arms-d@ucbvax.ARPA (12/21/84)
From: Moderator <ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 2 : Issue 80
Today's Topics:
Dyson's Book
Beyond War Awards
Article On Grenada
Ruthlessness
Seminars in Germany
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 84 11:33:34 cst
From: decvax!genrad!talcott!harvard!uwvax!uwmacc!myers@Berkeley (Jeff Myers)
To: arms-d@mit-mc.ARPA
Subject: Re: Dyson's Book
While I have not yet had a chance to read Dyson's book, I did read his
series of (quite good) articles in the *New Yorker*, which apparently is
a kind of summary of his main arguments in the book.
Two earlier posters mention that he feels that we require a non-nuclear
defensive system. This misses an extremely important point that Dyson
makes, which is that no defensive system is going to work when there is
the present high quantity of nuclear weapons in the world.
We can't put the djin back in the bottle, but Dyson points out in the
*New Yorker* that development of defensive systems NOW will lead only to
a spiraling arms race in both offensive (they're all that, aren't they,
in more ways than one?) of defensive weaponry.
The only way out that Dyson provides in his "Live and Let Live" concept,
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 84 21:45:07 pst
From: Doug Humphrey [w] <digex@lll-crg.ARPA>
To: arms-d@mit-mc.ARPA
In reference t comments by FOY @ AEROSPACE about the Beyond The War
Awards being 'required reading' for people to discuss topics concerning
nuclear issues, I find the idea somewhat offensive. FOY may have found
the awards a 'powerful experience', but I do not see why this should
make it a requirement in order to be able to discuss the issues. What
is a 'powerful experience' for one person, with his or her views is
totaly subjective in nature, and should not be forced upon others. I
doubt if FOY would take well to having several documents of conflicting
view point (of only subjective value) declared as 'required reading'
before being allowed to participate in this forum.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 84 09:41:53 PST
From: Richard Foy <foy@AEROSPACE>
Subject: Misc topics
Re: oaf @mit-mc on Russian Ruthlessness
Thank you for saying it. It is hard for me to understand why so many people
only seem to think about politics in black and white terms.
Re: Nuclear Winter
The discussion I hear and the things I read in various publications about the
severity and probability of nuclear winter makes me wonder if we are not like
someone asking are there one or two bullets in the gun before deciding not to
play Russian Roulette.
Re: Christian Science Monitor Contest
Sometime ago someone on the net mentioned a contest that the Christian Science
Moniator was haveing. The contest required a discussion of ending of the
nucleararms race written from the perspective of the year 2010. I entered a
short storywhich I will be glad ato send a copy to anyone that sends me their
U.
S. mail address. I don't feel like typing it into the net.
Richard
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 84 17:21:48 EST
From: Michael_D'Alessandro%Wayne-MTS%UMich-MTS.Mailnet@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
To: arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Article On Grenada
ABC's _Nightline_ with Ted Koppel had a show on a while
back about the U.S. invasion of Grenada. On the show
was a professor by the name of Richard or Paul
Schrieber who had written an article that claimed that
the U.S. sustained an inordinate number of casualties
in the operation, and that the U.S. was covering up the
actual casualty figures. He also claimed that the first
U.S. forces on the island were the Delta Force
commandos, and that they took pretty heavy casualties.
Schrieber was ex-military intelligence, and seemed to
know what he was talking about. I would like to find
the article he wrote. He co-authored it along with
another professor at the small college he teaches at.
Did anyone read his article, and if so, where can I
find it? It came out some time in October, right before
the first anniversary of the U.S invasion of Grenada.
Michael D'Alessandro
Dept. of Computer Science
Wayne State University
<<Internet>>:
Michael_D'Alessandro%Wayne-MTS%UMich-MTS.Mailnet@MIT-Multics.ARPA
(or if your mailer does not like apostrophes...)
Userid=GD1B%Wayne-MTS%UMich-MTS.Mailnet@MIT-Multics.ARPA
------------------------------
Date: 18 Dec 1984 0122-PST
From: Rem@IMSSS
Subject: Challanges vs. ISR
To: ARMS-D%MIT-MC@SCORE
cc: JLG%LANL@SCORE
> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 84 21:49:17 mst
> From: jlg@LANL (Jim Giles)
> ... So I will make an explicit challenge:
> 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.
In my opinion, such a trivia contest (can you answer MY particular
questions?) is not a good way to handle the information problem. Each
person has a different set of facts at his/her disposal. A trivia
contest is essentially a trapdoor test. It's easy for you to make up
questions for which you know the answers, but difficult for somebody
who doesn't know one of the answers to find it out except by asking
you for the answer, which by your standards means that person wasn't
competant to discuss world affairs. But suppose you know only five
things in the whole subject area, and I know twenty, of which four are
among the five you know and the other sixteen are among the infinitude
you don't know. So you put up your five as trivia questions, and I can
answer only four of them, so you classify me as not as smart as you
because you know all five and I know only four.
Do you see the problem? You see the five things you know as the most
important things anybody should know, but perhaps there are many other
equally important things you don't know. Who are you to judge us as
not qualified just because we don't know the answers to the questions
you in your biassed opinion and limited knowledge consider to be the
five most important questions?
Now consider the question from another perspective. Suppose I don't
know the answers to your questions. What is most efficient, for you to
post a set of challange questions and for me to spend many hours at
the library trying to find the answers, perhaps failing miserably, or
for you to post yourself as an available expert willing to answer over
the net any questions I may have in this general subject area and for
me to make use of your service whenever I am thinking about preventing
nuclear war and need some particular fact? I see the latter as
desirable. Use the network as an information network, where people
with questions ask them of people who claim to be experts, and where
those experts can either answer questions themselves or pass them
along to others more knowledgable in special subject areas.
One thing I dislike about Ronald Reagan is that he tries to answer all
questions himself, by guesswork in too many cases, as if playing a
trivial game with the press, instead of referring questions of fact to
somebody who knows the correct answer. I wish he had a staff present
(live or via computer network) at press conferences, so when asked a
question of fact he can say "I think the answer is ... but before
making any important decision I'd check with my staff to be sure I'm
correct. Let me demonstrate that now: ... ... Aha, my expert on social
security tells me I was correct about ... but slightly incorrect about
..., good thing I base my decisions on expert advice instead of one
man's memory." I'd like to see ARMS-D people who are more familar with
computer networks than Reagan set an example of using computer
networks for access to information instead of for "I'm smarter than
you" challanges that are based on unfair techniques such as trapdoor questions.
> People don't make good decisions in an information vacuum.
Hear! Hear!
> From: Richard Foy <foy@AEROSPACE>
> I wonder how many of the participants in this discussion group saw the
> award cerimonies which presented the The Beyond War Award for 1984 to
> the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. It was
> a very powerful experience and I believe that it should be required
> viewing for anyone who wants to comment on or vote on the issues of
> nuclear armaments and policy.
Normally I'd let this pass because I might agree watching it is
beneficial. But in the above context if trivia contest I wonder if the
impression is that if you didn't happen to watch this particular TV
show then you aren't qualified to discuss arms control? If there were
an easy for people who missed that program to see it now, then maybe
I'd agree that everyone should watch it now before proceeding with
discussion, but as the case is there's no way we can watch it, there's
no network videotape library including such things with convenient
low-cost (or free) access to tapes and players, thus it's unfair to
tell somebody who happened to miss it "sorry Charlie, you missed the
program so you're not qualified to discuss arms control, I don't care
if it won't be rerun any time in the next ten years, you are out of
these discussions until you find some way to watch it".
I trust that wasn't the intent of Foy's message, but just in case
anybody interpreted it that way I thought I'd rebut it now.
-------
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 84 17:01:30 mst
From: jlg@LANL (Jim Giles)
To: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: ruthlessness (I haven't seen ruth in years)
From: oaf@MIT-MC
Oops, have I missed something? Are the Russians more ruthless than the
Americans? The French? The Cambodians? Vietnamese? Afghani Mujahedin?
Turks? Hausas? Israelis? Syrians? Chermans? Iranis? Iraqis?
Indonesians? Ugandans? Japanese? Belgians? Salvadorans?
Evidence, please. Would the people claiming that the Russkies are something
special, and as a result not-negotiable-with, or perhaps not-negotiable-with
though nothing special, please indicate their reasons. In particular, would
the people proclaiming our strategic moral stance superior to theirs kindly
indicate their reasons.
Evidence indeed!!! Examine the evidence, the number of people killed, the
supposed reasons for the activity, the situations involved - can you really
support the notion that Soviet, NAZI, or Cambodian situations are even
remotely comparable with most of the others? Where are the MILLIONS killed
by the US or France to compare with those killed by these other regimes?
Where are the TENS OF MILLIONS of slave laborers in America? (I know,
we don't pay the illegal aliens much, but slavery?) Where are the peacetime
massachres (against the American Indians)? Do these really compare?
Give me some more specifics, maybe you can convince me that these types
of activities are characteristic of the the US at the present time. I
doubt it. Here is another case in recent memory where someone demands
references but supplies none to support his own claims. WHY AM I THE
ONLY ONE ON THIS DISCUSSION WHO GIVES REFERENCES?
-------------
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe something
because one wishes it to be true - Louis Pastuer
James Giles
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 84 11:51:46 mst
From: jlg@LANL (Jim Giles)
To: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA, REM@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: quiz
> In my opinion, such a trivia contest (can you answer MY particular
> questions?) is not a good way to handle the information problem. Each
> person has a different set of facts at his/her disposal. A trivia
> contest is essentially a trapdoor test. It's easy for you to make up
> questions for which you know the answers, but difficult for somebody
> who doesn't know one of the answers to find it out except by asking
> you for the answer, which by your standards means that person wasn't
> competant to discuss world affairs.
If your only source of information of this type is ME, you are in a lot
of trouble. Even a moderately bad library should have several books on
the Soviet Union which would contain the general answers to the questions
above. The specific individuals who currently occupy the top posts can
be discovered by referencing any of several periodicals on diplomatic and
arms control issues.
I didn't post this quiz to make myself look smart. Rather, it was posted
to encourage other readers of the discussion to look up references and try
to find out things for themselves. I am not a political scientist, so I
don't have all the answers - I have never pretended to have. But even if I
were leading expert on the Soviet Union in the free world, I would still
encourage you to do your own research. As recent discussion on this group
has shown, people may interpret the evidence in several different ways. To
form your own opinion, there is no substitute for knowkedge!
> Now consider the question from another perspective. Suppose I don't
> know the answers to your questions. What is most efficient, for you to
> post a set of challange questions and for me to spend many hours at
> the library trying to find the answers, perhaps failing miserably, or
> for you to post yourself as an available expert willing to answer over
> the net any questions I may have in this general subject area and for
> me to make use of your service whenever I am thinking about preventing
> nuclear war and need some particular fact? I see the latter as
> desirable.
I don't. I wouldn't want to be responsible to be your only source of
information on these issues and neither would any other participant in this
discussion. The network is contributed to by people who have other jobs to
do and only submit articles in their spare time. As such, it is less
reliable than the news media, who at least are paid, full time reporters
(and we all know how incomplete the picture presented by the news media
is). If you don't want to spend an occasional hour in the library trying
to learn this stuff, then you probably won't learn it at all. Most network
contributors have time to discuss the issue at whatever level seems
appropriate at the time. My quiz, and my encouragement for people to go do
some research on their own, is an attempt to raise the level of this
discussion away from idle speculation to some really informed dialogue.
I don't claim that the questions that I asked were the ONLY important
questions about the Soviet Union, but if you find a reference that gives
the answers to these questions, you will probably also have a good starting
point for gaining further information as well. If I were to just tell you
the answers to these questions, that's all you would learn - clearly it's
to your advantage to look the stuff up yourself. I don't have time to
write a complete history of the Soviet Union for you. It would be silly
for me to try anyway, since historians, diplomats, and political scientists
have already done a much better job than I could ever hope to.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something
because one wishes it to be so - Louis Pastuer
James Giles
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 84 10:01:36 -0100
From: Daniel Karrenberg <sun!unido!dfk@Berkeley>
To: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Queries on Seminars in Germany
Cc: rbiffm!lange@Berkeley
forwarded for Michael Lange <lange@rbiffm.UUCP>:
I am a member of the German 'Forum Informatiker fuer den Frieden und gesell-
schaftliche Verantwortung'. I want to ask you some questions in the name of
the Frankfurt group.
At the end of october we got the information that TMSA (Technical Marketing
Society of America) together with SAS (State of the Art Seminars) planned to
do a seminar on 'Electronic Warfare - Technology for the 80's & beyond'.
We got the program of this completely military seminar and announced this
together with a note of protest to the newspapers, television, radio and so on.
The seminar was announced for 19-20 November 1984 and should take place in the
Interconti-hotel of Frankfurt. Some days before this date TMSA cancelled the
seminar without giving any reason.
Now we received a new announcement of a seminar by TMSA and SAS. Title: Parame-
trics; referents: Noel E. Hargrove and Henry "Hank" Apgar. They deal with
topics like "DoD Parametric Information Request Forms", "DoD Proposal Pricing -
Current Policies and Law", "What is the Defense Contract Audit Agency's New
Policy on Cost Models?" and so on.
The seminar will take place on 21-22 January 1985 in Munich, Sheraton Hotel.
We are interested in any information you can give us about TMSA and the refe-
rents.
Answers and hints to:
Michael Lange
Universitaet Frankfurt, FB Informatik
Senckenberganlage 31
6000 Frankfurt/M
W-Germany
Electronic mail address:
hpda!hpfcla!hpbbn!unido!rbiffm!lange@BERKELEY.ARPA or
lange@rbiffm.UUCP
Sincerely Yours,
Michael Lange
------------------------------
[End of ARMS-D Digest]