[fa.arms-d] Arms-Discussion Digest V0 #138

C70:arms-d (07/08/82)

>From HGA@MIT-MC Wed Jul  7 23:24:42 1982

Arms-Discussion Digest Extra                      Volume 0 : Issue 103

Today's Topics:
                          Another new voice
                             SR-71 et al
                           Much Commentary
                          Israel in Lebanon
           Mailing-list for "List of lists" update notices

Date: Sat Jul  3 03:21:07 1982
From: npois!harpo!decvax!utzoo!laura at Berkeley
Subject: another new voice ...

	After reading numerous arms-d articles which seem to reflect a
'dead lion -- live dog' belief, I can only come to the conclusion that
some people, at any rate, dont have solid facts.  Im one of them.  Where
do you go to get a good, accurate military library?  Right now, at the
bookstore I cant tell the non-factual propeganda from the factual 
propeganda from the factual not-propeganda.  Are there any books which
everyone ought to read before opening his/her mouth on the subject?

	In the mean time, I have a few questions:

1) how much nastier/less nasty would a chemical war be than a nuclear one?
2) "    "    "       "     "     "   " biological war be?
3) Public awareness of the 'nuke danger' is already high and growing --
   what about knowledge of other, perhaps less desirable ways to fight war?
4) How much more lethal would a "conventional" (ie no ABC) war be now than
   World War II given the other advances in miltary technology?
5) Using present technology (or projections of today's technology) could a
   feasible survailance policy be set up to monitor the posession of nuclear
   devices -- or would we be dependant upon "goodwill" if every nation
   decided to disarm?

Right now, I a would much rather be a 'live lion' than either of the
other alternatives.  If pushed, I would have to join the 'dead lions'.
If any one can point me to a factual, non-emotional argument on how
disarment does not lead inevitably to surrender, I would *love* to
hear it ... its not that I love nuclear war ... or the threat of
nuclear war ... but I have yet to see an alternative that I think can
be implemented which will not send people like me out to the North
American Gulag, should the Russians decide to aquire more real estate,
becuase I am just too bloody minded to "passively" resist anything.

					Laura Creighton


Date: Mon Jul  5 00:52:47 1982
From: decvax!utzoo!henry at Berkeley
Subject: SR-71 et al

People who are interested in the SR-71 and its brethren should check
out the July issue of (!) Popular Mechanics.  It has an interesting
and informative article.  Normally I wouldn't bother looking at such a
piece in that particular location, but *this* article is written by
Kelly Johnson himself.  (For those who don't recognize the name:
Johnson was head of the Lockheed "Skunk Works" for many years, and was
the chief designer of aircraft including the F-104 Starfighter, the
U-2, and the SR-71.)  There is nothing earthshaking in it, but there
are a lot of bits and pieces that I don't believe have ever seen print
before.  For example, the odd shape of the SR-71 is not just a
question of aerodynamics; a small radar cross-section was a major
design goal.

Be warned: the article shows signs of having been heavily censored,
presumably by security folks (there is a note at the end that it took
a long time to get past them).  The result is rather choppy prose and
a number of places where interesting stuff is foreshadowed and then
never delivered.  Still quite interesting.


Date: 3 Jul 1982 1619-EDT

In reply to: Jim McGrath <CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Comments on Comments


	WD:	Why don't we study disarmament instead of military arts?

JM:	You cannot study what does not exist (a flip, but concise,
	answer).  We have a lot of experience fighting wars, and
	little of peace.  And what we do know about peace seems to
	characterize that state more accurately as the "absence of
	war."  Thus we need to know about wars and the military who
	fight them.

I would argue that peace studies do exist and that we have as much or
more experience waging peace as waging war.  It's just a matter of how
you choose to look at it.  Thus, I could argue that war is "absence of
peace" and that we need o know more about peace and the people who
practice it.  Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be to study peace
and war (not Tolstoy) on equal footing.

	WD: 	In any case, I'll promote any plan to spend a portion
		of the present arms budget on education rather than
		further destruction.  Let's not take the funds from
		the social service budget though, OK?

JM:	It would most logical to take them from the Department of

In my opinion, it would be most logical to spend less money on
"defense".  If the money were spent on education I feel that would be
a much more productive use of our money.  I do not feel that it would
be reasonable to strip the Department of Education any further of its
already extremely limited funding, especially if we use that money to
study war.

		US-USSR FUNDING from Cox--

	WD:	It just does not make sense to wage war for peace
		(this in reference especially to U.S. refusal to
		reject first strike--at least Brezhnev had the sense
		to wield some popularity by his propagandistic
		commitment to end Soviet plans for first strike).

JM:	Right - the USSR was "smart" enough to use their pledge for a
	propaganda ploy.  That really inspires confidence in me as to
	their commitment to their pledge.

I agree that when the government of the Soviet Union pledges to refuse
first strike they are propagandizing, just as Ronald Reagan is
propagandizing with his talks of START (reductions?).  It is the
people of both the US and the USSR, not the governments, that will
have to bring disarmament.

JM:	More to the point, as has been repeatedly covered here, we
	CANNOT honestly renounce first use of nukes without building
	up our conventional strength - something "peace" advocates
	also oppose.

I oppose conventional buildup, it is true, especially when it is done
in the interests of an elite class such as the US-USSR governments and
their minions.  However, I recognize that the first priority is to
remove the blemish of nuclear weaponry from our planet, therefore I
work with those who suggest conventional buildup, as long as they try
to get rid of the greater "evil" of nuclear weapons.


	WD:	The centralized control of armed forces in both the
		United States and the Soviet Union makes such
		democratic decisions impossible.

JM:	What are you talking about?  "Centralized control?"  You MUST
	mean CIVILIAN control, or somesuch, since CENTRALIZATION has
	no relation to democracy per se.  And the fact is that the US
	military is responsible to a democratically elected
	government, while the military forces of the USSR often
	DETERMINE their "civilian" government, which is in any case an
	outright dictatorship.

I would argue that the rich and powerful in either society determine
the "civilian" government positions.  The US has only a facade of
democracy, just as the Soviet Union has only a facade of the true
philosophy of communism.  I do not think it would be possible to have
a true democracy with the number of people in the United States and
their present consciousness.  It seems clear that individual liberties
in the Soviet Union are more restricted than in the United States, but
the foreign policy, thus the armed forces, seem, on the whole, equally

What makes the activities of the US armed forces any more justifiable
than the same activities performed by the Soviet armed forces?  Both
actors in the war games are equally reprehensible if the methods they
use are just about the same.  In any case, I do not believe that the
people, or even the business elite (see p.A23 of the Focus section in
the Sunday Boston Globe) here in the US want to deal with the
possibility of nuclear war.  They want an alternative solution.  I
would imagine that the same situation exists in the Soviet Union--only
those people (assuming adequate information is available) who benefit
(re profit) from the machinations of war will support the war machine.

	True democracy will require a long germination.  It will be a
long struggle even to approach it from where we (humanity) are now.  I
also believe that true democracy cannot be achieved while there are
individual nations on the planet, vying for control of resources and
labor pools, so that a part of the population can benefit from the
sweat on the brow of the masses.

	I am certainly not suggesting that the Soviet Union is a model
government for such a utopian state, any more than I could expect such
a thing from my own country.  As I said before, it will be a long time
coming, if it ever even occurs.

	WD:	At least until we are sure that our very survival
		depends on the use of violence, I feel that we should
		not use violent means.

JM:	If someone threatens to cut off your arm, would you disarm
	them?  Even if it involved striking them, and thus committing
	"violence?"  As stated, your position is the ultimate in
	pacifism - and thus very counter survival in this rough world
	of ours.

It seems to me that an arm is, in a practical sense, a necessary tool
for survival.  If I can defend violence of any sort, it would be
violence directed at the community of friends and family that surround
the victim of violence.  This does not seem to extend to tactical
nuclear weaponry owned and operated by the US in Western Europe or any
kind of military "aid" to El Salvador or CIA operatives in Nicaragua
or the assassination of Allende in Chile.  This is, in fact, the kind
of violence from which I would expect those communities to defend
themselves (and it seems as if many of them agree with me).

It is a matter of ending the most atrocious forms of violence first.
This will make it easier to end much of the other violence which, in
most cases, is retaliatory or truly defensive violence.

	WD:	We can start by recognizing that almost all of the
		conflicts we have are solved peacefully, that violence
		is the exception not the rule.

JM:	Most decisions in this world are made peacefully.  Most
	decisions are also trivial.  Important decisions are often
	decided violently.

I believe that this is again a matter of attitude.  We could go on for
hours listing peaceful and violent resolutions to various conflicts
which we would consider of varying importance.  The only sure thing is
that there are times of peace and times of violence.  I still tend to
believe that nonviolence is the dominant state.

I appreciate your considerate and coherent response to my comments;
you seem to be honestly interested in open communication.  I decided
not to send this to arms-d (at this point at least) because some
people do not seem to approve on dialogue which doesn't relate the
specifics of death research and destructive capability.  Do you feel I
should forward the message or not?


PS: I decided to forward the message on the recommendation of JM.


Date:     5 Jul 82 16:26:43-EDT (Mon)
From:     J C Pistritto <jcp@BRL>
Subject:  Israel in Lebanon

	An interesting story appeared in the Baltimore Sun on Sunday,
July 4th, along with the stories about the Columbia returning to
earth.  It seems the Israeli army has deployed some 'secret weapons'
against the Syrian army in the Bekaa Valley of Lebanon.
	One weapon, calld 'SATARM' is a missile projectile, that
launches three terminally-guided submunitions that home on Syrian
T-72s, completely knocking them out.  It is very reminiscent of the
US/Vought Assault Breaker concept, although that shouldn't be ready
for full scale testing for a bit yet.  Another version is parachuted
over the area where enemy tanks are, and takes them out quite nicely.
Reportedly Syrian tank crews 'abandoned their vehicles and fled in
fear' after seeing the devestating effectiveness of these weapons.
(200 tanks knocked out in two days, most in an afternoon).
	Another weapons is the missile used by Israeli warplanes to
devestate the Syrian SAM-6 batteries, which reportedly, couldn't even
get off a shot before being destroyed.  This is apparently an
anti-radiation missile of the same class as Shrike.
	A third weapon is a 'black box' that confuses Soviet SAMs so
effect- ively that even drone aircraft are able to fly into the Bekaa
and return safely to base.

	It is believed that these are NOT US weapons being loaned for
testing, but represent independent Israeli efforts, mainly by the
electronics subsidiary of Israel Aircraft Industries, Elta
Electronics.  If so, this would be easily as impressive as Israel's
Gabriel sea-to-sea missile, which performed well in the 73 October



Date:  6 Jul 1982 2316-PDT
From: Zellich at OFFICE-3 (Rich Zellich)
Subject: Mailing-list for "List of lists" update notices

For those of you not previously aware of it, I maintain a master list
of ARPANET mailing-lists/digests/discussion groups (currently 756
lines or ~29,000 characters) on OFFICE-3 in file:


   For ARPANET users, OFFICE-3 supports the net-standard ANONYMOUS
   login within FTP, with any password.

To keep people up to date on the large number of such lists, I have
established a mailing list for list-of-lists \update notices/.  I do
not propose to send copies of the list itself to the world at large,
but for those ARPANET users who seriously intend to FTP the updated
versions when updated, I will send a brief notice that a new version
is available.  For those counterparts at internet sites who maintain
or redistribute copies for their own networks (DECNet, Xerox, etc.)
and can't reach the master by ARPANET FTP, I will send out the
complete new file.  I do \not/ intend to send file copies to
individual users, either ARPANET or internet; our system is fairly
heavily loaded, and we can't afford it.

There is no particular pattern to the update frequency of INTEREST-
GROUPS.TXT; I will occasionally receive a burst of new mailing-lists
or perhaps a single change of address for a host or mailing-list
coordinator, and then have a long period with no changes.

To get on the list, send requests to ZELLICH@OFFICE-3, \not/ to the
mailing-list this message appears in.



End of Arms-D Digest