al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus) (10/10/84)
I have the beginings of a plan that I believe could make a real dent in the warlike tendencies of the human race. It's based on the assumtion, supported by our experience during Vietnam, that if people see REAL WAR in their livingrooms on a daily basis they will be less likely to fight one. First element: three direct broadcast satellites with TV coverage of the entire globe and enough power to overcome jamming (say, 100 Megawatts). Expensive, but feasible. Second element: Portable tv cameras that can communicate directly with the satellites. Remember that the enormous power of the satellites reduces the power requirements of the cameras for communication. These cameras are carried by hand, or on remote piloted vehicles (used by Israel to waste Syria), or on long endurance aircraft (such as the one Lockheed is building), or on low Earth orbit satellites. In any case, they take pictures of the wars going on and ship the images to the satellites for editing and broadcasting. People will watch as examination of the news shows indicates. The thing is that war, John Wayne style, is a wonderful thing. People have been conditioned to regard war as a noble endevor for millenia. The real facts of matter, however, is that war is miserable, boring, painful, and deadly. If this point was brought to everyones attention in the form of direct observation of the actual conduct of war, I believe that it would be much more difficult to whip people into war fever. This system will not work if star wars is built. The critical communication satellites will be knocked out by one or both of the super powers. If the system was in place today, however, it would be essentially unstopable since no weapon system is capable of taking out satellites in geosynchronous orbit.
john@x.UUCP (John Woods) (10/12/84)
Well, nice try, but I fear it would not work. First, the power available to the satellite has nothing to do with the portable cameras (it would be easy to jam the cameras, in which case the unjammable satellites transmit noise); the cameras have to be heard by the satellite, and pouring power into the receiver does not help. You might also lose a few camera operators to mis-placed "[sic]" shots. Second, we easily have the current technology to destroy a satellite in geosynchronous orbit, if the two superpowers were to agree that it were a really good idea and didn't get in each other's way. Third, it might not make a difference anyway. In the Communist bloc and the Third World, people possessing sets which could receive the transmissions would have them confiscated (those who feel appropriately may read the line: would be shot (... ) ), leaving your audience as the nominally free world, where there are probably better forums (fora?) for the information (transmitting a signal without the standard license is considered obnoxious by many, especially those whose frequency you have pre-empted in a high-handed manner, and those other whom you wipe out with sideband splatter). Fourth, consider the results of TV coverage of Vietnam. Did it really have the impact that is assumed? It is quite conceivable that the people who were convinced by it that the Vietnam war was a pretty bad idea were people who were amenable to that idea anyway. There were certainly many people who saw it and still thought that Vietnam was necessary and good for maintaining freedom/democracy/their stock portfolios/whatever. For more thoughts on this kind of subject, you ought to research the efforts by the Third World countries to implement their proposed New Information Order (or whatever the title is) in the United Nations. But, alas, only to see how antagonistic almost everyone would be to such a plan... I wish I had answers. Unfortunately, I am overstocked with questions at the moment. -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1114 ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA
chuck@dartvax.UUCP (Chuck Simmons) (10/14/84)
<Nuke 'em til they glow!> > I have the beginings of a plan that I believe could make a real dent in > the warlike tendencies of the human race. It's based on the assumtion, > supported by our experience during Vietnam, that if people see REAL WAR > in their livingrooms on a daily basis they will be less likely to fight > one. One wonders about the validity of this assumption. Vietnam seems to have been a particularly unpopular war. Perhaps people were "less likely to fight" becasue Vietnam was widely viewed as 1) a losing war, and 2) a war in which we were supporting an oppressive government. Personally, I doubt the existence of "warlike tendencies" on the part of the human race. None of my friends are particularly keen on going to El Salvador or on sending others to El Salvador. I like the theory that wars are caused by a select few itching to pull the trigger of their favorite ray gun. On the other hand, having a growing archive of live war footage would help certain filmakers (e.g. the DOD) make films that glorified war, ennobled war, and helped whip us into a war fervor. dartvax!chuck
al@aurora.UUCP (Al Globus) (10/16/84)
> <Nuke 'em til they glow!> > > > I have the beginings of a plan that I believe could make a real dent in > > the warlike tendencies of the human race. It's based on the assumtion, > > supported by our experience during Vietnam, that if people see REAL WAR > > in their livingrooms on a daily basis they will be less likely to fight > > one. > > One wonders about the validity of this assumption. Vietnam seems to have > been a particularly unpopular war. Perhaps people were "less likely to > fight" becasue Vietnam was widely viewed as 1) a losing war, and 2) a war > in which we were supporting an oppressive government. > > Personally, I doubt the existence of "warlike tendencies" on the part of > the human race. None of my friends are particularly keen on going to > El Salvador or on sending others to El Salvador. I like the theory that > wars are caused by a select few itching to pull the trigger of their > favorite ray gun. > > On the other hand, having a growing archive of live war footage would > help certain filmakers (e.g. the DOD) make films that glorified war, > ennobled war, and helped whip us into a war fervor. > > dartvax!chuck To repeat a point, if you look at films that glorify war you will find very little if any footage of real war. There is good reason for this. Real war, including 'good' wars, is an awful business, particularly for the infantry. As for the human races warlike tendencies, I suspect your friends are not a very good sample. If we didn't have warlike tendencies we wouldn't fight 20 or so wars all the time continuously for centuries (if you count up the wars going on globally at any particular time in history, including now, you can usually find at least 20 if you know the period well enough). In any case, both the government of France and Arther C. Clarke have suggested setting up an international spy satellite system run by the U.N. to keep an eye on the world wide military madness and, presumably, distribute the infor- mation. Unlike my idea (which I doubt is original), this can be done with current technology for reasonable amouts of money. Why should the super-powers have a monopoly on troop deployment information? Why shouldn't everyone, you and me, have access to this stuff? Let's get on with it! Maybe Greenpeace....
al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus) (10/18/84)
> Well, nice try, but I fear it would not work. First, the power available > to the satellite has nothing to do with the portable cameras (it would be > easy to jam the cameras, in which case the unjammable satellites transmit > noise); the cameras have to be heard by the satellite, and pouring power > into the receiver does not help. You might also lose a few camera operators > to mis-placed "[sic]" shots. I don't claim this would end war, I do claim it could have measurable impact. The cameras can be jammed by sophisticated powers, but it does take effort. Third world countries, which have most of the wars, are not (at least presently) together enough to successfully jam all such broadcast. Even cameramem who must lug their data with them get out with stuff from time to time. Of course we'll lose a few cameramen, we always have. We're not going to get peace without casualties. I just hope I'm not one of them. > > Second, we easily have the current technology to destroy a satellite in > geosynchronous orbit, if the two superpowers were to agree that it were a > really good idea and didn't get in each other's way. We have the technology, but no operational systems. It takes an operational system to actually get the job done. With luck and a good verifiable space weapons ban we might never have an operational system. > > Third, it might not make a difference anyway. In the Communist bloc and the > Third World, people possessing sets which could receive the transmissions > would have them confiscated (those who feel appropriately may read the line: > would be shot (... ) ), You over-rate the efficiency of both systems. A good deal of subversive behavior goes on in the USSR without punishment 'cause they don't get caught. The third world is notoriously inefficient so the argument goes double for them. > standard license is considered obnoxious by many, especially those whose > frequency you have pre-empted in a high-handed manner, and those other whom > you wipe out with sideband splatter). Get a license. Hard perhaps, impossible, no. > > Fourth, consider the results of TV coverage of Vietnam. Did it really have > the impact that is assumed? It is quite conceivable that the people who > were convinced by it that the Vietnam war was a pretty bad idea were people > who were amenable to that idea anyway. There were certainly many people who > saw it and still thought that Vietnam was necessary and good for maintaining > freedom/democracy/their stock portfolios/whatever. > I didn't say we'd convince everyone, just make a dent. Apparently, the majority of Americans were convinced by the coverage and other factors. Other people are a lot like us (2 arms, 2 legs, one head, etc.) and might react similarly. We could use a little re-convincing as well. > For more thoughts on this kind of subject, you ought to research the efforts > by the Third World countries to implement their proposed New Information > Order (or whatever the title is) in the United Nations. But, alas, only to > see how antagonistic almost everyone would be to such a plan... The New Information Order, if I understand it right, is an attempt by governments to control all information within their borders. I don't think that's a good idea at all, especially given the quality of most governments. My plan is subversive to the New Information Order, in the extreme. > > > I wish I had answers. Unfortunately, I am overstocked with questions at the > moment. > -- > John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1114 > ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA I have lots of answers, most, if not all, of them wrong. This kind of debate is exzillerating (spelling!) and helps separate the wheat from the chaff.
fred@inuxc.UUCP (Fred Mendenhall) (10/19/84)
I also doubt that forcing the world to watch real war footage would reduce the risk of war. I think your making the mistake of believing that most of the human race is sane and moral, as you appear to be, and that, therefore, they will react with the proper revulsion to the broadcasts. I have personally found that whenever I thought most of the human race was like me, I get into trouble. More to the point however, of all the people I know that have actually been in War, somewhat more vivid than watching a broadcast, only one has ever told me that it was an awful experience, and that he thought War was the most stupid thing the human race ever invented. If the majority of people experiencing War refuse to rise up in righteous indignation then I fail to see how Television is going to get the job done. Hoping the Human Race is smarter than I think it is Fred Mendenhall
bmt@we53.UUCP ( B. M. Thomas ) (10/27/84)
I think that the effect would be opposite to the one desired. Seeing all this gore and violence simply innures people to the real horror. I don't want to become accustomed to violence. I especially don't want people who feel they have something against me to become accustomed to violence.