ARMS-D-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA (Moderator) (12/14/85)
Arms-Discussion Digest Friday, December 13, 1985 5:35PM
Volume 5, Issue 59
Today's Topics:
U.S. disinformation/reliability of GC/LOW discussion
Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V5 #58
LOW
LOW
What is Disinformation?
Peace
What is Disinformation?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 85 10:31:27 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: U.S. disinformation/reliability of GC/LOW discussion
the uncertainties about nuclear winter are large. Some believe those
calculations, some don't. I am skeptical myself, especially about the
claim that a SU strike on ICBM and bombers would cause nuclear winter.
LOW is a REAL issue, that everyone knows and acknowledges as a problem.
------------------------------
Date: 13 Dec 85 09:05:32 PST (Fri)
Subject: Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V5 #58
From: robert@sri-spam
>> Date: Thu, 12 Dec 85 13:49:30 PST
>> From: ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
>>
>> To arms-d-request (mod.politics.arms-d moderator)
>> Subject: Re: The Cold War
>>
>> Posting to the net is always risky, since one is invariably
>> misrepresented (albeit unintentionally).
>> Stephen Walton quoted a paragraph from my article (slightly out of context),
>> in which I gave some *reasons* for current solviet actions.
>> I even used phrases like "explain (not justify)",
>> and specifically stated "I am not trying to defend either side here",
>> yet Stephen somehow extracts the following meaning from the article:
>>
>> > there are always those, like Mr. Dahlke, who
>> > are willing to make the Soviet Union's case for them in the West. It is
>> > difficult, but important, to remember that many in the United States in
>> > the 1930's and 40's thought that Stalin was a democrat, which is why they
>> > were willing to let him conquer Eastern Europe--behavior which they would
>> > never have allowed Czarist Russia to get away with.
>> > ...
>>
>> May I politely but firmly suggest that Stephen reread the original article!
>>
>> Stephen then gives all sorts of horror stories about the solviet government,
>> which are undoubtedly true, but do not relate
>> to any of the points raised in my article.
>> I am concerned with priorities! Yes, their people don't eat meat, etc,
>> but they are not committing suicide in mass.
>> In the opinion of over 200,000,000 people, it is better to be red than dead.
>> Nothing, solviet camps and sanitariums notwithstanding, is worse than
>> nuclear war. On this basis, I tried to establish some priorities.
>> Nuclear reduction first, human rights second.
>> How does your information refute this position?
Without attempting to be sarcastic, I would politely ask Mr. Dahlke where the
petition is which has "over 200,000,000 signitures on it" for people who would
rather be "red than dead". Perhaps this is the population of the Soviet Union
and its' satellites? Perhaps Mr. Dahlke would rather be red than dead, and
I suspect that is what the above reference "...there are always those, like Mr.
Dahlke, who are willing to make the Soviet Union's case for them in the West."
alludes to. But I personally am not one of those people who will sign my soul
away to stay alive. While nuclear war is the most horrible thing
I can imagine, and I would view it as the end of the human race as we know it
if it were to occur, I would rather have it than to surrender this country to
any invader, foreign or domestic. As an aside, I suspect that the Soviet
people, (not necessarily their government), feels the same way about their
country.
"Nuclear reduction first, human rights second." This is ridiculous. I never
cease to be amazed at how quick people are to give others' rights away. No
doubt this too is what the above quote alludes to. To cut to the heart of the
matter, I give my microcosmic view of world politics.
World politics is like a big schoolyard. Each person on the schoolyard
represents a country, an interest group, or some world faction. There are
the pacifists, who believe that if everyone were peaceful, there would be no
wars. Quite true actually, but not everyone is peaceful. There are the
radicals, running around spray painting slogans to free the people, while
showing total disregard for private property. And then there are the bullies.
Those who want to terrorize people, to take their lunch money, to browbeat them,
while presenting a perfectly angelic appearance to their parents. These bullies
are the Soviets (or more correctly, the Soviet gov't). The "lunch money" is the
resources of the world which the Soviets need to keep their people happy ("the
parents"). The solution to bully problems, as almost anyone can tell you who
has gone to a public school, is one of two things. 1) Is to take whatever
abuse is heaped out to you, and thus to suffer (like Cuba, or maybe Poland).
Or 2) to catch the bully alone, from behind if necessary, and with whatever
implements you deem necessary to even the odds, and to kick his butt (like
Afganistan is trying to do).
Personally I think that Marxism is a joke as far as political philosophy,
but when it comes to war or Soviet expansionism, politics really plays a very
small part as far as I'm concerned. This is my country, my apartment, my car,
and my bank account, and as far as I'm concerned, nobody is going to take it
away if I can help it.
Since you can all probably hear the "Stars and Stripes Forever" theme
music coming up in the backround by now, I'll get off of my soapbox. It's just
that I've worked hard for what I've got, and I get very protective when someone
implies I should be willing to give it up for 'the greater good'.
>>
>> If your point is, the solviet government is unimaginably evil,
>> and cannot be trusted, nobody doubts the latter,
>> and few doubt the former.
>> However, every treaty includes verifiability,
>> and I am convinced that we *can* verify any arms control agreements
>> the solviets are likely to make.
>> We can discuss this issue if you wish.
>> If this was not your point, then I don't see
>> any connection between my article and your response.
>> Please elaborate. Thanks.
>>
>> karl dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad
Generic Disclaimer: the views here are of course mine alone, and should
not be construed to be those of anyone else in particular.
Robert J. Allen
------------------------------
Date: 13 Dec 85 11:23-EST
From: Samuel McCracken <oth104%BOSTONU.bitnet@WISCVM.arpa>
Subject: LOW
-----
I have found the ongoing discussion stimulating and a model for how
gentlemen discuss intellectual differences. Although a tyro in these matters,
I am finally moved to put in my own $ 0.02.
I think the issue of whether LOWC or LOW impinges on the right of the
Congress to declare war is essentially a bogus issue. If the Constitution
does in fact require a declaration of war before nuclear retaliation, then
it is, as William Lloyd Garrison claimed in a different context, a compact
with Hell. I don't think establishing that a declaration is required would
have any practical effect on the strategic balance, because even were the
requirement black-letter law, say written into the Constitution in so many
words, I can't believe any potential aggressor would trust us to observe
it.
I think this notion that LOWC impinges on the congressional prerogative
results from confusing two things: opening of hostilities and declaration
of war. Although historically it has been assumed that a declaration
ought to precede opening of hostilities (the failure of Japan to observe this
nicety at Port Arthur and Pearl Harbor was widely condemned) there are
many counter examples, one of the most famous being the British naval
bombardment of Copenhagen in 1807. (In the Royal Navy, "to Copenhagen"
an opponent still means to attack without warning.) Although I
have not had time to consult the proceedings of the Constitutional
Convention on this point, I am sure that the drafters were well aware
that hostilities might well be opened before there was time to declare
war. Scenario: A United States squadron is cruising in the Mediterranean.
U.S.S. Constitution, detached from her consorts, encounters a French
frigate which opens fire without warning. Her Captain replies, and
after a sharp action dismasts and sinks his opponent. Thus far,
we are in the context of self-defense. The Constitution rejoins the
squadron. Shortly thereafter they encounter a lone French frigate.
The Commodore commanding is not going to wait for a declaration of war
before attacking. He cannot. Scenario: One fine morning, the Congress
being out of session and its members dispersed literally weeks away
from any chance to meet, a powerful British fleet enters the Chesapeake and
runs the forts at the mouth of the Potomac, heading up to Washington.
Hostilities have certainly been commenced and if the President waits
until the Congress can assemble to organize a defense, they will have to
do it in western Ohio.
Although nuclear war raises the ante on delay, the basic distinction
between opening hostilities and declaring war has been embedded in the
Constitution since the Philadelphia Convention. I have problems with
LOWC, but constitutionality is not one of them.
------------------------------
Date: 13 Dec 85 11:23-EST
From: Samuel McCracken <oth104%BOSTONU.bitnet@WISCVM.arpa>
Subject: LOW
-----
I have found the ongoing discussion stimulating and a model for how
gentlemen discuss intellectual differences. Although a tyro in these matters,
I a finally moved to put in my own $ 0.02.
I think the issue of whether LOWC or LOW impinges on the right of the
Congress to declare war is essentially a bogus issue. If the Constitution
does in fact require a declaration of war before nuclear retaliation, then
it is, as William Lloyd Garrison claimed in a different context, a compact
with Hell. I don't think establishing that a declaration is required would
have any practical effect on the strategic balance, because even were the
requirement black-letter law, say written into the Constitution in so many
words, I can't believe any potential aggressor would trust us to observe
it.
I think this notion that LOWC impinges on the congressional prerogative
results from confusing two things: opening of hostilities and declaration
of war. Although historically it has been assumed that a declaration
ought to procede open of hostilities (the failure of Japan to observe this
sequence at Port Arthur and Pearl Harbor was widely condemned) there are
many counter examples, one of the most famous being the British naval
bombardment of Copenhagen in 1807. (In the Royal Navy, "to Copenhagen"
and opponent still means to attack without warning.) Although I
have not had time to consult the proceedings of the Constitutional
Convention on this point, I am sure that the drafters were well aware
that hostilities might well be opened before there was time to declare
war. Scenario: A United States squadron is cruising in the Mediterranean.
U.S.S. Constitution, detached from her consorts, encounters a French
frigate which opens fire without warning. Her Captain replies, and
after a sharp action dismasts and sinks his opponent. Thus far,
we are in the context of self-defense. The Constitution rejoins the
squadron. Shortly thereafter they encounter a lone French frigate.
The Commodore commanding is not going to wait for a declaration of war
before attacking. He cannot. Scenario. One fine morning, the Congress
being out of session and its members dispersed literally weeks away
from any chance to meet, a powerful British fleet enters the Chesapeake and
runs the forts at the mouth of the Potomac, heading up to Washington.
Hostilities have certainly been commenced and if the President waits
until the Congress can assemble to organize a defense, they will have to
do it in western Ohio.
Nuclear war has raised the ante on delay, but the basic distinction
between declaring war and fighting it remains. Lincoln made good use of this
in 1861. Directly Fort Sumter was fired upon, he call Congress into
session for July 4, three months in the future, and conducted the opening
months as an exercise of his prerogative.
There are all kinds of things doubtful about a LOWC of the sort
Helen Caldicott talks about, which seems to be one in which a satellite
warning would automatically launch every US missile, and somethings doubtful
about more realistic ones. But I can't believe unconstitutionality is one
of them.
P.S. If Helen Caldicott told my name was Sam McCracken I would
doubt it.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 85 14:20:27 EST
From: Jeff Miller AMSTE-TEI 4675 <jmiller@apg-1>
Subject: What is Disinformation?
The problem here is apples and oranges. I have been addressing
disinformation, which an art and a science unto itself, not that which any
commentator would like it to be. It would seem you need to study the
difference between propaganda and disinformation.
Care to enlighten us about the difference?
> If you can bear with me til Monday I will hopefully have a chance to put
together a proper answer, with references. (It will have to be lengthy).
While I personally believe that the SU engages in a great deal of
misinformation, I also have evidence that generals and DoD civilian
personnel do a great deal to misinform decision-makers I can point to
specific examples in which testimony or documents were supplied that
either demonstrated blatant and astounding ignorance or outright
lying. While I am talking about domestic audiences here, it would
seem likely to me that the US would be less likely to lie domestically
than internationally -- thus, I infer that the U.S. engages in a
substantial amount of disinformation abroad. I'm not sure this is so
bad, as you point out, but I think we should not pretend that we don't
engage in such tactics too -- and on a broader scale than you seem
willing to believe.
> Again, apples and oranges, and it seems not much can be said without the
answer I promised above.
Disinformation is a branch of the Soviet KGB's clandestine services. It
isn't just what they *do*, it is what they *are* by table of organization. It
is not propaganda - it utilises propaganda as one of many tools. In the
application for which I have been addressing, it is not a synonym for
misinformation. It is literally an intelligence service of the USSR. (As well
as several of its allies.)
All nations produce propaganda. Most politicians misinform. The US has
no standing agency engaged in disinformation. Our intelligence services have
carried out disinformation campaigns from time to time, but have no branches
dedicated to doing just that one thing. The Soviet Union is not a good target
for such tactics, since public opinion has little part in the conduct of
Soviet policy.
Just out of curiosity, to what extent do you have contact with
*American* rather than Soviet sources of propaganda and
disinformation?
> I have had contact, have worked closely with people from various branches of
the CIA, who have no permanent disinformation organs, but would conduct such
operations if required. I have also worked with military psyops people who
are responsible for propaganda in war zones. I have not worked with the
USAIS, which is the overt organ of US world-wide propaganda.
J.MILLER
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 85 14:24:53 EST
From: Jeff Miller AMSTE-TEI 4675 <jmiller@apg-1>
Subject: Peace
It is time to rejoice, for the cause of peace is furthered. I of course
refer to the awardees of this year's Nobel Peace prize, Doctors Lown and
Chassov of the good old USA and USSR respectively.
It is reassuring to know that in this time of superpower mistrust, men of
peace can reach across the Iron Curtain, with an American to call for the
leaders of the West to disarm, and a Soviet to call for the leaders of the
West to disarm.
One might question (though remarkably few do), shouldn't the Russian be
calling for his own leaders to disarm?
Of course not! We wouldn't want him to be arrested. Or lose any of
those special perks that accrue to intellectuals who prostitute themselves to
the Party and its propaganda organs. ( Dr Chassov obviously values highly his
material rewards - enough to have signed his name to a denunciation of fellow-
human being Andrei Sakharov, an act which surely preserved world peace and the
salvation of Mother Russia.)
Inevitably, many will say these kind of things don't happen, really. They
are always telling me; "..they don't do any thing we don't do!"....." Their
government is no different than ours." - Of course if that was really true
most of them would have already been internally exiled to Scogginsville Mon-
tana by the current administration.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 85 17:19:52 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: What is Disinformation?
From: Jeff Miller AMSTE-TEI 4675 <jmiller at apg-1>
Disinformation is a branch of the Soviet KGB's clandestine services.
It isn't just what they *do*, it is what they *are* by table of
organization. It is not propaganda - it utilises propaganda as one of
many tools. In the application for which I have been addressing, it
is not a synonym for misinformation. It is literally an intelligence
service of the USSR.
All nations produce propaganda. Most politicians misinform. The US
has no standing agency engaged in disinformation. Our intelligence
services have carried out disinformation campaigns from time to time,
but have no branches dedicated to doing just that one thing.
So the difference you are drawing is that they have a standing agency
for this sort of thing, and we have no such standing agency, but
rather "free-lancers" with other stated assignments. I'm not sure
you'd be able -- for classification reasons -- to tell us (or even if
you know) if U.S. intelligence agencies have a standing service whose
job it is to lie and spread rumors, but c'est la vie.
The
Soviet Union is not a good target for such tactics, since public
opinion has little part in the conduct of Soviet policy.
Agreed. But the SU is not the only reasonable target. For example,
Western Europe might be a good target for both US and Sov
disinformation.
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************