[fa.arms-d] Arms-Discussion Digest V2 #45

daemon@ucbvax.UUCP (07/13/84)

From @MIT-MC:JLarson.PA@Xerox.ARPA  Fri Jul 13 02:03:34 1984
Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 2 : Issue 45

Today's Topics:

	Protecting Ourselves Against Libya and Switzerland
	ASW mines
	Dick Garwin responds to Lowell Wood on Arms-D 

Date: 27 Jun 84 15:27 EDT
From: Oded Anoaf Feingold <OAF@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject:  Protecting Ourselves Against Libya and Switzerland  [LONG!]

In reply to REM and coincidentally others:

	(from REM)
    The mere use of the term "pipsqueak" is insulting to a peaceful
The world isn't peaceful.  Arguments based on that premise are

	(from REM)
    You imply that because you are bigger and stronger you have the
    right to kill anybody smaller and weaker whom you dislike. 
Actually, I thought Jong implied we had the right to kill those who
deliberately pose a threat to our existence.  I have difficulty arguing
with THAT concept.  Actually, REM acknowledges the point later on, so I 
don't know what the indented statement is apropos of.

	(from REM)
    The attitude that one nation can go over to another nation and kill
    anybody there who in any way threatens the first nation, is horribly
I'm not so sure.  If threatening another nation is tantamount to losing
one's life, leaders might be less tempted to do it.  Note that there is
a difference between knocking off Qaddafi and doing the Libyan people 
any material harm, whereas Qaddafi-inspired explosions (or shots) in
other countries typically harm civilians and other innocents.

	(from REM)
    I say we must adopt the policy that it's ok to modify ourselves but
    not to attempt to forcibly modify others. That  would be stabilizing.
Untrue.  Counterexample  --- knocking off Hitler early.

Mr. Maas promised other arguments, but all I see is a rehash of the
same assertion, so I am disappointed.  In fact, it seems that Mr. Maas
has taken an extreme and hysterical position, wherein NO intervention
in other countries can be justified.  I suggest that the truth lies
almost entirely opposite his viewpoint:  If leaders and nations who 
undertake actions which threaten their neighbors are quashed early, 
the likelihood that they will assemble enough capability (in this nuclear
age) to destroy world peace (awk - what a term) will be diminished.
Example:  The Israeli raid on the Iraqi Osirak reactor was probably a
highly peace-stabilizing act.  Consider how much more dangerous the 
Iran-Iraq war would be if the combatants had nuclear bombs available.
(Apparently the Iranis are receiving West German technical assistance
in building a reactor whence weapons-grade products can be produced.  
So if the war drags on we may YET see how dangerous things can get.
Who has the guts to destroy the Iranian reactor?)

As for the problem that strong nations would bully others under the
guise of preventive medicine, there are several countervailing factors 
at work:  First, neither superpower will allow the other to commit a
destabilizing intervention in its own sphere of influence.  We can 
safely assume that no Russian combat forces will be deployed in
Central America anytime in the near future, and they can assume that
we will not mess with their boys in Afghanistan, or (god forbid)
Vietnam.  Second, and as a concommitant, neither superpower is likely to
let a smaller country commit destabilizing aggression.  Hence the Israelis
don't zap Damascus on a whim, the Syrians aren't firing Froggers into
Israel, and although it's a nasty world out there, in most cases it's
fairly stable. 

In fact, many of the recent "interventions" have been morally justifiable
(if not praiseworthy) and politically stabilizing.  Examples:
	Tanzania deposing Amin,
	India intervening in the Bengali war of liberation,
	Senegal undoing the coup in the Gambia,
	Vietnam knocking off Pol Pot [In this case the moral justification
		is thin if not lacking.  However, in my opinion ANYTHING
		was better for the Cambodians than what they had.]
	(Possibly)  the US undoing the coup in Grenada.
I don't doubt that people can find counterexamples, perhaps including the
Israeli invasion of Lebanon and certainly including the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan, but my point is that such intervention is not by definition

So why doesn't it happen more often?  Well, for one thing, countries are
VERY slow to go to war unless they're first attacked, everyone's opinion
of politicians to the contrary.  Wars are very expensive, it takes time to
gear up for them (unless you live in an already-militarized state), and
they always represent a serious threat to the longevity of the people in
power.  (After all, if you lose the war you'll almost certainly lose
control of the government, General Galtieri.  Also, if you get involved
in a war, no matter what the outcome you have created a new power base in
your country.  That applies even to heads of military juntas, General

For another, many countries are quite inconsistent in their foreign
policies:  It takes a certain vision, along with a lot of courage, to
commit to a drastic and dangerous course of action long enough to manage
it.  That makes Tanzania's invasion of Uganda doubly laudable.  [It is
my claim that Roosevelt came to the realization that Hitler had to be
stopped long before the rest of the country, and that had the Japanese
not been kind enough to attack us, and Hitler foolish enough to declare
war, it would have taken the US several more years and a lot of dirty
pool to get in:  In this case dirty pool probably would have meant 
manufacturing an incident wherein a German U-Boot sank an American
ship, or as many American ships as necessary...]  So-called 
"democracies" whose governments are at the whim of the next election
are unlikely to have such guts unless the odds are overwhelmingly on
their side.  (I doubt Britain and the Falklands is a fair counterexample
on either side.  As far as the Argentines were concerned their action
wasn't particularly aggressive, since they expected no response from
Britain.  As far as the British were concerned the Argentine action was a
direct attack, so they didn't need to gear up any moral outrage before
striking out in self-defense.)

The third countervailing factor is an intensification of the second:
Many large countries, and in particular the United States, utilize
criminal folly as their guiding lights.  For example, when India
intervened in the Bengali war of liberation in 1971 (-2?) the US
had the opportunity of helping the winning side,  befriending the big
important country as against the pipsqueak dictatorship and stealing a
presumed Russian ally and fellow-traveler, grabbing the morality brownie
points, and gaining the trust and friendship of third-world countries
(many of which came into existence through successful liberation
movements) AND not-yet-successful liberation movements.  Instead we
"tilted toward Pakistan" and lost on every count.  [Bitter aside:
Nixon is being "rehabilitated" as a master of foreign policy if not as a
politician.]  Another example:  In 1975 we could have supported the
Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia (Kampuchea, whatever) healed rifts with
the strongest country in Southeast Asia and perhaps weakened their links
with the Soviets.  Instead, we put ourselves in the obscene position of
supporting the world's greatest per-capita mass murderer in a foredoomed
quest for power.  Yet another example:  When we fought in Vietnam the
Soviets happily sent the Vietnamese arms and watched us bleed.  When the 
Soviets invaded Afghanistan we couldn't "stoop" to the expedient of
sending arms (in quantity) to the guerillas and paying the Russians
in their own coin.

So what?  So countries that wish to intervene for the "right"
reasons can expect little support and lots of idiotic behavior
from US (us).  No wonder they're reluctant to stick their necks
out.  And no wonder that the bad guys, the terrorists, and
the tinpot dictators can get away with it.  In a world of 
cowards and idiots the punk is king.  In fact, I suspect that too
few rather than too many interventions happen, and when they do
happen they typically are committed by the wrong guys, with
US idiocy the major reason for both the numbers and whodunit



Date: 4 July 1984 22:24-EDT
From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-MC>
Subject:  ASW mines...
To: crummer @ AEROSPACE
In-reply-to: Msg of Mon 2 Jul 84 23:47:50 PDT from <crummer at AEROSPACE>

    From: Charlie Crummer <crummer at AEROSPACE>

    On the other hand, whatever happened to: 1) the nuclear airplane,  2) the
    nuclear rocket, 3) the 50-megaton nuclear submarine mines, and 4) a viable
    basing concept for the MX?

Could you please say more about the nuclear rocket and the nuclear ASW
mines?  I've heard about the nuclear rocket for interstellar travel,
but never in a military context,and I've never heard of the 50 MT ASW
mines.  References if possible, please.



Date: 11 July 1984 21:25-EDT
From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-MC>
Subject:  Dick Garwin response to Lowell Wood to ARMS-D.
cc: LIN @ MIT-MC, RLG2.YKTVMV%ibm-sj.csnet @ CSNET-RELAY

Dick Garwin has seen the comments made in ARMS-D by Lowell Wood
regarding him [Garwin], and wishes to respond.  Garwin sent me his
reply to Wood asking me to place it in ARMS-D; I have formatted it to
conform to the usual ARMS-D format of initial comment indented and
response following, but I have not changed, added or removed a single
word with the exception of a footnote duly marked.  Original Garwin
transmission available on request.

Discussion welcome.
                Lars Ericson [in ARMS-D dated 03/27/84; original
		forwarded on request.]

                "What  should   really  be  discussed  is   the  recent
                criticism of  BMD published  by the Union  of Concerned
                Scientists,  and  in   particular,  the  criticisms  of
                Richard  Garwin, who  is  presumably  somewhere in  the
                technical qualification ballpark with  Dr. Wood, but on
                the other side  of the fence.  If you're  for BMD, then
                you have to tackle Garwin's physics.  I heard a talk by
                him at the NY Academy of Sciences, and his 'back of the
                envelope'  estimates are  compellingly negative."  

           Lowell Wood [same ARMS-D issue]

           "Dick  Garwin  simply
           hasn't been able to sell his technical arguments to his
           peers in classified  meetings, reviews, etc.--and these
           peers  are often  folks who  are in  the employ  of the
           military-industrial complex only  as consultants, e.g.,
           the JASON  group of  DoD.  His arguments  are sometimes
           plain wrong, but are  more frequently irrelevant to the
           matters at issue.
           "I've personally interceded  to get Dick 'need-to-know'
           certifications  and access  to classified  meetings, so
           that he could come, get informed and then criticize (as
           he  very reliably  does, virtually  independent of  the
           topic, at  great length,  for the  decade or  more that
           I've worked in fields in common with him).
           "However, Dick's added essentially  nothing to what was
           already  known  as   design  constraints  in  strategic
           defense discussions;  usually, quite  a bit of  time in
           these classified  sessions is spent going  over details 
           with him which everyone  else considers self-evident or
           trivial--not  because   he's  slow,   but  (apparently)
           because  his political  preconceptions  require him  to
           give technical  ground very  grudgingly.  As  usual, no
           specifics of  these discussions  can be surfaced  in an
           unclassified context,  though I'd love to  have some of
           them  available  for  general  amusement--the  contrast
           between some of Dick's public statements and subsequent
           come-uppances   in  classified   meetings  are   rather
           delicious.  I  admire his intellect, respect  his early
           technical contributions to defense, and positively dote
           upon his  dogged advocacy of the  utterly unsalable--he
           livens up otherwise humdrum sessions marvelously!]

       R.L. Garwin response (06/12/84):

       "Dr.   Wood's  characterization   of  my   behavior  at
       classified  meetings  (or  his  indication  of  others'
       perceptions of  my contributions even in  recent years)
       is not my  understanding or the perception  of others I
       have  asked.   Wood  made  a  similar  statement  at  a
       classified   hearing  of   the  House   Armed  Services
       Committee 03/20/84  (subject, Star Wars) at  which Hans
       Bethe,  Lowell  Wood, Wayne  Winton,  and  I spoke  for
       morning and afternoon sessions.   He said there, as the
       transcript will indicate,

            'I would be very happy  to respond to every one of
            Dr. Garwin's points which  I believe are in error.
            I  believe   each  and  every  one   is  in  error
            technically, but I will not impose on the patience
            of  the Committee  unless you  are interested.   I
            will offer  summary comments that Dr. Garwin  is a
            member of the JASON group which group has reviewed
            the x-ray  laser program,  and every  summer since
            its inception  has not  been able to  persuade his
            fellow JASONs to raise his objections with us, the
            x-ray laser community.  Dr. Garwin's concerns fail
            in the eyes of his JASON colleagues.'
           Garwin at hearing on 03/20/84:

            "I will submit a letter which says that the points
            which  I  have raised  are  present  in the  JASON
            reports and  have not  'failed', but I  would just
            Supplied  05/11/84  by  Garwin  for  the  HASC

            "  (Supplied  for  the Record):   In  a  telephone
            conversation   of  05/11/84,   Dr. Norval  Fortson
            (Professor of  Physics, University  of Washington,
            Seattle,   WA 98195)   states  for   the   Record:
            "Dr. Garwin is  a JASON  member in  good standing.
            His views  are respected  and are included  in our
            reports,  particularly  the  Report  of  the  1983
            Summer  Study titled  'Tailored Nuclear  Weapons--
            Part I,  X-rays'.   It  is   not  correct  to  say
            "Dr. Garwin's  concerns fail  in the  eyes of  his
            JASON colleagues."

[HL note: Norval Fortson is also a member of the JASON group of
consultants to the Departments of Defense and Energy.  Last year he
chaired the JASON review of third-generation nuclear weapons.]

         R.L. Garwin (06/12/84):   I am  grateful for  the unusual
       circumstance which permits me to quote accurately Dr. Wood's
       charge at the HASC, so readily proved wrong.  To counter his
       suggestion   of   frequent  "come-uppances   in   classified
       meetings" would  be possible  as well, since  he and  I have
       been at very few such  meetings together.  I believe I first
       participated  in such  meetings with  Dr. Wood in  February,
       1982, when I visited Livermore  at the request of Dr. Robert
       Cooper, head  of DARPA, to  review a project  of Dr. Wood's.
       It is  true that not much  can be said about  the content of
       the meeting,  but I do believe  that I was hardly  "slow" or
       "giving ground  grudgingly."  Note that it  was not Dr. Wood
       who invited  or certified "need-to-know,"  and it was  not a
       matter  of  my  curiosity  but of  a  request  from  Defense
       Department officials for such a review.  Finally, I think it
       is remarkably poor taste to  make remarks about what can not
       usually be  challenged or substantiated, and  to suggest far
       more interaction between Dr. Wood and myself than has indeed


Date: Thu, 12 Jul 84 11:19:05 edt
From: Alex Colvin <alexc%dartmouth.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: Arms-D@MIT-MC

Isn't Qadaffi a member of the armed forces?  Were war declared,
I believe that makes him an enemy combatant.  In this case
international law and custom allow "the little pipsqueak" to be
killed.  But not otherwise.  The problem is that these days
no one wants to be honest about declaring war.

[End of ARMS-D Digest]