arms-d@ucbvax.ARPA (12/29/84)
From: Moderator <ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 2 : Issue 83
Today's Topics:
NATO missiles, Cuban missiles
Results vs. Reasons
Bias, economic freedom, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 21 Dec 84 10:29 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: NATO missiles, Cuban missiles
To: jlg@LANL.ARPA
The NATO treaties REQUIRE all nuclear forces in Europe to be under the
unilateral control of the US. The treaty was written that way because
European countries don't trust each-other much. Still, the missiles
were placed there to counter equivalent Soviet Missiles in that theatre.
I still think that the Cuban missiles were not justifiable on the basis
of NATO forces, no matter how large.
I accept the Soviet definition of "strategic" warhead as one that can
damage the home country, regardless of where it comes from. If you
don't, you're entitled. If you accept their definition, then Soviet
missiles in Cuba seem quite reasonable from a Soviet perspective: U.S.
controls nuclear missiles based in Eurpoe aimed at the S.U., Soviets
control nuclear missiles in Cuba aimed at US.
I'm not that new to the net, I read it for some weeks before contributing.
Over the *years* that this digest has been operating, people have
given references from time to time. I do apologize for a misreading
of your statement -- I thought you meant "this discussion" as the
DIGEST, rather than the discussion of your particular points. I agree
that references have been spotty on this list, but you are simply not
the *only* one who gives references.
BTW, I have noted that your references seem particularly singular. I
appreciate the full Johnson citation, and I will track it down, but I
can't help but be struck by the observation that most of your
references have come from that one book.
As for my supposed biases, I'm biased toward the evidence. The evidence
points somewhat to the 'right' of the average contributor to this list.
While not denying that there are many leftish leaning people who pay
no attention to the evidence, the same is true of many rightish
leaning people as well - I venture to say that many on this list feel
that *you* belong to this category. As you know, a piece of evidence
does not stand alone. One must take into account the source, the
motivations for why that piece of evidence was included and not some
others, and so on. My observation that your references seem singular
makes me wonder if you are simply choosing sources and references that
*already* agree with your point of view, especially given your
admission in the next sentence.
(I always wondered how an educated person could develope a liberal bias
in the first place.
Indeed, this comment does not do justice to those with liberal biases,
who often think the same thing about those with conservative biases.
Personal and, especially, economic freedoms tend
to disappear in direct proportion to the degree to which a country
socializes.
The former yes, the latter not in the way you think. The Chinese have
a system in which political rights are suppressed but in which
economic rights are supported. Thus, people *do* get food, medical
care, and so on to a much larger extent than they got it before the
Revolution. They have paid a high price, one that I'm not sure I
would be willing to pay, but my perspective is that of a person with
an upper middle class background, and I've never had to struggle for
food. A single mother in the South Bronx with no job skills might
have a different perspective on the equity of the American system vs
the Chinese system.
What is there about liberalism that people find attractive
enough to uncritically embrace it?)
The enlightened liberals DON'T embrace it uncritically; they just make
different assumptions about things like ethics. You may not like
those assumptions, but that doesn't mean they are uncritical.
I seems that THEIR biases have long since been passed over and ignored.
If you doubt that there is a liberal bias among the contributors, I can
think of several TRUE statements that would probably draw them out.
That would be an interesting litmus test; I would like to see it.
Meanwhile, let me post my own.
------------------------------
Date: 21 Dec 84 09:34:21 PST (Fri)
To: jlg@LANL.ARPA
Subject: Re: Cuba
From: Martin D. Katz <katz@UCI-ICSE.ARPA>
You (Jim Giles) have encouraged people to go to the sources and do some
research -- Commendable. But, in my opinion, your methods of doing so are
not commendable. The problem is that as an interactive medium, this digest
serves two functions: (1) discussion and (2) a (nonreferreed)
news/educational medium. I am not embarrassed to say that most of my reading
in arms related issues for the past few months has been this digest. The
digest capsulizes information in a way which no journal or newspaper can:
discussions assume that the reader has been reading along and so the author
doesn't have to start from scratch each time. The journal articles I have
read spend most of their space recapitulating old material.
As a normally educated (in the sciences) reader, I know where to look for
basic facts about a country (e.g., Encyclopaedia Britannica and a World
Almanac), but I am unwilling to slog through volumes of opinion based
material (e.g., all political science writing) without a map. The problem
is really one of credibility. Contrary to your assertion, I consider the
material (when backed by references) in this digest to be more credible than
newspapers. I realize that there might be a problem with people getting
caught up emotionally in an issue and writing unfounded opinions about
issues, but I feel that much of this can be recognized in course of a
discussion (a major advantage of the medium).
I do not actively participate in technical discussions because I am not an
expert on the areas being discussed. I do make comments or provide pointers
to research and literature when the discussion digresses into a realm where
I have sufficient background or where a nontechnical opinion is clearly
called for (such as this message).
An avid reader,
Martin Katz
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 84 11:56:03 PST
From: Charlie Crummer <crummer@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
To: arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Results vs. Reasons
This is a response to Rem who asked what I meant by "results vs. reasons
for no results.
Have you ever heard spokesman for the administration say, "Well, the Soviets
just walked out of the arms talks. See, I told you it was their fault!"?
(or words like that) If you were a member of a union and hired a negotiator
who came back from the negotiation table and said, "Well, management did it
again, they walked away from the table. See, I told you they were
unreasonable.It just goes to show you that they are downright evil!", would
you say he had
done his job? No, his job is to come back with a CONTRACT! This implies
negotiating skill part of which is making sure that the negotiations CONTINUE
until a satisfactory contract is achieved. NOTHING ELSE REALLY COUNTS! The
time has past when we could think that it's OK if the negotiations don't
bear fruit, we can always go to war! Wake up! We, i.e. U.S. and U.S.S.R.
CAN'T go to war. The answer MUST be found in negotiation.
We should not sit still for endless excuses and explanations
about why our administration does not get results in arms negotiations.
While the discussion between Lin and Giles is interesting, I don't see where
it leads. Whether or not Khrushchev was a "good guy" or a "bad guy" is not
relevant to the situation we face. Even whether Chernenko is a "good
guy" or a "bad guy" is not. We know two things for sure: 1) They are human
beings, 2) We are and will be living with them or their successors on this
planet. If Mr. Giles thinks that he has a PROOF that it is impossible for
us to establish a safe, amicable relationship with the Soviet Union, I
submit that he does not know the nature of proof. Such a proof is impossible
on purely logical grounds. We therefore should ACT AS IF such a relationship
is possible and to our MUTUAL benefit and work toward it.
--Charlie
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 84 12:03:16 mst
From: jlg@LANL.ARPA (Jim Giles)
To: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA, LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Bias, economic freedom, etc.
> I accept the Soviet definition of "strategic" warhead as one that can
> damage the home country, regardless of where it comes from. If you
> don't, you're entitled. If you accept their definition, then Soviet
> missiles in Cuba seem quite reasonable from a Soviet perspective: U.S.
> controls nuclear missiles based in Eurpoe aimed at the S.U., Soviets
> control nuclear missiles in Cuba aimed at US.
The US controls missiles based in NATO countries aimed at the SU, and the
SU has missiles based in SU and Warsaw Pact countries aimed at NATO. This
still seems to have little to do with basing missiles in the Western
Hemisphere - or, at least, it seemed to have little relevance at the time
of the Cuban missile crisis. In any event, this arguement over fairness
has gone far enough. There is no reason for anyone to have been fair at
the time of the crisis. During that interval of the Cold War, both sides
were trying to take as much advantage of the other as possible. That
motivation was undoubtedly what was behind the Soviet move to install the
missiles in the first place.
> I agree
> that references have been spotty on this list, but you are simply not
> the *only* one who gives references.
I am the only one in recent past who's references and motives have been
repeatedly called into question (see below). This perhaps explains my
testiness on this issue.
> BTW, I have noted that your references seem particularly singular. I
> appreciate the full Johnson citation, and I will track it down, but I
> can't help but be struck by the observation that most of your
> references have come from that one book.
This is because I'm presently reading that book and therefore most familiar
with what it contains. I only get a chance to delve into history texts
once every few months or so and the most recent usually remains freshest
in memory. In addition, Johnson's treatment of this interval of history
is the most complete and well reported I've seen in a while. And the
bibliography included is worth the price of the book. In any case, other
sources are available - I'm the only one I know who's read Khrushchev's
memoirs, which I've referenced several times in this discussion as well
(a long and very dry set of volumes, I really can't claim to have read them
in their entirety).
> (I always wondered how an educated person could develope a liberal bias
> in the first place.
>
> Indeed, this comment does not do justice to those with liberal biases,
> who often think the same thing about those with conservative biases.
So do I, but it's liberal biases that seem to be over-represented on this
discussion list.
> The Chinese have
> a system in which political rights are suppressed but in which
> economic rights are supported. Thus, people *do* get food, medical
> care, and so on to a much larger extent than they got it before the
> Revolution.
Certain MINIMAL economic rights are supported. However, they have no right
to own and dispose of property as they see fit, they have no right to
change profession or residence as the see fit and can afford, and if they
become ill and have a little extra saved - they would find it difficult to
buy additional medical help with their extra money (actually, probably
impossible).
> They have paid a high price, one that I'm not sure I
> would be willing to pay, but my perspective is that of a person with
> an upper middle class background, and I've never had to struggle for
> food. A single mother in the South Bronx with no job skills might
> have a different perspective on the equity of the American system vs
> the Chinese system.
There are no single mothers in China (not officially anyway). The Chinese
also don't permit ANYONE to have more than one child, even if their own
economic circumstances could support more. [NOVA programme on population
control in China - last year, I don't remember the title.] In addition,
there are no people without job skills in China, anyone who cannot - or
will not - learn to work in a factory, store, or other urban job will be
sent to one of the collective farms to do manual labor. As hard as life
is for the woman in the South Bronx, I think she would prefer to remain
where she is in preference to China.
In the US, the poor can actually receive better medical and food assistance
than the Chinese. Unfortunately we don't have the manpower to go out
and investigate all welfare claims directly, so inequities exist. Also,
people here are required to go to the government to get the assistance they
need. (They have to do all the legwork themselves: filling out forms, going
to the right places for interviews, etc.. It's no wonder that many people
don't receive the benefits they are entitled, they may not know where to go.)
Our system may be inefficient, and it has inequities (many welfare cheaters
are on the rolls, and many others don't get what they need), but in general
it provides better care than the average Chinese citizen gets.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something
because one wishes it to be so - Louis Pasteur
James Giles
------------------------------
From: Laurinda Rohn <rohn@RAND-UNIX.ARPA>
Date: 21 Dec 84 12:56:25 PST (Fri)
To: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V2 #81
> From: jlg@LANL (Jim Giles)
> What office(s) and title(s) must a man hold to be considered the
> undisputed head of the Soviet government? What bureaucratic
> structures are DIRECTLY beneath said leader in the government
> heirarchy? What official mechanisms exist for the change in
> leadership should that prove necessary (current leader dies for
> example)?
> I claim that anyone who cannot answer all three of these questions
> (at least) is not in a very good position to assess policy that
> involves the Soviets. Two other questions are paramount: ... <two
> more like above> ... The best score would be if I could get a
> significant number of people to look this stuff up.
I must disagree with you here. The first question is basically relevant,
but "undisputed" is too vague. Undisputed by whom? I find the second
question pretty irrelevant. Anyone can memorize an organizational chart.
So what? I think a good understanding of Soviet history and culture is
orders of magnitude more important than knowing who reports to whom. I
agree that it is also necessary to know something about the current and
past leaders of the country, but that alone absolutely will not do.
> It's not more important than what really happens. It is more important
> than knowledge of Soviet people or culture in the task of figuring out
> WHY things happen. In fact, this questionaire was aimed at those people
> who have claimed that we must understand the Soviet people and their history
> and culture. Since the Soviet people don't make policy, they are somewhat
> less relevant than their leadership.
Please remember that the Soviet leaders were at one time, and presumably
still are, Soviet people. They have the Soviet mindset and Soviet attitudes.
Knowledge of their culture and history is at least as important, and quite
possibly more important, than knowing the functions of the various Secretaries
to the Central Committee. (I can recommend books if anyone is interested.)
Lauri
rohn@rand-unix.ARPA
..decvax!randvax!rohn
------------------------------
[End of ARMS-D Digest]