arms-d@ucbvax.ARPA (12/05/84)
From: Moderator <ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA> Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 2 : Issue 75 Today's Topics: Administrivia Unilateral Disarmament Replies to Jim Giles (3 msgs) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4-Dec-84 22:13:02-PST From: JLarson.pa@Xerox Subject: Arms-D Administrivia 1) Sorry about the delay. MIT-MC was down for quite a while. 2) We have a new Co-Moderator _Bob <Carter@RUTGERS>, who will be providing welcome relief for the current overworked ones. 3) We have modified our introduction message somewhat, so I have included it below to let you know what we have in mind. "The Arms-Discussion Digest (Arms-D@MIT-MC) is intended to be a forum for discussion of Defense, Arms Control, and Weapons Systems issues. The topics discussed on this list often inspire strong feeling. the Moderator will give priority to short factual messages, over long flames. Readers of the digest often debate Arms-D issues with one another in private messages. The Moderator invites submission of completed sets of private correspondence for editing and inclusion in the digest. Messages are collected, edited into digests and distributed as the volume of mail dictates (usually twice a week). Messages to the list should be addressed to Arms-D@MIT-MC. All requests to be added to or deleted from the list, problems, etc. should be sent to ARMS-D-REQUEST@MIT-MC. Old digests may be FTP'ed from MIT-MC (no login required). They are archived in: BALL; ARMSD ARCn (n>=0, n=8 for recent digests) The current Co-Moderators are: John Larson <JLarson.pa@Xerox> Dave Caulkins <Caulkins@USC-ECL> _Bob <Carter@RUTGERS>" ------------------------------ Date: 26 Nov 1984 0708-PST From: CAULKINS@USC-ECL.ARPA Subject: Unilateral Disarmament To: poli-sci@RUTGERS, arms-d@MIT-MC cc: mcgeer%ucbrob@UCB-VAX In a recent POLI-SCI digest (V4 #105) Rick McGeer said: "... we can never again unilaterally disarm, as we did in the 1970's. ..." The idea that the US somehow disarmed in the 1970s is a myth which seems to have been invented by the Reagan Administration. The facts* are as follows: During the period from 1970 to 1980 the US produced 6 new models of warheads: TYPE PRODUCTION MISSILE # DEPLOYED ---- ---------- ----------- ---------- W62 1967-1978 MMIII 900 W68 1970-1979 Poseidon 3480 W69 1970-1976 SRAM (B-52) 1140 W70 1971-1977 Lance 945 W76 1977-1983 Trident C4 2028 W78 1979-1983 MMIII 900 During the same period the US replaced all Minuteman I missiles with Minuteman IIs (1973); finished deployment of the Minuteman III (1975); and proceeded with development of various flavors of cruise missiles; SLCM (72-79), ALCM (76-79), and GLCM (77-80). This is only a partial list of US disarmament activity in the 70s. * - Nuclear Weapons Databook, Vol 1, U.S. Nuclear Forces and Capabilities ------- ------------------------------ Date: 26 November 1984 16:50-EST From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-MC> Subject: KHRUSHCHEV To: jlg @ LANL cc: ARMS-D @ MIT-MC From jlg: I can't pretend to have read 'all the available evidence' about Khrushchev (at least I can spell the name), but from what I have read, I can't conclude that he was really a 'positive force for change'. A single example ought to clarify the issue. To have become the Soviet leader in the mid-fifties, Khrushchev must have been a fairly high-level official even under the Stalin regime. This means that he must have survived one or more of the purges that took place. I wonder how Khrushchev survived it? ... Well, that's how he survived - he was in charge! What does this have to do with what he did as top honcho of the Soviet Union? As sec'y of the Communist party, he was responsible for placing the military under a greater degree of civilian control; he tried to push to SU towards a nuclear posture that resembled minimum deterrence; he saw that nuclear weapons change the nature of war in an establishment that strongly opposed that observation. All of these are examples of changes for the better, especially when you consider the alternative ------------------------------ Date: 26 November 1984 17:06-EST From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-MC> Subject: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY RESPONSE (LONG) To: jlg @ LANL cc: LIN @ MIT-MC, ARMS-D @ MIT-MC From: jlg at LANL (Jim Giles) I am willing to accept that the communist movement is now somewhat fragmented, perhaps more than you pointed out (remember Poland). But you should not confuse lack of success with lack of intent. If the only Soviet interest is its own social and economic survival then why does it spend over $12 million per DAY supporting Cuba ($4.5 billion per year divided by 365 days - 1976 figures). And what POSSIBLE interests are the Soviets protecting in Nicaragua (don't tell me that they are protecting a formative socialist country, because without Soviet intervention the country would never have had a socialist revolution). Rhetorical questions are great as a debating technique because you don't really expect answers. Let me retaliate. What possible reason could the US have for supporting South Korea? Why do we have a security interest in the Phillippines? What possible reason does the US have in providing tobacco supports while it also provides money to publicize the dangers of smoking? Answer: because the US has a number of conflicting goals, that it cannot resolve. Our security interest in Third World nations overrides our support for human rights in those nations. We have Jesse Helms that must be appeased for tobacco interests, despite the dangers of smoke. Why do you assume that the Soviet Union has a coherent policy when no other government in the world does? Do you think the Soviet Union would go to war if we were to invade Cuba? I think not. How about Nicaragua? I think not. The Soviets intervene when they see that an advantage is to be gained, whether political, economic, or whatever. So does the U.S. I think it's much more important to understand more about Russian politics and government. Unlike the US, Soviet PEOPLE don't make policy. Nor do they in the U.S. How many people believe in a no-first-use policy? about 70%, according to a recent poll done. How many people think we have such a policy? about 85%. Don't tell me that the people here make policy. (I am not arguing that they should; I think the current system is better than the Russian alternative.) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Nov 84 10:33:19 pst From: aurora!eugene@RIACS.ARPA (Eugene miya) To: ames!riacs!arms-d@mit-mc.ARPA Subject: A reply to Jim Giles It is unfortunate that the network has difficulty conveying satire. It is a useful [e.g., Jonathan Swift's "Modest proposal"] in that it takes arguments to an extreme to see whether they fall apart or not (one opinion). To say that we should only look at facts (cold hard) is only part of the picture (as others have pointed out). We show only those facts we want to show. I know this because when I was in high school, I had a job designing parts for the B-1 at Rockwell in LA. My higher ups, when they went to WDC only presented what appeared good. It is not enough to say 'facts,' they are only opinions (even 1+1=2 is an opinion). Tell me (and the net), why we should not bomb the USSR like "we cut cancers out the the body [pardon the Star Trek-like quality of this paraphrasing]" here and now by your basis in logic? Let's not dink around with them! [This is not my personal opinion for those who didn't read my first note on the net. I will not call it satire.] Do you let 'problems' float free at your work place? A comment on other comments about the American social system: I generally agree that the American social system is one of the best in the world. This net discussion, the treads and strides in social reform are impressive. I think in time we and the rest of the world will evolve with changes in our various structures (note what the medical and legal fields are doing with Baby Fae and artificial hearts). What worries me are the increasing numbers of people leaving the US and the comment made by several friends that foreign colleagues find an increasingly hostile attitude in America when they visit. This is still a great country from what I see in the rest of the world. What makes us 'great" is our ability to self-correct our course. If we don't recognize what is wrong with the American system, we can't self-correct. On a personal note: If you (Jim Giles) have only arrived at lanl in the last couple of years, and if you happened to formerly work in Pasadena, CA prior to that, send me a note, we may have worked together. No hard feelings intended in any of this. --eugene miya The above opinions are my own and are not intended to represent those of my employers past or present. ------------------------------ [End of ARMS-D Digest]