chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (Chris Torek) (11/17/85)
In article <1895@orca.UUCP> raynor@orca.UUCP (Raynor Christianson) writes: [raynor@orca is quoting from the `Delhi Declaration'] >It is imperative to find a remedy to the existing situation where hundreds >of billions of dollars, amounting to approximately one and one half million >per minute, are spent annually on weapons. Correction: one and one half million per hour. The U.S. government could pay off its ~1.8 trillion dollar debt in a mere six years by cutting all military spending. I make no arguments about the feasibility of doing so; this figure is merely to help you get a feel for these numbers. Neither do I claim that cutting military spending completely would actually have that effect: the numbers work out, but that is too great a simplification. -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 4251) UUCP: seismo!umcp-cs!chris CSNet: chris@umcp-cs ARPA: chris@mimsy.umd.edu
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (11/18/85)
In article <2244@umcp-cs.UUCP> chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes: >[raynor@orca is quoting from the `Delhi Declaration'] >>It is imperative to find a remedy to the existing situation where hundreds >>of billions of dollars, amounting to approximately one and one half million >>per minute, are spent annually on weapons. > >Correction: one and one half million per hour. >The U.S. government could pay off its ~1.8 trillion dollar debt in >a mere six years by cutting all military spending. Just to make waves... I recall that the main reason the west has "MAD" and nuclear deterrence as its strategic methodology is that it is far CHEAPER than matching the Soviets in conventional armaments and manpower. Of course, total disarmament, not just nuclear freezes or eliminating nuclear weaponry entirely, would save that large cost, but otherwise I would expect that a committment to nuclear disarmament would RAISE our defense spending, not lower it. Few people seem to follow through on this. Most anti-nuclear types will claim they are not calling for total disarmament, but just for eliminating nuclear weapons. But they expect that this would *reduce* defense expenditures (I suppose by the cost of the nukes themselves and the delivery systems). In fact, if you did cut out nuclear weapons but, still and at the same time, wanted to preserve a credible defense system, your costs and taxes to fund this would skyrocket. Plus we would probably have to reinstitute a draft and keep far larger standing armies overseas. Will
dc@datlog.UUCP ( David Crone ) (11/20/85)
In article <3350@brl-tgr.ARPA> wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) writes: > >Just to make waves... I recall that the main reason the west has "MAD" >and nuclear deterrence as its strategic methodology is that it is far >CHEAPER than matching the Soviets in conventional armaments and manpower. >Of course, total disarmament, not just nuclear freezes or eliminating >nuclear weaponry entirely, would save that large cost, but otherwise I >would expect that a committment to nuclear disarmament would RAISE our >defense spending, not lower it. >............................................... In fact, if you did cut >out nuclear weapons but, still and at the same time, wanted to preserve >a credible defense system, your costs and taxes to fund this would >skyrocket. Plus we would probably have to reinstitute a draft and keep >far larger standing armies overseas. > >Will [ Time to don the lead suit...|-) ] I think the whole premise that the West (sic!) needs to match Soviet military power in any way ( either by CHEAP (ho-ho) nuclear weapons or by convential forces ) is entirely FALSE. The whole basis for the superpower confrontation is mutual suspicion. The Soviet Union, historically, has always had more to fear from the West vis-a-vis the post-1917 war between Red and White Russian factions where the old Imperialist forces (White) where aided by the US/UK/France etc.. with men and finance and arms. The Soviets consider that all their policies are protecting the motherland. The US/UK axis of world power wanted the communist system destroyed because it posed a threat to their political and economic hegemony. The only real solution is for both sides to COMPLETELY accept the existence of the others political/economic idealogy AND dismantle the large scale nuclear and conventional forces they have ranged against each other. There are other more irrational states/idealogies around that need their attention or even policing!!!!!!! ...and enough starving/suffering people both at home and abroa who need any money that can be saved. David C.
raynor@orca.UUCP (Raynor Christianson) (11/20/85)
In article <2244@umcp-cs.UUCP> chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes: >In article <1895@orca.UUCP> raynor@orca.UUCP (Raynor Christianson) writes: > >[raynor@orca is quoting from the `Delhi Declaration'] >>It is imperative to find a remedy to the existing situation where hundreds >>of billions of dollars, amounting to approximately one and one half million >>per minute, are spent annually on weapons. > >Correction: one and one half million per hour. > >The U.S. government could pay off its ~1.8 trillion dollar debt in >a mere six years by cutting all military spending. I make no >arguments about the feasibility of doing so; this figure is merely >to help you get a feel for these numbers. Neither do I claim that >cutting military spending completely would actually have that >effect: the numbers work out, but that is too great a simplification. >-- >In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 4251) >UUCP: seismo!umcp-cs!chris >CSNet: chris@umcp-cs ARPA: chris@mimsy.umd.edu Your correction may be correct for U.S spending, however the one and one half million per minute as stated in the Delhi Declaration is for global expenditures on weapons. This may be confirmed by contacting the Center for Defense Information 303 Capital Gallery west 600 Maryland Ave. SW Washington DC 20024 (202) 484-9490 Director Rear Admiral Gene R. La Rocque
chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (Chris Torek) (11/22/85)
Oops: I `corrected' the $1.5 million / minute figure in the original posting, based on numbers computed with a quick `bc'. My correction was wrong. I am told that the world spends approximately $800 billion per year on the collective military. Dividing 800 billion by 525600 (approximate number of minutes per year) gives a bit over 1.5 million. To quote the newspapers: `I regret the error'. Thanks to uiucdcs!scott for spotting this. -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 4251) UUCP: seismo!umcp-cs!chris CSNet: chris@umcp-cs ARPA: chris@mimsy.umd.edu
jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao) (11/22/85)
In article <548@dlvax1.datlog.UUCP> dc@datlog.UUCP ( David Crone ) writes: >In article <3350@brl-tgr.ARPA> wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) writes: > ... The Soviets consider that all their policies are >protecting the motherland. The US/UK axis of world power wanted the communist >system destroyed because it posed a threat to their political and economic >hegemony. This is an interesting statement. My memory on these political things is notoriously fuzzy, given that I think "politics" (when used to refer to the games a few fuzzy thinkers play with the lives of everybody who is unfortunate enough to live nearby) is a dirty word. However, I do seem to recall that it is part of the Marxist and Communist (so-called) governments' credo that they must destroy all other governments. I do not see an economy so poor that they must be consistently buying food from the US/UK "axis of world power" as a serious threat to "political and economic hegemony" (whatever that is seriously intended to mean), except insofar as that economy is in support of a government dedicated to the destruction of others. As far as mutual suspicion goes, this is quite true. The only way this can be overcome is for each state to trust each other. It seems quite difficult for a police state, and one dedicated to destruction, to overcome its natural(?) distrust of another state. For that matter, it seems hard to trust such a state. Lest you flame me for not providing references -- would Soviet watchers out there please provide the documentary corroboration that I know exists? Thanks. BTW: "Communist (so-called)" because the Soviet and Red states are not true ideologically pure communal systems, but are instead Marxist states of the "interim (permanent)" variety. There are only a few true communistic societies, most strongly rejecting Communism, such as monasteries, kibbutzim, and a few local social communes. -- Joe Yao hadron!jsdy@seismo.{CSS.GOV,ARPA,UUCP}
wildstar@nmtvax.UUCP (11/25/85)
To whom it may concern,
The following is strictly tongue-in-cheek (ie. not serious, of humorous
content), but also has more than a grain of salt in it: This advance disclaimer
is needed lest various and many people, including the posters of the Delhi
Declaration, take offense. To any and all law enforcement groups, take notice
that I do not intend to sponsor or instigate an overthrow of the United
States, nor do I support seriously what I am about to say, I am only voicing
an extrapolation for the purpose of comedy and satire. To everyone else,
you can think about this however you like, and apply it as you see fit.
Those that wish to organize may do so, but I will not be responsible for it
(unless, of course, it gets massive in scale, in which case I will decide if
I am responsible or not).
Here goes:
How can anyone claim that any of us have a right to live? NOBODY has
an inherent right to live! We are all slaves, servants, and serfs of our
respective governments. By virtue of the fact that we are standing on some
precious leader's holy soil, us men are that leader's expendable forces, and
the women that we hold as equal to us are required to bear children for the
glorious republic ( or fatherland, or motherland, or proletariat ), to
serve as the cannon fodder of the next generation. We cannot go elsewhere
to flee such impressment, since all the nations on the Earth require this
as a condition of existing on thier territory!
Enough can be said about authoritarian and totalitarian governments,
but even us people of the West, such as the United States and Europe,
are not capable of holding our governments accountable to our actions.
Even if billions of people demanded disarmament, our respective leaders
would say " Look at all those poor, soft people who do not understand the
Communist ( or Capitalist ) menace! They could not know what was best for
themselves, therefore we know best and we shall decide for them! Better
that the entire world go up in flames, that every human, animal, and
plant shall die, rather than see all life forever enslaved by our enemies.
Let them complain, and let them protest, but we have the tanks, the planes,
the guns, and the missles. They can only talk. We are the ones with the
power of life and death over them."
A fifth of our labor, and in some places even two thirds, go toward
supporting war, and we cannot do a bloody thing about it, since this
wealth is taken from us even before we can touch it as witheld taxes.
Most of the industry, most of the advances in science and technology,
go toward supporting war. Even medical advances were a byproduct of war,
or undergo evolution such that our drafted soldiers can kill more of thier
enemy before being killed themselves. Our present students, the graduating
classes of the past decades in engineering and sciences, will only be
able to challenge thier mentalities and grow in thier skills by making
computers and writing programs that are made for tanks, missles, and
"Star Wars" defenses. There are very few civilian or peaceful uses of
technology, and most of those are items without a purpose, to sooth the
consuming masses of civilians to take thier attentions away from the real
issues. They will not find solace with social workings or the other,
more human fields, since they are forever stamped on the hand and the
brow with the mark of the technocrat, they are rejected utterly.
There is no way whatsoever to avert the destruction of our world
through a nuclear war. The arrogance and overweening dominance and
lust for power that the cabals of leadership have taken unto themselves
will assure that one day, rhetoric and psychopathy shall overcome reason,
if it has not already, and then we will all be doomed. Nobody will yield
the weapons that they worship and are fascinated by, and they will kill
or imprison or tax to keep that "privelege".
Therefore we are a world without hope. In the meantime, there are
things that us civilians can do:
1) We can, now and forever, renounce violence as a means of settling
disputes.
2) We can refuse to invest in any banks, corporations, or other
concerns that deal with the military, not only those that produce weapons
systems, but also those that supply food, shelter, clothing, or other
facilities, and even those who have executives that are even in the least
sympathetic to the military or to war or to atomic weapons.
3) We can refuse to work for such entities as outlined in point 2)
4) We can refuse, on a massive scale, to pay taxes or perform
obligatory services that in any way supply, aid, or comfort the military.
if we can overflow the entire penal systems of all the countries with our
passively refusing bodies, then the tax collection agencies of the West
could not intimidate us individually by fear as a minority while the
majority passively obeys out of fear.
5) We can refuse to handle money, and keep as few possessions as possible.
Instead of trading for our services and our daily needs, we can make them as
gifts for each other. By keeping nothing but the clothes on our backs, the
knowledge in our heads, and the compassion in our hearts, there is little
that a governent can do to take away that which we do not have, short of
enslavement.
6) We can passively resist when our nation goes to war. We can refuse
to handle rifles, or guns. We can refuse to lay a hand against another, even
to defend ourselves, or our loved ones. We can refuse to wear a uniform, and
we can refuse to obey military orders. No matter how long they imprison us,
or how long they torture us, no matter how many of us they kill, it would
take them a tremendous amount of overhead to force thier will if enough
of us are stubborn enough.
7) We can raise our children with the above principles. We can refuse
to send them to public schools, where they are indoctrinated with the
obedience and allegiance to the nation. Instead, we can make our own schools,
simply by sitting out in the countryside and forming a circle to teach the
topic of the day. If the government tries to take our children away from us
to "teach them properly", we can either hide our children, or simply reduce
our future generations, so that they cannot take away what we do not have.
If it is a matter of degrees and expertise in subject matter that are
insufficent, then by all means we can get the credentials and pass the tests
needed to do this.
8) We can form mutual support groups the properly employ the souls
and intellects that we presently share among us, such that no one will starve
or want for a purpose.
9) We can abstain from voting, in order to reduce the legitimacy of
the present power blocks, known as "political parties". We can either
vote for new ones, or we can perfect our conciences and order our actions
such that we are inherently peaceful and do not need governance by any
power external to the individual. This is not anarchy since a non-violent,
non-criminal person who is mature in thought and deed will always agree
with those closest, with the ensuing ripple effect.
Since there is no hope for us, even if we adopt the above measures, we will
surely be exterminated by the other side. However, there is no assurance that
we will even live the next day. There will always be circumstances beyond
our control. Why not then make them more enjoyable, more peaceful, and
live with a better concience so that it will not be our fault when the
world ends? Our motto should be "c'est la vie".
A white paper by Andrew Jonathan Fine to all of Net-Land (which also
helped to take some pressure and despair from myself, hope it also
lightens your day). jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao) (11/27/85)
Andrew Jonathon Fine,
Most of the ideas expressed in your fine article are (surprise!)
not new. Ideally, we would be able to do some of what you say.
Other parts are unworkable -- and this newsgroup's not the place
to repeat why. My reactions were:
(1) The USA was the first government, and is still (I think) one
of few, to "guarantee" the right to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness (note, though, only the pursuit, not
the happiness!) to its citizens. Although many would argue
that this guarantee is not being kept well, it is still
supremely binding law, and should be argued over any local
law. Unfortunately, yes, there are now many laws that seem
to support the wanton taking of innocent life.
(2) Ideally, we could all withdraw from "evil" organizations.
However, practically, we live in a larger and larger community,
and have to have some way to work together. That way is what
becomes our government. W. Churchill put it best: Democracy
is the worst possible form of government, except for all the
others. Some day I may take orders and go into a monastery;
but even then I'd probably still have to deal with the world
outside. All things are tied together, either overtly or
subtly.
(3) I would not withdraw my association with all groups that are
associated with the military, or other such non-benificent
groups. Two examples. The Red Cross is a private organisation
that's been given extraordinary reponsibilities by the gov't to
work outside of gov't channels to help people in the military
who have problems, and people outside the military in times of
disaster. Plus, they give services to everybody, regardless of
whether they are military, militaristic, pacifistic, or just
plain addled. I will still give them my blood, my time, and
my money. The various churches also send chaplains into the
armed forces -- no longer to bless the carnage, as priests are
more likely to condemn it now, but to support the people who
are in the forces as people. The Church still has my support
on this one, as in many other things.
(4) PLEASE learn when to use "we" instead of "us". Even when in
apposition, "us" may never be used as a subject. E.g., not
"us citizens are right" but "we citizens are right." ;-)
--
Joe Yao hadron!jsdy@seismo.{CSS.GOV,ARPA,UUCP}