arms-d@ucbvax.ARPA (12/20/84)
From: Moderator <ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 2 : Issue 79
Today's Topics:
Lin vs Giles (2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 84 14:53:25 mst
From: jlg@LANL (Jim Giles)
To: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA, LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: KRUSHCHEV ET AL.
Well, there was the invasion of Hungary in 1956, there was the Berlin
wall, there was the Cuban missile crisis.... After Stalin died there
were four men in the running for the top post in the government, after
just three months one of them (Beria) was murdered - guess who had that
done?
I give up; who had that done? (Serious question; please give
citation), and reason why you believe it.)
Khrushchev had it done, Khrushchev himself said he had it done. Please
read some of the references I gave I my first atricle to this newsgroup.
Other references besides Khrushchev's are available which accuse him of
the crime, but even these fall back on Khrushchev's own admission. I
believe it because I have no reason to think Khrushchev was lying about
the event.
Besides, if you are going to cite the causing of international crises
as evidence that someone is ruthless, the U.S. is far from blameless
also. However, in my view, purges (= many many people dead) are
considerably more damning than the fomenting of the incidents of which
you speak.
The invasion of Hungary did '= many many people dead'. If you are saying
that the US is not blameless, I agree; but if you are saying that the US
is as bad as the soviets, I don't agree.
What is there in Khrushchev's past that allows a director
of purge activities to EVER be regarded as a peaceful man BY AMERICAN
STANDARDS. When you lead people to believe that the Soviet leaders have
familiar characteristics - you are leading them down the garden path.
Please explain what you mean by familiar characteristics. You can't
mean K has totally unfamiliar characteristics; you obviously believe
you recognize some of them.
Khrushchev has been described on this newsgroup as a peaceful element and a
positive force for change. Other correspondence to me has described him as
progressive and a dove. These are terms which sound quite appropriate in
reference to some American politicians I can think of (Hubert Humphrey for
example). Perhaps my phrase 'familiar characteristics' was a bit too
vague, the proper phrase might be 'familiar words with positive
connotations'. This does not imply that Soviet leaders don't have some
positive features relatively speaking, but using the same vocabulary
that we use to refer to the traits of people like Humphrey is completely
misleading. This is the point that I have been trying to make since my
first submission.
Civilian control was a political move, Khrushchev didn't trust the
military leaders at the time.
How do you know that? Moreover, why does it matter? It was a good
thing, and it led to a better world. Or would you feel safer if
Soviet nuclear weapons were controlled by the Soviet military?
I know this because I have read the references that I gave in my first
submission. This particular tidbit is from Khrushchev's own memoirs.
This change led to a different world certainly, but not necessarily to a
better one. I do not feel safe with the hand of ANYONE on the nuclear
button. The hand of the civilian head of a police state seems little
different to me from the hand of a military man.
It was Stalin that wanted nuclear weapons treated as 'just big
bombs'. Khrushchev and his associates (not the military) didn't see
any conflict in assigning more importance to nuclear arms.
Conflict with what?
The claim was made that Khrushchev had to fight a hard bureaucratic battle
to get recognition that nuclear weapons constituted a real change in the
nature of warfare. I was pointing out that there was no such conflict.
Stalin was the one who opposed this view of nuclear weapons, when he died
there was little opposition to the new view.
Again, so what? The Soviets are coercive and subversive in the third
world. So is the U.S. I'd rather have both countries screwing around
in the third world than in building ever more nuclear weapons.
Again, if you are trying to say that the US is anywhere near as bad as the
Soviet Union in this are (or anywhere near as effective for that matter), I
must disagree. And I would rather that neither country was doing it.
Also, since nuclear weapons have not been used for nearly 40 years, I don't
see anything wrong with building them. People are really dying in the
third world as a result of Soviet (and yes, US) activity. Use of nuclear
weapons must remain such an unacceptable thing that no one will do it.
I am struck in this interchange by its lack of analytic validity. In
other words, where you stand really does depend on where you sit. If
you start with the premise that the Soviets are bad (choose your own
adjective) and continue to interpret all evidence in such a way as to
support that premise, then the argument is circular. What a priori
criteria can you give us to evaluate a particular piece of evidence
that will not automatically confirm your point of view? For example,
how should we know when to dismiss pieces of evidence as "politically
motivated" or "insincere"? If you cannot provide such criteria, then
we have no reason to believe that any statement you make on the
subject has any validity.
I, also, am disappointed with the quality of this discussion. The question
of Khrushchev's character has been a issue for several weeks now, and no one
has yet given the slightest indication that they know anything about the man.
Only one person has made remarks (on Khrushchev's behalf) that even take
any historical information AT ALL into account, and this is all quite vague
with no references given (not that it's wrong, most of it is substantially
correct - just VERY incomplete). As for my interpretation of the evidence,
I gave references - I can give more. If anyone doubts my interpretation, he
can read through my references in their entirety, and he can suggest further
references of his own. So far, I'm the only one to give ANY references,
which is ironic, considering that only MY motives and sources of information
have been questioned. You are quite right in saying that you cannot judge
the validity of my arguments until you have seen my references and other
sources of information - but I can only give these to you, I can't read them
for you.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 84 16:34:06 mst
From: jlg@LANL (Jim Giles)
To: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA, LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Soviet government quiz
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.
Why? Furthermore, your terms are sloppy. *Undisputed*? By whose
measure? "DIRECTLY"? What does that mean?
Moreover, why is the organizational chart more important than what
really happens?
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.
Understanding Soviet leadership (at least) is a key part of the problem of
world peace. If we don't understand how the Soviet government is organized
and we don't know much about the personalities and beliefs of the leaders
themselves, how can we intelligently set international policy on Soviet
related issues? Herb Lin has been consistantly maintaining that Khrushchev
was a positive or peaceful element in the Soviet Union. Long term
disagreement about the use of these terms without proper modification to
reflect their relative meaning has existed in the net. However that may be,
I think that the 'peaceful' nature perceived is a result of the fact that
Khrushchev was a strong Marxist, whereas most other soviet leaders have
been Leninists. The difference is significant, and without studying the
political structure of the Soviet government, people tend to incorrectly
percieve and characterize it.
A first step for most people in the quest for knowledge (to replace their
vague notions) might be to complete the questionaire I posted. It can't
hurt!
___________________________________________________________________
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe something
because one wishes it to be true - Louis Pastuer
James Giles
------------------------------
Date: 17 December 1984 18:37-EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-MC>
Subject: first use
To: jlg @ LANL
From: jlg at LANL (Jim Giles)
The second meaning is the pledge, AND the restructuring of forces and
exercises and tactical doctrine to reflect this declaratory policy.
Sounds expensive, and politically difficult (as it sould involve re-arming
German and other countries to a degree which NATO has never contemplated,
not all European countries trust each other yet).
I agree that the rearming of Germany is a major problem - big enough
for the reason you mention that NFU will never be adopted.
Despite my reservations about NFU, I think the NATO/Pact balance is
much more favorable to the West than is commonly believed. We spend
lots of money on things that we believe will enhance combat
effectiveness but which are not counted in the usual force comparisons.
There has been a recent outcry on this newsgroup for inclusion of
references, please give some here.
The U.S. spends lots of $ on command and control facilities, but this
is not included in standard bean counts. For the lack of inclusion of
C^3, see any issue of the IISS Military Balance. For the possible
effects C^3 may have, see the Winter 84/85 issue of International
Security - article by Barry Posen.
But both sides have used nuclear weapons to threaten someone else, the
U.S. far more than the Soviets.
While the US has considered the use of nuclear weapons in every major
conflict since WWII, I can't think of any occasion on which any real threat
was made that we would use them. I assume the same holds true for the
Soviets (I haven't heard of any direct threat from the Soviets of this
nature). Of course, both nations flexed their nuclear muscles a bit during
the Cuban missle crisis, but the real solution to that problem was the
American stratigic superiority in conventional weapons in the area. An
implicit threat is sometimes made by putting forces on alert, but both
sides do this with about equal frequency. Please give references to this
claim too.
I don't understand what you mean by a "direct threat". We have said
publically we might use nukes if Country X did or did not do Y, we
have said it privately, we have said it implicitly (by placing forces
on higher alerts). All of these count (in my mind) as using nukes for
coercive (if not warfighting) purposes.
I gave a bunch of references on this issue about a year ago. If
someone archives ARMS-D who would be willing to re-post them, would
that person do so?
tnx.
------------------------------
Date: 17 December 1984 18:44-EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Cuba et. al.
To: jlg @ LANL
From: jlg at LANL (Jim Giles)
YOU (or someone, I think it was you) made the claim the the Soviet
leaders were ONLY interested in the economic and social survival of
the Soviet Union.
Not me. It is clear that both nations have more at stake than simple
economic and social survival.
Then why are you argueing with me? I posted remarks about Soviet activity
in the world to counter the claim tha the Soviets are interested ONLY in
thei own problems.
Then I must have missed something in the original statements that
started this discussion. Sorry if I blew it.
Has it gotten to the point where ANY anti-Soviet
statement is regarded as dangerous and requires retaliation?
Only when the statement is categorical. I would argue with most
categorical statements.
What we should have done is accept NO conditions for the removal of the
missiles. The missiles should have been removed and the conditions
reverted
to the status BEFORE the missile's deployment. The US may even had a
strong
enough position to force the Soviets to make concessions themselves.
By what right would we have done so when we had nuclear missiles
ringing the S.U.?
Except for Bobby Kennedy (who would clearly show himself and his brother
in a good light), I'd like to see your references to the supposed fact
the the US got a good settlement in the Cuban missile crisis.
No reference here; that's my opinion.
Thanks for your references; I will track down the Johnson one.
------------------------------
Date: 17 December 1984 18:53-EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-MC>
Subject: by the people
To: jlg @ LANL
From: jlg at LANL (Jim Giles)
People may not directly MAKE policy in the US, but if we consistently
disagree with the people who do we can (and often do) remove them
from office.
If policy is made from the top down, then I agree with you. But I
have no evidence that it is, except in broad terms. Indeed, the
biggest difficulty that an Administration has in implementing policy
is in reining in the bureaucracy to do its bidding. That is hard, as
any President will admit. The bureaucracy is *not* accountable.
Broad terms seem to be enough. Reagan decided for a stronger defense,
and it can't be denied that we now, at least, spend more on defense.
It is not clear to me that spending more money can be directly equated
to a stronger defense; at least, there is argument over this point.
You seem to saying the the US electorate have NO control whatsoever over
the direction taken by this country.
Not at the micro-level; that is indeed what I am saying.
If enough people had disagreed with
Reagan's defense policies, and felt it strongly enough to vote based on
that issue, the Reagan would have lost. Under Mondale, I have no doubt we
would have started spending less (in relative terms at least) on defense.
Probably. But we would not have a no first use policy.
I don't know what this has to do with my claim the the Soviet people have
no say in their government's policies. Even if we, in the US, had less
control than we do, it still doesn't change the accuracy of my original
statement.
*You* brought up the difference between the U.S. and the Soviets, for
reasons of your own. I happen to *agree* with your original
statement about the Soviets. I just object to red herrings being
thrown in.
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe something
because one wishes it to be true - Louis Pastuer
Is this the original quotation? If so, where does it appear? I have
been trying to track it down for years.
tnx.
herb lin
------------------------------
Date: 17 December 1984 19:05-EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Soviet government quiz
To: jlg @ LANL
From: jlg at LANL (Jim Giles)
[My list of questions] is 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.
Interesting that you and I have reached something of a convergence. I
would quibble just a bit to assert that Soviet history has shaped the
views of the Soviet leadership, but I don't think you'd disagree. I
agree that the Soviet leadership is the appropriate object of study
Herb Lin has been consistantly maintaining that Khrushchev
was a positive or peaceful element in the Soviet Union.
Only relatively speaking, and by comparison to what I've noted about
*other* Soviet leaders, whom I believe to be much worse.
------------------------------
Date: 18 December 1984 19:19-EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-MC>
Subject: truce between JLG and LIN
From: jlg at LANL (Jim Giles)
> Interesting that you and I have reached something of a convergence. I
> would quibble just a bit to assert that Soviet history has shaped the
> views of the Soviet leadership, but I don't think you'd disagree. I
> agree that the Soviet leadership is the appropriate object of study
Of course our statements have converged, I kind of figured they might.
Soviet history is interesting, and perhaps somewhat important in this
context, but how something came to be is less important than what it is.
You and I seem to be in the minority (from the mail I've received) in
the opinion that the leadership is the appropriate target of study.
> Herb Lin has been consistantly maintaining that Khrushchev
> was a positive or peaceful element in the Soviet Union.
>
> Only relatively speaking, and by comparison to what I've noted about
> *other* Soviet leaders, whom I believe to be much worse.
All relative terms should be accompanied by the word 'relative' or some
other appropriate modifier. I don't wish to seem dogmatic about this, but
I have met and corresponded with many people who take praise of communist
leaders very literally. When you make a remark that so-and-so is (was) a
peaceful influence this sort of person can make a lot of mileage out of it,
and use YOU as a reference while he's doing it!
------------------------------
[End of ARMS-D Digest]