ARMS-D-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA (Moderator) (12/28/85)
Arms-Discussion Digest Friday, December 27, 1985 5:28PM
Volume 5, Issue 76
Today's Topics:
missing digests
KAL007
Better Dead than Red
legitimate Soviet defense needs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu 26 Dec 85 22:56:38-EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: missing digests...
Issues 70, 72, 74, 75 don't exist. Don't look for them.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 85 11:16:36 EST
From: Michael_Joseph_Edelman%Wayne-MTS%UMich-MTS.Mailnet@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject: KAL007
From: Michael_Joseph_Edelman%Wayne-MTS%UMich-MTS.Mailnet at MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
Lin implying it was an accidental overflight that was
then used somehow as an intelligence gathering mission. Both accusations
have been made before, and both are unsupported...
I concur that it was accidental; that's what I said. There is also no
question that U.S. intelligence agencies periodically probe the SU air
defense. They are on-line 24 hrs/day and therefore they must have
acquired information from the penetration of KAL007. Whether or not
they could have gotten it someother way is open to debate -- I myself
think so.
I have no argument with Herb on his first two points; that any usefu
intelligence could have been gathered by this event is doubtful. My
response was mainly aimed at Clifford Johnson's statement that the
overflight was intentional, and the suggestions made by some (though
not by Herb or Cliff) that the US had monitored the overflight from
the beginning, and could have warned KAL007. See the previously cited
Oberg article (American Spectator, December 1985) for details. If
interest warrents, I'll summerize Oberg's major points for the digest.
------------------------------
Date: 23 Dec 85 13:18:04 PST (Mon)
Subject: Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V5 #67
From: robert@sri-spam
>> Date: 14 Dec 1985 11:56-EST
>> From: Nicholas.Spies@H.CS.CMU.EDU
>> Subject: better red than dead
>>
>> It seems a shame that those willing to emmolate the world for
>> their principles (US and Soviet alike) were denied the
>> opportunity to live out their fantasies and die in a bunker in
>> Berlin in 1945 along with a well-known maniac with similar
>> ideas. Life for the rest of us would be far safer if we were
>> not still blighted by self-appointed defenders of principle
>> who are all too willing to involve everyone else in their holy
>> wars.
Life for the rest of you wouldn't exist, at all, if in 1945 there hadn't
been enough "self-appointed defenders of principle" to see to it that
Hitlers' plans for conquest never came to fruition. Particularly if
the "peace in our time" strategy hadn't been dumped where it belonged
and some serious action taken. Would you prefer that Hitler had developed
the A-bomb first?
Generic Disclaimer: I disclaim everything.
Robert J. Allen
robert@sri-spam.arpa
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 85 18:28:22 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: legitimate Soviet defense needs
I'd like to pose a question for the readership.
We often hear that the Soviet military is offensively oriented. When
pressed for evidence that their procurement is also offensive, it is
said that the build-up is far beyond what their legitimate defense
needs. [-- of course, the military is offensive: all military
establishments are, including our own. That's a function of military
doctrine, not a statement about political goals.]
The political/technical question is this: What is the extent to which
Soviet military procurement exceeds legitimate defense needs? Note
that this requires a clear statement about what constitutes legitimate
Soviet defense needs.
Comments invited, especially from those who believe that Soviet needs
are exceeded by their procurement.
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************