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!]
To: ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA
In reply to REM and coincidentally others:
(from REM)
The mere use of the term "pipsqueak" is insulting to a peaceful
world.
The world isn't peaceful. Arguments based on that premise are
meaningless.
(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
destabilizing.
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
wrong.
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
Ioannides.)
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
problems.
Oded
------------------------------
Date: 4 July 1984 22:24-EDT
From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-MC>
Subject: ASW mines...
To: crummer @ AEROSPACE
cc: ARMS-D @ MIT-MC
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.
Thanks..
------------------------------
Date: 11 July 1984 21:25-EDT
From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Dick Garwin response to Lowell Wood to ARMS-D.
To: ARMS-D @ MIT-MC
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
like--"
Supplied 05/11/84 by Garwin for the HASC
record:
" (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
occurred.
------------------------------
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]