ARMS-D-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA (Moderator) (12/13/85)
Arms-Discussion Digest Friday, December 13, 1985 10:02AM
Volume 5, Issue 58
Today's Topics:
nuclear-powered cruise missiles
Reply to Hoffman
U.S. disinformation/reliability of GC/LOW discussion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 85 14:17:24 PST
From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: nuclear-powered cruise missiles
> Not to defend the notion of armored cruise missiles, but if you have
> essentially unlimited power, you could put tank armor on the missile.
Only if you are willing to use that power for lift as well as forward
thrust. Otherwise, the wings have to be able to support the thing, which
limits wing loading. Which, in practice, means you can't armor the wing
much at all, and you can't use really heavy armor on fuselage components
without needing really ridiculous wing area.
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
------------------------------
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?
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
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 85 09:44:24 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Reply to Hoffman
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?
Perhaps if you rested the vendetta
you seem to have against Reagan and did a little research, you would
discover
that there is tremendous difference of proportion between an American
president or general or congressman slanting the truth to score propaganda
points, and a machinery of thousands of agents engaged in deception
practices
with often tragic consequences.
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.
Just out of curiosity, to what extent do you have contact with
*American* rather than Soviet sources of propaganda and
disinformation?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 85 10:00:05 EST
From: FYS-TS%FINHUT.BITNET at WISCVM.WISC.EDU@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: U.S. disinformation/reliability of GC/LOW discussion
Re: U.S./U.S.S.R disinformation
Re: Reliability of 'The Great Communicator(What??????)'
It is appropriate to deal with these two together - although inevitably
it will irritate someone(never mind).
About disinformation, I am no professional, but I must agree with
Jeff Miller on U.S. ability(and willingness) to provide the world with
disinformation.
Jeff, if what You say about Reagan being trusted worldwide, I must say
that the fact is regrettable. I am living in a country executing
a policy of neutrality, and to me neutrality means - among other
things - deep distrust towards ANYTHING a superpower does - ragardless
of its name. The internal political system - to me - seems to have
very little to do with worldwide behaviour and that's what counts for
small countries(we are the majority in the world, remember|).
Re: Launch on Warning
I am an outsider(thank God my country does not have nuclear weapons),
but there is one rather simple-sounding fact(?) that I would like
to bring to discussion:
Why keep up so much discussion on things like launch on warning?
Anybody heard of nuclear winter? I claim the following: if U.S.S.R
launches an attack to disable U.S. intercontinental missiles and
SAC bombers, it simultaneously - even without U.S. Sub retaliation -
creates a nuclear winter causing intolerable damage to U.S.S.R itself.
That is, a single sided attack alone will wipe out this human culture
as we now know it.
Secondly: Probably 10% of U.S. nuclear subs is enough to damage
U.S.S.R(and its neighbours, like me) beyond any limit of tolerance.
Question: Anybody heard or seen anything about U.S. plans to use
nuclear weapons against my country, hmmmm?
T. Siili, Finland
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************