arms-d@ucbvax.ARPA (09/27/84)
From: Moderator <ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 2 : Issue 60
Today's Topics:
Who wanted WWI (3 msgs)
Scientific American article
New Zealand's anti-nuke stance
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 23 September 1984 23:45-EDT
From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Who wanted WWI
To: WARD @ USC-ISIF
cc: ARMS-D @ MIT-MC
In-reply-to: Msg of 20 Sep 1984 14:48-PDT from Craig E. Ward <WARD at USC-ISIF.ARPA>
From: Craig E. Ward <WARD at USC-ISIF.ARPA>
It is wrong to state that Germany alone wanted war. Each nation made
a reasoned decision to get involved. It is obvious now that their
reasoning was faulty.
Please explain what you mean by "reasoned" decision; I would argue
that it was in fact the *lack* of reasoning that led to war. The
current issue of International Security has several good pieces of the
relationship of offensive military doctrines and the outbreak of WWI;
one central theme is that the offensive doctrines of the time had no
connection to the technological realities that strongly favored the
defense. That doesn't sound like reasoning to me.
------------------------------
Date: 24 Sep 1984 0958-PDT
From: Richard M. King <KING@KESTREL.ARPA>
Subject: Scientific American SW article
To: arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA
I tend to take all Scientific American articles concerning arms
policy with a dose of salt -- enough to salinate a small ocean.
They have this tendency to make problems seem ten meters tall
by ignoring technologies that solve them.
A minor but obvious example is the statement that a power plant,
due to be used for five or ten minutes, must cost $300 per kilowatt. I can
march into any auto parts store and do TEN TIMES better than that - retail.
A car battery, even a $39 one, can and DOES put out more than a kilowatt.
It can do so for several minutes if it is charged and kept reasonably warm.
(The reason a cheap car battery only lasts a couple of years is the
charge/discharge cycles. The ones used in SW would only be discharged
during tests; once a month, not twice a day. "We only warrantee these
batteries for 200 nuclear wars. ..."
A more serious omission is that of physical interception. No
countermeasure is reasonable. If the missile masses 100Kg (reasonable)
and it's hit by a Lexan cube massing 100gm (reasonable) with a relative
velocity of 30Km/sec (low) it will be knocked far enough off course to
miss by 10-15Km. Even if you protect it well enough to survive (a VERY
dubious proposition) a lot of lives would be saved if Boston's missile fell
into the Bay. A threat cloud can be met by a net or a "shotgun shell";
a MIRV'ed device can send out ten threat clouds, but each of these is
physically small.
There are reasons not to persue this technology. Dissemination of
inaccurate statements of what "can never work" leaves SW opponents
embarassed whenever something that "can never work" is demonstrated.
Dick
-------
------------------------------
Date: 24 Sep 1984 17:49-PDT
Sender: WARD@USC-ISIF.ARPA
Subject: Re: Who wanted WWI
From: Craig E. Ward <WARD@USC-ISIF.ARPA>
To: LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA
Cc: WARD@USC-ISIF.ARPA, ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA
In-Reply-To: The message of 23 September 1984 23:45-EDT from Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-MC>
You are mixing apples and oranges. You are quite right in saying that
the various militaries did not understand the realities of their weapons.
That fact, however, does not change the fact that the political leaders
made reasoned, rational decisions based on the facts AS THEY UNDERSTOOD
THEM. Their reasoning may have been very good, it was just that their
premises were wrong.
To get a much better explanation of what is meant, see the article
"The Causes of War" by Michael Howard in the Summer 1984 issue of the
Wilson Quarterly. The theme of the article is that war has always been
a rational act.
------------------------------
Date: 24 September 1984 21:59-EDT
From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Who wanted WWI
To: WARD @ USC-ISIF
cc: ARMS-D @ MIT-MC
In-reply-to: Msg of 24 Sep 1984 17:49-PDT from Craig E. Ward <WARD at USC-ISIF.ARPA>
From: Craig E. Ward <WARD at USC-ISIF.ARPA>
You are mixing apples and oranges. You are quite right in saying that
the various militaries did not understand the realities of their weapons.
That fact, however, does not change the fact that the political leaders
made reasoned, rational decisions based on the facts AS THEY UNDERSTOOD
THEM. Their reasoning may have been very good, it was just that their
premises were wrong.
I lay the blame on the political leaders for relinquishing control to
the military. In that sense, I believe they were irrational (though
at an early stage). Furthermore, the political leaders *chose* to
accept their military's version of evidence (i.e., inherently biased
to favor offensive behavior), when they should have attempted to get
independent information.
To get a much better explanation of what is meant, see the article
"The Causes of War" by Michael Howard in the Summer 1984 issue of the
Wilson Quarterly. The theme of the article is that war has always been
a rational act.
For a sufficiently broad definition of what their goals were, true.
But certainly not rational in the sense of being deliberate and
calculated. [Just as a matter of terminology, I do not define as
calculated a miscalculation.]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 84 19:06 MST
From: KEsler@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject: New Zealand's anti-nuke stance.
Any comments on the New Zealand Government's decision not to allow
U.S. ships into NZ ports if they (1) bear nuclear weapons or (2) are
powered by nuclear reactors ? This is despite NZ's membership of the
ANZUS alliance. I understand that the U.S.A. is now privately
threatening ECONOMIC sanctions against NZ for it's new policy (Sydney
Morning Herald today). This would hardly seem fair or rational. I also
don't think NZ's attitude is entirely rational. --Kevin.
------------------------------
[End of ARMS-D Digest]