C70:arms-d (07/27/82)
>From HGA@MIT-MC Tue Jul 27 01:22:30 1982
Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 0 : Issue 148
Today's Topics:
India's food production
Palestinian state on the West Bank
"Social History of the Machine Gun"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun Jul 25 16:00:12 1982
From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at Berkeley
Subject: India's food production
Eric Strobell doubts Sesh.Murthy's contention that India
produces most of the food it requires. That's not surprising, given
what we hear about India. Nevertheless (surprise!) Murthy's
contention is correct, if it's more precisely stated as "averaged over
a ten-year period, India's food production is sufficient to feed her
population".
There are two difficulties: (1) Insects and vermin get more of
those crops than India harvests; and (2) the averaging hides an awful
lot of awfully bad years. We get around both those difficulties in
the West with high technology: insecticides and poisons to get pests
and vermin, and a transport and storage system to make the annual
production very nearly the average production. I might add that a
free-enterprise economic system with such modern conveniences as a
futures market doesn't hurt with the latter, either.
Ref: everything except the last sentence was liberally cribbed
from Jerry Pournelle's "A Step Farther Out", chapter 1. $5.95 when I
got it, a superb book, read it...you won't weep.
The last sentence of paragraph 2 is from the Gospel According
to Friedman...
Rick.
------------------------------
Date: 26 July 1982 10:15-EDT
From: Zigurd R. Mednieks <ZRM at MIT-AI>
Subject: Arms-Discussion Digest V0 #147
As is increasingly apperant, the majority of Palestineans are
moderates that do not desire the destruction of Israel. They would
probably be more than content with a Gaza/West Bank state, even with
lots of strings attached, like no heavy arms. But what about the
fanatics who will continue to mount terrorist attacks against Isreal?
Will Isreal respond by strafing this hypothetical, unarmed state? What
about the question of "defensible borders"? It seems that the imposed
peace would have to extend to Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria if
Israel is to accept such a setup. Geographically, the Palestinean
state would be a nightmare, separating Jerusalem from the rest of
Isreal and being divided itself.
I argee that we probably have the means to impose such a solution, but
we don't have the will.
Cheers,
Zig
------------------------------
Date: 27 July 1982 00:07-EDT (Tuesday)
From: Robert A. Carter <Carter at RUTGERS>
Subject: Palestinian state on the West Bank...
Date: Saturday, 24 July 1982 04:18-EDT
From: Herb Lin <LIN at WASHINGTON>
* * *
1. Allow the estabilishment of a Palestinian state on the West
Bank, subject to the condition that no heavy weapons be deployed
there.
* * *
3. Clobber any indication of heavy weapon deployment.
* * *
Precedent exists for a similar arrangement - the post-war Japanese
constitution excludes capital military equipment.
The Treaty of Versailles prohibited Germany a wide variety of military
equipment, and that condition was not enforced too well. No one
supposes that the U.S. could or would respond to an alteration of the
Japanese Constitution with armed force. The problem is not
technological, I think, but legal. There is no such thing as a
"state" subject to subsequent clobbering rights. Clobbering is
possible, but in modern international law, not clobbering of a state
one recognizes.
Unless, of course, the clobberor is one of the "socialist community."
_R. Carter
------------------------------
Date: 26 Jul 82 13:08:32-EDT (Mon)
From: Will Martin (DRXAL-FD) <wmartin@BRL>
Subject: "Social History of the Machine Gun"
Reference the discussion on the subject topic in Number 142, sent in
by Joseph Boyle, 14 July 82:
For the amusement of those who haven't heard it before, here is a
little couplet elegantly summarizing the relationship between the
colonial powers and the natives at the turn of the century:
Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim gun, and they have not.
(I may have the opening clause wrong, but the rest is the heart of the
matter.)
Regards,
Will Martin
(Sorry I cannot supply the attribution of the quote ... WM)
[ Note from the Moderator: I've seen that quote in the book "The
Weapons of World War III", a middle-late sixties book on military
technology and procurement with some very interesting points (I highly
recommend it.) It supposedly was some Victorian piece of drivel that
refered to the Germans. The most amusing thing about it was the fact
that the German Army had many more Maxims than the British did then
(before WWI.) - Harold ]
------------------------------
End of Arms-D Digest
********************