arms-d@ucbvax.ARPA (11/03/84)
From: Moderator <ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA> Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 2 : Issue 69 Today's Topics: Implications of Nuclear Winter (2 msgs) CSM essay contest ideas 'Concious' game ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 30 Oct 84 20:32:06 PST From: Charlie Crummer <crummer@AEROSPACE> To: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA Subject: Arms-Discussion Digest V2 #68 I submit that the Nuclear Winter findings only serve to clinch the obsolescence of war. The use of war as "continuation of policy by other means" depends on the ability of the combatants to maintain the integrity of that which is being defended. When the act of war will surely destroy that for which the war is being fought, territory, national identity, orlife itself, then war as a rational activity is "spoiled". The only way such a war could be initiated is by the bureaucratic machinery of a nation or nations as organisms, in some sense inferior to an amoeba on the evolutionary scale, striving for survival in some neanderthal understanding of the word. I think that the danger that presents itself can only be averted by people. Human beings with the common sense they were born with. Hitler saw survival in his last days as the destruction of the German people (see "An Anatomy of Human Destructiveness" by Erich Fromm). The primitive organisms which are the nations may indeed perceive survival of the state as external to the survival of any of its people (The current affirmation that the US is prepared to wage, SURVIVE, and win a six (6) month protracted nuclear war is witness to this insanity. The state's survival means the survival of the bureaucracy; the data and network of bureaus that make it up. People have always been expendable.) If the race is to survive it will probably be due to the incomparable wonder of democracy. Inefficient, yes but it really does respond to the will (common sense, humanity, morality, ethics) of the people. Despite what it seems many think, this country is not a monarchy or dictatorship. Neither Reagan nor Mondale can be absolute dictators. The bad news is that it is up to the people to lead. Unless we do we will to drift, leaderless, toward catastrophe. We, the people have the responsibility for our fates (indeeed the fate of the planet). "If the People Lead, eventually the leaders will follow." There IS NO TECHNOLOGICAL SOLUTION! --Charlie ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Oct 84 21:24:34 PST From: Charlie Crummer <crummer@AEROSPACE> To: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA Subject: Arms-Discussion Digest V2 #67 Ideas for the CSM essay contest: 1. American people wake up and realize that the power of the US lies in its political system, not in its weaponry. 2. They also realize that all people in the world are human and have not only the same needs as they but also the same potential of intelligence and productivity. 3. The American people see that the democratic system only holds the POTENTIAL for the salvation of the world from nuclear holocaust. It is up to the people to lead and demand that the officials in whatever administration produce results. The confusion between results and reasons for no results is ended. 4. The US becomes the true leader in the evolution beyond war by affecting Soviet policy; by playing to the positive forces in the Soviet Union and thus giving them power. The power residing in the dangerous hawks naturally dies out and they (as well as our own fear-ridden crazies) gradually become a harmless fringe group. 5. There are still conflicts but all know that they can and must be resolved without war. War is as obsolete now as is the Catholic inquisition and genocide are for the rectifying of "wrongs". --Charlie ------------------------------ Date: 31 Oct 1984 12:03:51-EST From: sde@Mitre-Bedford To: arms-d@mit-mc Subject: 'Concious' game Brilliant satire of a leftist mind at work. Of course, if the idea really wasn't meant as a satire, then one should point out that what has been suggested is the deliberate creation of a variety of information disease; such an information disease would, of course, be most likely to strike at those countries allowing free flow of information and least likely to seriously impinge on the tightly controlled countries. In other words, what is suggested is a method of undermining the free world's will to resist. In the old days, this was called psychological warfare. If I wanted to be really blunt, which I do, I therefore would remark that there is a clause in the U.S. constitution about 'levying war' against the U.S. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Nov 84 17:17:00 cst From: "Walter G. Rudd" <rudd%lsu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa> To: ARMS-D@mit-mc.csnet Subject: Implications of the nuclear winter What started out as a fruitful discussion of the strategic implications of the nuclear winter degenerated into an argu- ment over who might or might not be classified as nuclear crazy states. If a nuclear crazy state is one that threatens to destroy the world if somebody messes with it in the wrong way, then we need not look beyond our own shores to find one. If there is such a thing as a sense of morals in the arms race, then it seems to me that the nuclear winter radically alters the picture. Before the NW idea, the situation was sort of like the professional boxing business: if two people want to beat each others' brains out, that's fine so long as the audience doesn't get hurt terribly. There might be a few blood spatters onto the people at ringside. But the NW threatens to kill the entire audience, a prospect that is not liable to please them, especially since they are forced to attend the fight. The boxers in the ring have not only their own potential suicide for their consciences. They now must accept the moral responsibility for the potential kil- ling of everyone else. The audience's only chance for survival is to stop the fight. This fact leads to some positive ideas, per Maas' request. The prospect of NW means that ALL the nations of the world, not just the ones in blast or fallout zones, have a vested interest in stopping the arms race and in reducing the world's total nuclear stockpile to a level below the NW threshold. For example, countries in the southern hemi- sphere that once felt secure can no longer assume that they would not be severely, perhaps fatally, harmed as a result of the NW. The hope for nuclear arms reduction is that, realizing this fact, the nuclear have-nots will join together to force the superpowers to eliminate the threat. There are several existing groups of nations, such as the European Common Market, the OAS, and OPEC, that could serve as the nuclei to apply anti-nuclear pressures on the nations that threaten them. Some possible measures are economic boycotts, a shift by allies of both sides to more neutral stances, and threats to default on loans funded by the superpowers. One can even envision a situation in which, threatened by an imminent large exchange of nuclear weapons, an alliance of nuclear have-not nations could launch attacks using conventional weapons against the nuclear forces of the superpowers as a last-ditch effort to save themselves. A nation with an informed government - one that understands the implications of the NW threat - would have to partici- pate in anti-nuclear measures as a matter of self-defense. The NW theory is too new and details too sketchy as yet for nations to have learned about it or to take it as a serious threat. But in a few years, this situation could change, particularly if organizations like the UN help in the educa- tional process. There already is some evidence that the nuclear have-nots might indeed band together in a movement against the nuclear haves. For example, there was a recent proposal in the UN to impose a tax on nations in proportion to additions they make to their nuclear arsenals. The proceeds from the tax were to go to a fund to be used to repair the damage done to third-world nations damaged, through no fault of their own, in a nuclear war. New Zealand and Australia are showing a great deal of reluctance to have any nuclear weapons in their vicinity, as are some NATO nations. The NW threat is bound to increase this kind of open resistance to the arms race. An interesting side effect of all this is that people in the US that push for actions by other nations to pressure the superpowers into arms reductions will be in the awkward position of advocating economic and other measures against the US that will appear to be against the best interests of the US. A decade with no real progress toward arms reduction leads one to believe that the two great macho powers will not, as a result of internal pressures or the threat they pose to each other, make a serious effort to reduce nuclear arms. It is doubtful that moral arguments about their threat to eliminate the human race will have any effect. Therefore, we must hope that external pressures from the world community will force them into taking actions they would not otherwise take. At the very least, external pressures could help both sides to reduce nuclear armaments without "losing face." Perhaps the nuclear winter is the trigger it will take to send the world community further down this path to disarma- ment. ------------------------------ [End of ARMS-D Digest]
arms-d@ucbvax.ARPA (11/03/84)
From: Moderator <ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA> Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 2 : Issue 69 Today's Topics: Implications of Nuclear Winter (2 msgs) CSM essay contest ideas 'Concious' game ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 30 Oct 84 20:32:06 PST From: Charlie Crummer <crummer@AEROSPACE> To: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA Subject: Arms-Discussion Digest V2 #68 I submit that the Nuclear Winter findings only serve to clinch the obsolescence of war. The use of war as "continuation of policy by other means" depends on the ability of the combatants to maintain the integrity of that which is being defended. When the act of war will surely destroy that for which the war is being fought, territory, national identity, orlife itself, then war as a rational activity is "spoiled". The only way such a war could be initiated is by the bureaucratic machinery of a nation or nations as organisms, in some sense inferior to an amoeba on the evolutionary scale, striving for survival in some neanderthal understanding of the word. I think that the danger that presents itself can only be averted by people. Human beings with the common sense they were born with. Hitler saw survival in his last days as the destruction of the German people (see "An Anatomy of Human Destructiveness" by Erich Fromm). The primitive organisms which are the nations may indeed perceive survival of the state as external to the survival of any of its people (The current affirmation that the US is prepared to wage, SURVIVE, and win a six (6) month protracted nuclear war is witness to this insanity. The state's survival means the survival of the bureaucracy; the data and network of bureaus that make it up. People have always been expendable.) If the race is to survive it will probably be due to the incomparable wonder of democracy. Inefficient, yes but it really does respond to the will (common sense, humanity, morality, ethics) of the people. Despite what it seems many think, this country is not a monarchy or dictatorship. Neither Reagan nor Mondale can be absolute dictators. The bad news is that it is up to the people to lead. Unless we do we will to drift, leaderless, toward catastrophe. We, the people have the responsibility for our fates (indeeed the fate of the planet). "If the People Lead, eventually the leaders will follow." There IS NO TECHNOLOGICAL SOLUTION! --Charlie ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Oct 84 21:24:34 PST From: Charlie Crummer <crummer@AEROSPACE> To: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA Subject: Arms-Discussion Digest V2 #67 Ideas for the CSM essay contest: 1. American people wake up and realize that the power of the US lies in its political system, not in its weaponry. 2. They also realize that all people in the world are human and have not only the same needs as they but also the same potential of intelligence and productivity. 3. The American people see that the democratic system only holds the POTENTIAL for the salvation of the world from nuclear holocaust. It is up to the people to lead and demand that the officials in whatever administration produce results. The confusion between results and reasons for no results is ended. 4. The US becomes the true leader in the evolution beyond war by affecting Soviet policy; by playing to the positive forces in the Soviet Union and thus giving them power. The power residing in the dangerous hawks naturally dies out and they (as well as our own fear-ridden crazies) gradually become a harmless fringe group. 5. There are still conflicts but all know that they can and must be resolved without war. War is as obsolete now as is the Catholic inquisition and genocide are for the rectifying of "wrongs". --Charlie ------------------------------ Date: 31 Oct 1984 12:03:51-EST From: sde@Mitre-Bedford To: arms-d@mit-mc Subject: 'Concious' game Brilliant satire of a leftist mind at work. Of course, if the idea really wasn't meant as a satire, then one should point out that what has been suggested is the deliberate creation of a variety of information disease; such an information disease would, of course, be most likely to strike at those countries allowing free flow of information and least likely to seriously impinge on the tightly controlled countries. In other words, what is suggested is a method of undermining the free world's will to resist. In the old days, this was called psychological warfare. If I wanted to be really blunt, which I do, I therefore would remark that there is a clause in the U.S. constitution about 'levying war' against the U.S. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Nov 84 17:17:00 cst From: "Walter G. Rudd" <rudd%lsu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa> To: ARMS-D@mit-mc.csnet Subject: Implications of the nuclear winter What started out as a fruitful discussion of the strategic implications of the nuclear winter degenerated into an argu- ment over who might or might not be classified as nuclear crazy states. If a nuclear crazy state is one that threatens to destroy the world if somebody messes with it in the wrong way, then we need not look beyond our own shores to find one. If there is such a thing as a sense of morals in the arms race, then it seems to me that the nuclear winter radically alters the picture. Before the NW idea, the situation was sort of like the professional boxing business: if two people want to beat each others' brains out, that's fine so long as the audience doesn't get hurt terribly. There might be a few blood spatters onto the people at ringside. But the NW threatens to kill the entire audience, a prospect that is not liable to please them, especially since they are forced to attend the fight. The boxers in the ring have not only their own potential suicide for their consciences. They now must accept the moral responsibility for the potential kil- ling of everyone else. The audience's only chance for survival is to stop the fight. This fact leads to some positive ideas, per Maas' request. The prospect of NW means that ALL the nations of the world, not just the ones in blast or fallout zones, have a vested interest in stopping the arms race and in reducing the world's total nuclear stockpile to a level below the NW threshold. For example, countries in the southern hemi- sphere that once felt secure can no longer assume that they would not be severely, perhaps fatally, harmed as a result of the NW. The hope for nuclear arms reduction is that, realizing this fact, the nuclear have-nots will join together to force the superpowers to eliminate the threat. There are several existing groups of nations, such as the European Common Market, the OAS, and OPEC, that could serve as the nuclei to apply anti-nuclear pressures on the nations that threaten them. Some possible measures are economic boycotts, a shift by allies of both sides to more neutral stances, and threats to default on loans funded by the superpowers. One can even envision a situation in which, threatened by an imminent large exchange of nuclear weapons, an alliance of nuclear have-not nations could launch attacks using conventional weapons against the nuclear forces of the superpowers as a last-ditch effort to save themselves. A nation with an informed government - one that understands the implications of the NW threat - would have to partici- pate in anti-nuclear measures as a matter of self-defense. The NW theory is too new and details too sketchy as yet for nations to have learned about it or to take it as a serious threat. But in a few years, this situation could change, particularly if organizations like the UN help in the educa- tional process. There already is some evidence that the nuclear have-nots might indeed band together in a movement against the nuclear haves. For example, there was a recent proposal in the UN to impose a tax on nations in proportion to additions they make to their nuclear arsenals. The proceeds from the tax were to go to a fund to be used to repair the damage done to third-world nations damaged, through no fault of their own, in a nuclear war. New Zealand and Australia are showing a great deal of reluctance to have any nuclear weapons in their vicinity, as are some NATO nations. The NW threat is bound to increase this kind of open resistance to the arms race. An interesting side effect of all this is that people in the US that push for actions by other nations to pressure the superpowers into arms reductions will be in the awkward position of advocating economic and other measures against the US that will appear to be against the best interests of the US. A decade with no real progress toward arms reduction leads one to believe that the two great macho powers will not, as a result of internal pressures or the threat they pose to each other, make a serious effort to reduce nuclear arms. It is doubtful that moral arguments about their threat to eliminate the human race will have any effect. Therefore, we must hope that external pressures from the world community will force them into taking actions they would not otherwise take. At the very least, external pressures could help both sides to reduce nuclear armaments without "losing face." Perhaps the nuclear winter is the trigger it will take to send the world community further down this path to disarma- ment. ------------------------------ [End of ARMS-D Digest]
simon@psuvax1.UUCP (Janos Simon) (11/04/84)
> 4. The US becomes the true leader in the evolution beyond war by affecting > Soviet policy; by playing to the positive forces in the Soviet Union and > thus giving them power. The power residing in the dangerous hawks > naturally dies out and they (as well as our own fear-ridden crazies) > gradually become a harmless fringe group. > > 5. There are still conflicts but all know that they can and must be resolved > without war. War is as obsolete now as is the Catholic inquisition and > genocide are for the rectifying of "wrongs". Great dreaming here. HOW does the US effectively influence the internal politics of the USSR? Their system is less then totally open - I doubt that there is anyone who knows which groups there are inside the USSR government, what their long-term aims are, etc., much less do we have the ability to favor one of these. Public opinion is not public in the USSR. The voice of the citizens is not heard, and surely not listened to. We may be able to influnce Sakharov, perhaps even a few intellectuals that are "in", but this falls way short of influencing the country. As for 5., maybe you should remind the people in Lebanon, Biafra, or Timor that genocide is an ugly word. The point I'm trying to make is that proposals have to be realistic. One does not have to be a cynic - some hope can be found in idealistic solutions (e.g. India, integration in the South), but one cannot just bury one's head in the sand proclaiming that things that should happen, will. After all, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King were superb politicians, who had definite plans. Gandhi didn't just decide that since the occupation of India was morally wrong the British will realize it and leave - he organized confrontations, and made sure they were very well publicized. Every time the British had to arrest violently thousands of paceful protesters, millions of Indians were made aware of this. As a result, while his aims and methods were peaceful, the implied threat that these millions of people may stop being nonviolent was not lost on either party. What is the similar threat that Australia can evoke? We need good ideas, not wishful thinking. js