman)
Subject: Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V5 #65
> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 85 11:31:45 EST
> 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. ...
>
> We ought to devote more energy to seeing that social structures
> advance at at least some linear factor of the rate of technological
> development. If only one nation still believes that THE way to solve
> international conflicts is by killing people and destroying
> landscapes, our arguments for arms control will continue as long as we
> continue to exist, only the names of the arms and the magnitude of the
> consequence of their use will change. ...
Fortunately, there's no need to cause social structures to "advance."
When technology changes, old social (and political) structures DIE!
The modern nation, being a product of paper-and-print technology, is
obsolete. Every time you use the Net, you help to bring about the
inevitable dissolution of countries, and with them the threat. Net-
government is far more powerful and efficient than hierarchical govern-
ment.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 85 00:12:12 EST
From: alpert@harvard.HARVARD.EDU (Richard Alpert)
Subject: Choosing Sides
Thrice flying KAL007, once before and twice since it became a household word
(and received the designation KAL017, by which it is known today), spending too
many hours west of the Aleutians anxiously scanning the sky for MIGs and the
earth for Soviet territory, certainly does not qualify me as an expert. From
up there, though, the questions of whether the overflight was deliberate, of
whether the delay was necessary to coordinate the time of the flight with the
passing of a satellite (All three of the flights which I took were delayed in
Anchorage), of whether the Soviets knew that the plane was a civilian airliner,
of whether the Americans knew what and where the aircraft was while it was
still airborne, of whether information garnered by American military
intelligence [oxymoron] were data which could not be or had not been procured
by any other method are all moot. From such a perspective, all aspects of the
incident can be seen only as governments >>using<< their citizens for narrow,
selfishly paranoid interests. Are these governments of the people, by the
people, and for the people? No superpower can claim to be more correct than
the other. No one can know which of the two "sides" was to blame, unless, of
course, the two sides are "the governments" and "the people."
Richard Alpert
alpert@harvard.edu
------------------------------
Date: 28 Dec 1985 19:35-EST
From: Nicholas.Spies@H.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: still better red than dead
The key phrase was "willing to immolate the world for their
principles"; ALL principles become totally meaningless if
there are no survivors to honor those whose principled
sacrifices were to benefit the survivors. (See what I mean?)
MAD is also meaningless; if we were in fact attacked, in that
awful moment of decision before launching a retaliation, I
would hope the President would not push the button and that he
would feel a great inner peace that, though he could do little
to save the lives of his own countrymen he had endured the
sacrifice of his country without vindictively sacrificing the
rest of the world. Would the Russians call him a fool? Not a
chance! The Russian people would, in short order I would say,
overthrow their wretched government and rejoice that they had
been delivered from destruction by their presumed worst enemy.
And the President and our Constitution would be immortalized
in myth and song (something any politician would love).
The alternative:
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************