arms-d@ucbvax.ARPA (02/24/85)
From: Moderator <ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA> Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 3 : Issue 10 Today's Topics: More on "THE THREAT" (2 msgs) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 Feb 85 13:17:34 EST (Thursday) From: Robert Bloom AMSTE-TOI 3775 <rbloom@APG-1.ARPA> Subject: More on "THE THREAT" To: lin@MIT-MC.ARPA Cc: arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA, rbloom@APG-1.ARPA (Gee this is fun standing back and reading the arguments you guys come up with - sorta like 'lets you and he fight'. Miller will be getting him own mailbox as soon as we can get the bureaucracy to move ...) - Bob Bloom 'Rebuttal-Cubed' (original from J. Miller, c/o rbloom @APG-1) From Lin@MIT-MC, 15 Feb 85: The problem that the DoD has in "analyzing" data is that so many conclusions are assumption-dependent. The story of how vulnerable U.S. intelligence is to Soviet deception and even to its own misinterpretations is well documented with issues such as the missile gap and the bomber gap and more recent claims in the middle 1970s that the Soviets would have operational beam weapons by the early 1980's. DoD has its own budget shares to protect, and since intelligence data can be massaged to yield conclusions withing fairly wide bounds, it is not clear that DoD analysis is at an advantage or a disadvantage. The argument that any information from government sources is untrustworthy is oversimplistic and lacks reason. There has never existed any intelligence work that WASN'T "assumption- dependent." Nice sounding phrase, though. Probably true; but the question is not how much data you had, but rather how much meaningful data you had. Some years ago, the CIA was quite proud of the fact that it acquired a sample of Brezhnev's stool. So what? I was speaking of military intelligence, not political intelligence ( CIA ) Military intelligence is only interested in Soviet leaders' bodily by-products if they go bang or can frequency-hop. On the contrary, anecdotes from emigres and former defense officials should often do better than "analysis", simply *because* the impressions of people are often *less* subject to missing the forest for the trees. Staying in a cubicle all day with reams of data does not ensure that an analyst will get a more accurate picture, as any mid-level executive in a large company will tell you; talking to those on the shop floor often pays off handsomely. Regarding emigres and former defense officials; believe it or not, somebody in the intel community was smart enough to think about talking to emigres, too. Even before it was fashionable for freelance authors and PEOPLE magazine. I'll stack the info I've heard from the thirty or so defectors I've interviewed in debrief programs to that of the handful Mr. Lin has read about. As for former officials, Mr. Lin, who apparently wishes us to see him as a hard-bitten champion against the greedy and the self- serving, displays some genuine wide-eyed naivete here. We all know former government officials never act out of self-serving motives, dont't we? It is indeed not a paper tiger, at least as much as the U.S. is not a paper tiger. I also regard it as a severe threat. It is NOT a fact that it can defeat NATO and the U.S. in either conventional or nuclear warfare; rather this is a *judgment* that Miller makes. Indeed, any *analysis* I have seen points in the other direction; that they cannot. This is not to say that the U.S. could defeat the S.U., but rather to say that the balance is reaonably robust, and that the outcome would be uncertain. Mr. Lin should polish up his reading on military matters, and learn the meaning of the term, combat potential. Given his obviously well-researched comment on Soviet combat potential viz the U.S. and NATO, one must wonder whether he is really concerned with accuracy before putting fingers to keyboard. By the way, Mr. Lin, the Arab confrontation states have had the combat potential to defeat Israel since 1948. But they haven't, because the Israelis have always recognized the threat and maintained strong defenses. I was touched by Mr. Lin's concern that my outlook is unduly influenced by "....staying in a cubicle all day with reams of data.." That line caused me to think back; it would have been nice to have had such a work environment when I was being shot at while doing my intel job in a combat zone. Or when I was up to my neck in Brezhnev-offal trying to coordinate operations in; East Africa, (there are people there who shoot, too) North Africa and Central Asia. His comment about "...talking to those on the shop floor..." also brought a chuckle as I once ran a shop whose mission was to tear apart, analyze and reconstruct Soviet tanks and military vehicles. My overall conclusion is that given evidence of his ignorance of military matters in general, and intelligence in particular, Mr. Lin displays remarkable testicular fortitude when it comes to lecturing the judges about the law. I have no idea what his profession is, and for that reason would never pretend great knowledge of it, or disseminate erroneous assumptions about it in writing. Obviously, Mr. Lin is not similarly deterred. My only basic point was and is that his and Mr. Cockburn's sources of intelligence may not be of the same quality as those of the intelligence community. I really didn't think that was such an unreasonable point, but Mr. Lin seems to be dismayed by such a ludicrous assumption on my part. One almost gets the impression that he believes he has information sources the intel folks do not. Should we tell him that the spooks read NEWSWEEK, too? I cannot close without complimenting Mr. Lin's debating approach. He refutes an opponent not by presentation of logic, but by using a spurious a priori declaration that any position espoused by the opponent has to be false because the opponent is an unwitting tool of a corrupt system; thus we learn that any information from any DoD source is tainted because all defense people use the taxpayers money to threaten world peace and national interest in pursuit of the budget dollar. I'm impressed, Mr. Lin. PRAVDA would be proud of you. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Feb 85 18:25 EST From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA> Subject: More on "THE THREAT" (rebuttal^4) To: rbloom@APG-1.ARPA cc: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA, LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA In-reply-to: Msg of 21 Feb 1985 13:17:34 EST () from Robert Bloom AMSTE-TOI 3775 <rbloom at apg-1> 'Rebuttal-Cubed' (original from J. Miller, c/o rbloom @APG-1) From Lin@MIT-MC, 15 Feb 85: The problem that the DoD has in "analyzing" data is that so many conclusions are assumption-dependent. The story of how vulnerable U.S. intelligence is to Soviet deception and even to its own misinterpretations is well documented with issues such as the missile gap and the bomber gap and more recent claims in the middle 1970s that the Soviets would have operational beam weapons by the early 1980's. DoD has its own budget shares to protect, and since intelligence data can be massaged to yield conclusions withing fairly wide bounds, it is not clear that DoD analysis is at an advantage or a disadvantage. The argument that any information from government sources is untrustworthy is oversimplistic and lacks reason. You will note that *I* did NOT say that *any* government information is untrustworthy. I simpy noted that U.S. intelligence is vulnerable. I stand by that claim. Do you disagree? I also imply by my statement that DoD analysis of potential threats can be suspect, and I provide cases in which, in retrospect, suspicion would have been justified. Again, do you disagree? My bottom line is that simply DoD's saying it does not make it true, and it is possible to challenge their assessments on reasonable grounds. Do you disagree? There has never existed any intelligence work that WASN'T "assumption- dependent." We agree on this point, at least. My complaint is that the presentation of DoD intelligence work does not spell out these assumptions; the conclusions are presented, the qualifications rarely if ever articulated, and the ranges of possible conclusions are not made available. The overall desire is to have the public accept the conclusions without question; intelligence analysts then say "but if only you knew what I knew, then you too would come to the same conclusion." Bull. Probably true; but the question is not how much data you had, but rather how much meaningful data you had. Some years ago, the CIA was quite proud of the fact that it acquired a sample of Brezhnev's stool. So what? I was speaking of military intelligence, not political intelligence ( CIA ) Military intelligence is only interested in Soviet leaders' bodily by-products if they go bang or can frequency-hop. Are you asserting that CIA has no military intelligence gathering function? I hope not. The point remains: the question is how much meaningful data you had, not how much data you had. On the contrary, anecdotes from emigres and former defense officials should often do better than "analysis", simply *because* the impressions of people are often *less* subject to missing the forest for the trees. Staying in a cubicle all day with reams of data does not ensure that an analyst will get a more accurate picture, as any mid-level executive in a large company will tell you; talking to those on the shop floor often pays off handsomely. Regarding emigres and former defense officials; believe it or not, somebody in the intel community was smart enough to think about talking to emigres, too... I'll stack the info I've heard from the thirty or so defectors I've interviewed in debrief programs to that of the handful Mr. Lin has read about. I am quite certain that the intelligence community has heard stories from emigres. The important issues are (1) what did they ask them, (2) how much weight did they give to their testimony, and (3) what did they do when human testimony contradicted photographs and the like. Many analysts (perhaps not you) favor the latter, sometimes with good reason, and sometimes without. However, photographs etc are NOT always right, as I believe you would agree. As for former officials, Mr. Lin, who apparently wishes us to see him as a hard-bitten champion against the greedy and the self- serving, displays some genuine wide-eyed naivete here. We all know former government officials never act out of self-serving motives, dont't we? In general, the person who is on watch has more of a vested interest in the status quo than someone who no longer on the firing line. Certainly former gov't officials are self-serving. I regard them as less self-serving than current officials, because they don't have to toe a line as closely; the result is more candid testimony. It is indeed not a paper tiger, at least as much as the U.S. is not a paper tiger. I also regard it as a severe threat. It is NOT a fact that it can defeat NATO and the U.S. in either conventional or nuclear warfare; rather this is a *judgment* that Miller makes. Indeed, any *analysis* I have seen points in the other direction; that they cannot. This is not to say that the U.S. could defeat the S.U., but rather to say that the balance is reaonably robust, and that the outcome would be uncertain. Mr. Lin should polish up his reading on military matters, and learn the meaning of the term, combat potential. You want to enlighten us? I used the term in the usual sense of the phrase: the ability to engage in combat given a certain set of surrounding circumstances (e.g., mobilization rates and the like). There is no question that the SU could mop up Western Europe if the NATO countries did nothing, for example. I don't make that assumption, though some people do. If that is what you mean by combat potential, then your statement that the SU has the "potential" to defeat NATO/US forces is simply meaningless. Maybe the DoD uses the phrase as you do, but I don't think so. Given his obviously well-researched comment on Soviet combat potential viz the U.S. and NATO, one must wonder whether he is really concerned with accuracy before putting fingers to keyboard. Some remarks aren't really worth responding to, but since I am being attacked, I will respond anyway. I have in fact done some ball-park calculations that say that the balance is not that bad. I have read a variety of studies that also arrive at the same conclusion. In fact, the farther one gets away from simple bean-counting, the better it looks for the West; this should not be surprising, since the West spends lots more on things that don't show up in simple bean-counts, My only basic point was and is that his and Mr. Cockburn's sources of intelligence may not be of the same quality as those of the intelligence community. I really didn't think that was such an unreasonable point, but Mr. Lin seems to be dismayed by such a ludicrous assumption on my part. One almost gets the impression that he believes he has information sources the intel folks do not. Please re-read my original message. I agree that Cockburn's sources of intelligence may not be of the same quality as those of the intelligence community. I simply question the assumption that those of the intelligence community are *necessarily* better than his. I certainly do not have sources that the intelligence folks do not, but when it comes to analysis, the intelligence community does not necessarily have better analytical tools at its disposal. Moreover, it has no way of distinguishing between good and bad analyses. Thus, its conclusions are most likely correct in some cases, and incorrect in others. It should not be the judge of the correctness of its own output, and therefore people like Cockburn provide a valuable skeptical outlook. I cannot close without complimenting Mr. Lin's debating approach. He refutes an opponent not by presentation of logic, but by using a spurious a priori declaration that any position espoused by the opponent has to be false because the opponent is an unwitting tool of a corrupt system; thus we learn that any information from any DoD source is tainted because all defense people use the taxpayers money to threaten world peace and national interest in pursuit of the budget dollar. Please include a quote from my original message that says "any opsition espoused by the opponent has to be false" or that DoD is by definition is a threat to world peace. I never said that, and I don't even believe it. I just want what DoD says to be taken skeptically. What's wrong with that? ------------------------------ [End of ARMS-D Digest]