ARMS-D-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA (Moderator) (11/05/85)
Arms-Discussion Digest Monday, November 4, 1985 10:15PM
Volume 5, Issue 12
Today's Topics:
insulting 3rd parties (2 msgs)
Defending ICBMs
ALCMs and B-52s
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 3 Nov 85 20:37 EST (Sun)
From: _Bob <Carter@RUTGERS>
Subject: insulting 3rd parties
From: Bruce Nevin <bnevin at bbncch.ARPA>
It isn't good practice to criticize or insult 3rd parties without giving
them a chance to respond.
Why not? Before we talk about someone, particularly a political
opponent, you seem to say, we have to give them notice and
opportunity to be heard. Wouldn't this rule have profound chilling
effect on free discussion? Don't you think that free and vigorous
discussion of political ideas is a good idea?
The right to confrontation, which you may have in mind, applies to
criminal trials
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall
enjoy the right . . . to be informed with the nature
and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with
the Witnesses against him. . . . [Amendment VI]
I think the Founders were smarter than you are about this. The idea
works fine where it is. If it were included in the First Amendment,
where you want it, free political expression would be almost
impossible.
I think this principle of electronic mail ethics applies to your
comments on this list about Scientific American.
These are part of the Repo Man's Code, right? Anyway, they're still
ranked by the Constitution. That document suggests that the world
will be a better place if we acknowledge everyone's absolute right to
say, without notice to anyone else, that the stories in the
Scientific American (and the Wall Street Journal) are pretty d*mned
unreliable.
_B
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 85 11:49:44 EST
From: Bruce Nevin <bnevin@bbncch.ARPA>
Subject: Re: insulting 3rd parties
From: _Bob <Carter@RUTGERS>
Why not [criticize or insult 3rd parties without giving them a
chance to respond]? Before we talk about someone, particularly
a political opponent, you seem to say, we have to give them
notice and opportunity to be heard. Wouldn't this rule have
profound chilling effect on free discussion? Don't you think
that free and vigorous discussion of political ideas is a good
idea?
Sorry, I can't see how letting someone know that I don't like what they
are doing inhibits free discussion. (Not even political opponents--which
by the way I did not even mention in passing, much less `particularly.')
On the other hand, if I fail to do so, and speak behind closed doors (as
we in effect are here), the discussion is gossip at best, blacklisting
or worse given other political contexts. Assuredly, the constitution
does not prohibit gossip, but there are serious ethical questions about
activities on the blacklisting end of that spectrum, and probably legal
ones as well.
I think the request that no one ever again cite SA in an arms-control
context does a great deal more to inhibit free discussion. SA after all
is an important forum by which information about arms- related issues is
reaching the electorate. Surely that is a matter of concern on this
list, both when the information is accurate and when it is not!
I think the Founders were smarter than you are about this. The
idea works fine where it is [in the Sixth Amendment, regarding
conduct of litigation]. If it were included in the First
Amendment, where you want it, free political expression would be
almost impossible.
Notice that I am not advocating legislation. I am merely advocating
civility. And good sense. I mean, does king@kestrel want to change
what is wrong, or just flame about it? Seems to me more effective to
let SA know your opinion, and let them know the scope and level of
expertise of the forum on which you are expressing it. Or do you really
believe that we are powerless, and that our expressions on this forum
are ineffectual?
[T]he Constitution . . . suggests that the world will be a
better place if we acknowledge everyone's absolute right to say,
without notice to anyone else, that the stories in the
Scientific American (and the Wall Street Journal) are pretty
d*mned unreliable.
When did I oppose that right? I did not say `thou shalt not express a
negative opinion about anyone, anywhere, without first offering them
equal time'. I made a recommendation about use of a still unusual
medium, electronic mail discussion fora, whose potential social and
political impact I think you may underestimate.
These are part of the Repo Man's Code, right?
I have trouble understanding the antecedent of `these' in in this
sentence. It seems to me a nonsequitur from your immediate quotation
from my message, `I think this principle of electronic mail ethics
applies to your comments on this list about Scientific American.'
Did you mean your comments are part of this `Code'?
I also don't understand your reference to `the Repo Man's Code'. I
was paraphrasing one of the recommendations in `Toward and Ethics and
Etiquette for Electronic Mail', Rand Corporation document R-3283-NSF/RC,
available for the price of participating in an `electronic documentation
experiment' (answering a questionnaire) from RAND_DOCS@Rand-Unix.ARPA.
(I have no connection with Rand, past or present.)
The steady flow of thin-skinned vituperation on this list is really
quite astonishing. I suspect it is because most folks seriously
concerned with arms-control issues are scared. Either scared that the
other side will get them, or scared that the Big Mistake will happen.
Or both. If we could acknowledge that as something shared, maybe we
could afford to be civil while we seek truth about things that matter.
Bruce Nevin
bn@bbncch.arpa
BBN Communications
33 Moulton Street
Cambridge, MA 02238
(617) 497-3992
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 85 08:46:48 EST
From: Michael_Joseph_Edelman%Wayne-MTS%UMich-MTS.Mailnet@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
Robert Maas recently proposed that rather than protecting the
entire US with an SDI-type defense, we protect only a small
hardened MX site. I think that this was proposed as part of the
MX "dense-pack" proposal. At any rate, it is certainly doesn't
contravene the ABM treaty. It seemed like a very good idea when I
heard about it; certainly better than the proposal that was finally
decided on. Perhaps this is still be considered for the planned
Midgetman replacement for the MX and other ICBMs.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 85 13:40:02 EST
From: Michael_Joseph_Edelman%Wayne-MTS%UMich-MTS.Mailnet@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
Henry Spencer suggests in a recent message to the digest that we
add a fourth leg to the triad in the form of air-launched ICBMs or
IRBMs. In fact, we have something close to this already being deployed,
in the form of B-52 launched ALCMs. If I recall correcly, each B-52
carries 3 ALCMs on each of four hard points, with another four or more
carried in a magazine in the bomb bay. This gives you 16 independantly
targeted warheads, although of lower yield (and accuracy) than the
Titans Spencer suggests.
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************