arms-d@ucbvax.ARPA (05/17/85)
From: The Arms-D Moderator (Harold Ancell) <ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 3 : Issue 33
Today's Topics:
Intelligence and Cockburn
Buying South Africa
Renner's reply to Spencer
Being Threatened by South Africa
Two Things to Think About:
A World without Nukes,
And What if the USSR Evacuates All Its Cities?
Strategic Interests vs Popular Sympathy
Dr. Helen Caldicott a Soviet Dupe?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu 16 May 85 01:53:34-CDT
From: Don Stuart <ICS.STUART@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
Subject: Arms-Discussion Digest V3 #32
The loud noises about quality of intelligence and Cockburn seem to
have died down. I shall risk restarting the noise by pointing out
that none of the criticism has directly attacked his main point: the
armed forces of the USSR are not nearly the omnipotent juggernaut that
the US government would like us to believe they are.
At least some of his arguments are plausible and some are based on
things that should be easy to check. For example, I recall he claims
that the impressive total number of men in uniform is inflated by
their system of putting certain construction workers in the army. I
would like to hear from people who can intelligently address the more
basic questions. Are they really as tough as DOD says they are? They
obviously are brutal enough to shoot down a 747, but it takes them
hours to do it! Given their evident inability to do much else right,
why should we think their military is so hot?
Don
------------------------------
Date: 16 May 1985 11:00-EDT
From: Hank.Walker@CMU-CS-UNH.ARPA
Subject: Arms-Discussion Digest V3 #32
To the moderator:
Land may be expensive, but I am proposing to take control of companies
through the stock market. In this country, typical companies have stock
values roughly equal to their annual revenues. So if the GNP of South
Africa is $50 billion, the South African 500 (publicly held 500) would
certainly cost much less than this. Alternatively stock purchases
could be augmented by subsidies to companies doing business in South
Africa so that they could expand rapidly.
[Reply from the Moderator - Oops, I didn't read your message closely
enough. I suppose in theory we could buy a majority of the SA 500,
but I doubt their government would stand for it.
- Harold
]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 May 85 13:13:25 EDT
From: Jeff Miller AMSTE-TOI 4675 <jmiller@apg-1>
Subject: Renner's reply to Spencer
To: Scott Renner <renner@UIUC>
Cc: arms-d@mit-mc, jmiller@apg-1
I thought I'd inject an interesting fact into your argument on
the desireability of neutron weapons, with respect to Spencer's
concepts of how Soviet soldiers are motivated. They issue all their
troops with a personal decon kit - like we do, except that the primary
component is an anti-radiation sickness pill which is in fact a
placebo. The Soviet military leadership obviously feels that the
common soldier is good for a few more hours or days, * as long as he
doesn't know he's dying.*
J.MILLER
------------------------------
From: ihnp4!mgnetp!ltuxa!ttrdc!mjk@Berkeley
Date: 16 May 85 15:47:43 CDT (Thu)
Subject: Arms-Discussion Digest V3 #32
>Somehow, no matter how militarist they are, nor how ambitious
>they become, I don't feel particularly threatened by the current
>[South African] regime. **
> J. MILLER
>
I assume, then, you aren't black.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 May 85 14:36 CDT
From: Patrick_Duff <pduff%ti-eg.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: World without Nukes, What-if USSR evacuates all cities
Since the digests have been short lately, let me throw in two new &
hopefully interesting topics for general discussion:
If every major nuclear weapon (i.e., not including small tactical
weapons) suddenly vanished, became inoperative, or whatever (say, a flying
saucer full of aliens worried about losing Earth to a nuclear winter comes
along and zaps them), what would be the relative military strengths of the
various super-powers? Or, a little closer to reality, suppose they are
legislated out of existence over a number of years (for instance, I've
heard that if everyone agrees to stop replacing the plutonium triggers,
everything becomes inoperative after about seven years). Which super-power
would benefit the most initially, or be in the best position during and
after the transition years? In your opinion, from a purely military
perspective (i.e., not considering environmental arguments against nuclear
weapons), should the U.S be "for" or "against" such a disarmament plan?
The other question is one I heard quite a number of years ago (possibly
from Arms-D?) which has stuck in my mind ever since. Suppose you are the
President of the US and one of your advisors comes rushing in with the
following report: At 12pm Moscow time, the USSR posted notices in all
major population centers giving instructions to the inhabitants to begin
immediate preparations to leave the city and disperse. The notices call
this activity a "training exercise" or a "drill". The instructions provide
detailed relocation instructions and give 9pm the next day as the deadline
for the cities to have been evacuated of all people except for a small
percent who will be coordinating the evacuation and "evaluating" the
exercise. No other unusual military activity has been observed. What
action should you, as President and Commander in Chief of the US, take, and
why? I've received a number of responses to this question over the last
few years:
(1) Launch a full-scale first strike immediately (2 votes);
(2) Go to DEFCOM 4 immediately and initiate plans to launch within one
hour (1 vote);
(3) Assemble Congress and/or the Joint Chiefs of Staff and talk about
it for a while (1 vote);
(4) Use the hot-line (3 votes--one person wanted to demand that the USSR
immediately cancel the evacuations, or else option 1));
(5) Start evacuating US cities (1 vote--last I heard, the U.S.'s
evacuation plans are too incomplete and too far out-of-date to make
this response practical);
(6) Wait until the evacuation is complete before taking any military
action (0 votes!).
[Does anyone want to argue that such a USSR-wide evacuation could/would never
happen?]
regards, Patrick
Patrick S. Duff, ***CR 5621*** pduff.ti-eg@csnet-relay
5049 Walker Dr. #91103 214/480-1659 (work)
The Colony, TX 75056-1120 214/370-5363 (home)
(a suburb of Dallas, TX)
------------------------------
Date: 16 May 85 18:34:07 CDT (Thu)
From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@Berkeley
Subject: Strategic Interests vs Popular Sympathy
Actually, we can find Western interests that are being jeopardized by
the current South Africa policy without needing to invoke a major war.
There is now *no* long-range search-and-rescue coverage off the Cape
of Good Hope, because South Africa's old patrol aircraft are worn out
and the arms embargo makes it impossible for them to buy new ones.
(The other major role of such aircraft, by the way, is antisubmarine
work, not a trivial issue in such a strategic area.) Much shipping,
including almost all oil tankers coming from the Middle East to Europe
and North America, passes within 100 miles of the Cape. The weather
there is not always good.
Without implying comment either way on more general issues, this
particular result of Western policy towards South Africa comes under
the heading of "shooting yourself in the foot".
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
------------------------------
Date: 16 May 85 16:43:31 CDT (Thu)
From: ihnp4!mgnetp!ltuxa!ttrdc!mjk@Berkeley
Subject: Arms-Discussion Digest V3 #29
J. Miller implies that Helen Caldicott is a Soviet dupe (or worse).
Well, that's certainly an original charge. Dr. Caldicott has
answered it in the past, and the answer is quite simple. Both
sides are responsible for the arms race. Everyone knows that, and
in my experience with the Freeze, that is almost always noted in
our brochures. However, we are able to influence the U.S. much more
than the Soviets. That is a fact. Thus, we concentrate on the U.S.
The aim is not to undermine the U.S. national security, since the defense
policies of this Administration do not enhance our security, but damage
it. The aim is to force the President to seriously negotiate significant
bi-lateral reductions in weapons. The aim is, in fact, to enhance our
security.
This emphasis on espionage and foreign agents is very dangerous. I don't
doubt that it goes on. I don't doubt that, as an open society, we are
much more vulnerable to it. But that isn't the point. The point is that
legitimate groups and individuals are being baited as foreign agents.
Unless this can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, I think that anyone
who suggests that should be treated as an enemy of democracy. This man
is trying to stiffle disent by implicitly threatening to label people who
violate *his* definition of national security as Soviet agents. That's
anti-democratic and, in my opinion, much more dangerous than any alleged
infiltration. Let's do what a democracy requires, and *trust* the people
to make the right decisions. It is indeed telling that Mr. Miller admits
he "admires" the Soviets tactics. I don't; I think they're despicable.
Mike Kelly
------------------------------
[End of ARMS-D Digest]