[net.news.group] net.military ?

mat (04/20/83)

In today's society, military affairs have potentially frightening consequences.
A large number of articles on military (and pacifist) affairs have appeared
in Scientific American in the past couple of years, and with the Falklands
Islands military action just a little ways behind us, and Cuba south of
us, and Marxist--backed wars in South America, as well as a pair of potentially
hostile superpowers in Asia, there may be a load of folks concerned about
military activities.

	How many would like to see a net.military?

I don't want to start a campaign for net.pacifism; that subject seems to
get covered on net.politics; and one hopes that some of less radical
discussions for REAL efforts toward peace might also find their way onto
net.miliary.

(Before anyone decides that I am a hawk, let me point out that I subscribe
to both Aviation Week & Space Technology  and  The Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists.  I am neither a hawk nor a dove.  I am just SCARED.)

With luck, we might AVOID attracting the folk who keep bayonets in the
medicine chest to pick their teeth with;  we probably don't want any
discussions of how to build terrorist bombs, and leaks of classified material
would have to be avoided. (Of course, some specs on military hardware have
become common folklore.  As long as we note that it IS folklore, we may
be able to speak about it.)

I would also hope that net.military would be a place where serious discussions
on tactical and strategic issues, military history, interesting battles, and
the like might get discussed; besides these topics, there are the dicussions
on how to make strategic weaponry STABILIZING instead of DEstabilizing, and
reports on military technology (as much as is leaglly available to the
public!) that could get started.

	I am turning this idea loose, but unless there is VERY heavy support,
I will not take any action.  I will, however, report the results,
and if they warrant it, I will get in touch with Mark Horton, as well as
some of the people who send out 'rmgroup' messages all of the time.

				[harpo|npoiv|ariel]!hou5e!mat
				Mark Terribile
				Duke of deNet

jdd (04/20/83)

Since net.military seems very similar to the Arpanet ARMS-D
digest, sent to us as fa.arms-d (but in limbo due to TCP
switchover), I'd suggest a net.arms-d, with the standard
gatewaying.

Cheers,
John ("Oldtime Arpanaut") DeTreville
Bell Labs, Murray Hill

dossamg (04/20/83)

I would like to add my vote for net.military. Some interesting discussion
on the military and arms control would certainly ensue.
				Alan Gopin
				houxn!dossamg

sdo (04/21/83)

We already have a newsgroup that can be used for discussions of the
military.  Net.general should be used for discussing all ranks, not
just generals. This is the same as using net.columbia to discuss all
colleges, not just the one university which the group was named for,
and net.med for things of all sizes. After all, we don't have a
net.sm, net.large, or net.x-large - do we?

That's how problems start around here.  People read the name of
a newsgroup and get the wrong idea.

			Scott Orshan
			Bell Labs Piscataway
			201-981-3064
			{houxm,ihnp4}!u1100a!sdo

sample (04/22/83)

In the spirit of equal time, how about net.disarm for discussion of
disarmament issues.


				Rick Sample
				ubc-vision!sample

alb (04/23/83)

net.disarm?  No!  we already have fa.arms-d for the discussion
of Arms (the arms discussion digest on the ARPAnet)