C70:arms-d (07/03/82)
>From HGA@MIT-MC Tue Jun 22 15:05:18 1982
Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 0 : Issue 126
Today's Topics:
Comparing nuclear war to serfdom is the wrong comparison
Pacifists not informed about military options?
Risking death
Sincerity in negotiations
Comments by Will Doherty
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 20 June 1982 00:43-EDT
From: RMS at MIT-AI
Subject: Comparing nuclear war to serfdom is the wrong comparison
The right comparison is: some amount of risk of nuclear war versus
some other amount of risk of serfdom. If you think, as I do, that
there is a strategy which greatly reduces the risk of serfdom (or
being shot for disobedience) while increasing the risk of nuclear war
only a little over the strategy of disarmament, it might well be
preferable to disarmament.
Many people have risked their lives in defending their freedom, who
were not desperate enough to simply commit suicide to escape slavery.
I concede that maintaining a deterrent force and refusing to surrender
has a greater risk of nuclear war than surrendering has. But I think
we can keep the risk small by making sure the deterrent is credible.
------------------------------
Date: 20 June 1982 01:32-EDT
From: James A. Cox <APPLE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Pacifists not informed about military options?
You give Vietnam as a counter example to my theory. Can you really
believe that it was the non-violent resistance that defeated U.S.
efforts? If so, you have a grievous misunderstanding of that war.
What defeated the U.S. was the huge casualty rate combined with the
horror of seeing (violent) war every night on television. The
Vietnamese won because they had the will \and the weapons/ to fight
with.
I am amazed that anyone questions the ability of, say, the Soviet
Union to occupy and administer this country if there were no armed
resistance. History teaches us that most people go along most of the
time with the orders of the people in power, whether they are foreign
or domestic, if those people are willing to act brutally to enforce
those orders. Sure, the Soviets would have trouble if everyone
rendered passive resistance regardless of the repressive measures the
Soviets tried. But unfortunately, the U.S. is inhabited by human
beings, not saints, and humans generally get scared and do what
they're told when threatened with torture or death. Are Americans
that much different from Germans, who \under orders/ exterminated
thousands of their own countrymen, millions of foreigners, and who
fought a war virtually to the death?
------------------------------
Date: 20 June 1982 02:01-EDT
From: James A. Cox <APPLE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Pacifists not informed about military options?
I am surprised that anyone really believes that, as Jon Webb says,
"the U.S. could be defended by non-violent methods." How? Suppose
the Soviets invaded with a large military force and encountered no
violent resistance from the American people. How could they be
stopped from setting up a government here to their own liking, and
enforcing obedience to its orders? I concede that if a large number
of people offered passive resistance, such as refusing to obey Soviet
orders, that the Soviets would have great trouble. But can we
realistically expect anything like that to happen? Suppose you are a
factory worker who is refusing (non-violently, of course) to comply
with a Soviet order to return to work. The Soviets then round up 1000
people from your city and promise to execute 10 per hour until work at
the factory begins. How long would you stay away from work? Even
more brutal methods are, of course, available to the occupying force
to deal with really intransigent people. Historically, conquerors
have always been able to maintain control of their dominions given
sufficient military forces, forces which the Soviet Union would most
certainly have available after an unopposed conquest of the United
States.
On China: yes, it is true that the Chinese have sometimes absorbed
invading forces into their population and culture. That does not
alter the fact that, until those forces were absorbed, the Chinese
lived under foreign domination. The U.S. might eventually absorb
Russian conquerors, but that process would take time, probably
centuries, if the assimilation of the Normans into English
civilization is a good example. At the least, those freedoms we enjoy
at present would be denied us for many years to come.
------------------------------
Date: Sunday, 20 June 1982 13:45-EDT
From: Jon Webb <Webb at Cmu-20c>
Subject: Pacifists not informed about military options?
Well, yes, that's what I meant. If there were no resistance at all,
it would not be hard to invade the U.S. and set up a puppet
government. The hard thing would be to keep control of the puppet
government, to keep it from being kind of reabsorbed into American
culture and becoming more or less free again. Read Machiavelli. I
was taking the long view. Sorry.
Also, whether or not the U.S. has lots of pacifists and Soviet-fronts,
there are a lot of people who would be willing to fight back against a
Soviet puppet government, so that it would be terribly difficult to
set up the government in the first place. Lots of places to hide
rebel troops in the Appalachians, you know...
Jon
------------------------------
Date: 20 June 1982 23:28-EDT
From: James A. Cox <APPLE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Pacifists not informed about military options?
.... Whether or not the U.S. has lots of pacifists and
Soviet-fronts, there are a lot of people who would be willing
to fight back against a Soviet puppet government....
Sure, they'd fight back. But then that would be violence, wouldn't
it?
------------------------------
Date: 20 June 1982 02:58-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Sincerity in negotiations
I like your [wolit] critique of USA and USSR proposals. Let's find a
way to expose their ridiculous ideas and replace them with better
ones. Have any suggestions?
------------------------------
Date: 20 Jun 1982 1606-PDT
From: CAULKINS at USC-ECL
Subject: risking death
CAULKINS at USC-ECL
.... One of my big problems with nuclear war is that a
very small group imposes death, disease, malnutrition,
etc. on a much larger group that never had any choice
at all.
James A. Cox <APPLE at MIT-MC>
Apparently, you are not talking about this country but about
the Soviet Union. Do you forget that the American people
elected, if not all the members of your "small group," at
least the ones with the real power?
It would be simple for the U.S. to reduce the danger of
all-out nuclear war to zero. We would only need to
unilaterally disarm....
...Once we agree on the necessity for risking death to
preserve our freedoms (and we apparently do agree),...
I agree only on my personal right to risk my life for my beliefs. I
most emphatically disagree with anyone else's right to make that
decision for me, or for anyone else.
I am talking about both the US and the USSR. In the US approximately
14% of the population consists of children at or below the age of 9; I
imagine the numbers for the USSR are similar. They have elected
nobody and done nothing to deserve the horrors that nuclear war would
bring to them.
One of my major concerns right now is the bellicose stance of the US;
we are the ones who insist on the right to use nuclear weapons first
and/or in response to a conventional attack. Current defense guidance
studies (see my review of "Fiscal Year 1984-1988 Defense Guidance",
ARMS-D Vol 0, Issue 118) indicate full readiness to carry nuclear war
to any extreme necessary to 'prevail', regardless of the amount of
death and destruction inflicted on the US, the USSR, or third parties.
I would very much like to see a clear and accurate account of US
nuclear weapons use policy. The only thing I've seen recently was the
above mentioned study. Secretary Weinberger was asked about it on a
TV show I saw a fragment of; he said that the study was 'highly
classified' and that it had been quoted out of context. I believe
that all citizens of this country need to know what nuclear policy is
in order to be able to vote intelligently on this matter which can
change their lives more profoundly than any other.
It's my belief that the US and USSR will be in an adversary position
for many years. Surely they can work out some modus operandi under
which they can compete without the constant threat of a nuclear
holocaust which would ravage both societies. In a hundred years no
one will know or care what Marxism or Capitalism were, or which
countries Reagan and Brezhnev led; but if there is a nuclear war the
scars will still be obvious, if there's anyone left to see them.
------------------------------
Date: 20 Jun 1982 2001-EDT
From: WDOHERTY at BBNG
Subject: COMMENTS
SOBER FACTS from Gene Salamin--
I recommend that you see the film "The Atomic Cafe". The
Access to Energy pamphlet is very reminiscent of the U.S. government's
animated "Duck and Cover" propaganda. Who is Access to Energy a front
for anyway? <deliberate facetiousness> Where is the discussion of
effects of targetting nuclear power plants, as well as oil and gas
storage tanks?
SOVIET FRONTS from Zig--
I work with people in both AFSC and WILPF. To my knowledge,
they are not Soviet fronts. But in any case, if a Communist group or
country wants to cooperate on some effective disarmament work, I am
willing to work for disarmament along with them, just as I would work
with anarchists, libertarians, socialists or capitalists, as long as
they are sincere.
From the evidence you have presented so far on the World Peace
Council, it doesn't sound much more like a Soviet front than the
United Nations does. Howz about some references?
Herb, you seem to agree that the US Peace Council is
Soviet-oriented. Please state your references, just as you ask others
to do so. I certainly wouldn't want to fall innocently into the jaws
of any of those bloodthirsty Communists!
MILITARY EDUCATION from Jim McGrath--
Why don't we study disarmament instead of military arts? 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?
PACIFISM from Zig--
You are right that pacifism has nothing to do with involvement
in Soviet fronts. You are also right that Soviet fronts have little
to do with sincere promotion of nuclear disarmament (to my knowledge).
But, pacifism is certainly one very strong motiviation for nuclear
disarmament.
"PACIFISTS" OUT THERE from Earl Weaver--
I guess I'm one of those "pacifists" out there. I think I'm
even "out there" enough to be proud of it!
US-USSR FUNDING from Cox--
"Wouldn't you regard with a bit of skepticism any organization
in the Soviet Union (or any other Communist country) funded by the
CIA? If so, what is wrong with my regarding with equal skepticism any
organization in the U.S. funded by the Soviet Union?"
Well, ignoring the fact that the CIA is not the polar equal of
the Soviet government (it's more like the KGB), I tend to agree. It
is not in the interest of the ***government*** of either country to
promote peace. They (U.S. and USSR governments) are manifestations of
a system which intends to stay in power and to produce wealth and
comfort for themselves at the expense of others. That is why the
immensely popular nuclear disarmament movement had to arise. It is a
self-defense mechanism. The people want disarmament now. One out of
every 250 Americans went to NYC to say that. Each one of them
represents about 50 more with the same views that could not attend the
rally. The frigid Cold War governments must finally bow to the
desires of the people--somebody has got to stop them!
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).
In my more paranoid moments, I can just see top military
planners plot how they can all look like they are for peace while
pushing the war industry along as much as possible. Brezhnev can
suggest an arms freeze; Reagan proposes reductions. The end result is
a disagreement which allows the arms race to continue unfettered with
the peoples' hopes for peace.
RISKING DEATH from Cox--
I do not agree that the small group of people in positions of
power throughout the world are representative of the people. This
power elite strives to maintain and augment their own wealth,
influence and power. Such elites exist in both the United States and
the Soviet Union. It is one thing to be "risking death to preserve
our freedoms"; it is another thing altogether to provoke a continous
escalation of the arms race. One type of freedom is the power to make
decisions about your future and the future of your community. The
centralized control of armed forces in botht the United States and the
Soviet Union makes such democratic decisions impossible.
PEACEFUL RESISTANCE from Julian Davies--
Thank you for a refreshing and stimulating contribution to the
digest. I also believe and act on peaceful resistance to violence.
Although I am not a Quaker, you people are some of the more
enlightened people I've met.
When we leave all of the overkill statistics and power elite
strategizing behind, I feel that it really comes down to how much we
care for our neighbors and how much we are willing to strive for peace
and community cooperation.
If I were in El Salvador right now, my family facing a
right-wing death squad, I am not sure that I could remain nonviolent.
I certainly would not condemn this kind of violence in defense before
the violence inflicted upon those who must defend themselves. 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.
Ghandi explained that we must use the means to achieve a goal
that best approximates the goal for which we strive. We must try to
equate the means and the ends to achieve our ends. I feel that we
should live as much at peace as we can, if we intend to strive for a
peaceful world. It is a struggle that may never end, but it is a
struggle (the struggle against violent oppression) for which I should
be more proud to die than any other struggle. We will lay our lives
on the line to stop the destruction, not to promote it.
One good book on peaceful resistance to various forms of
military occupation is Gene Sharp's "The Politics of Nonviolence". I
also recommend Mahatma Ghandi's works, as well as the writings of
Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King.
Perhaps Ted Anderson's fortune cookie quote which reads: "Try
a new system or a different approach" is appropriate here. Instead of
tooling around with weapons of destruction, why don't we devote those
resources to medicine, housing, safe, renewable energy production,
agricultural, communications and transportation improvements (even to
outer space, it's a lot more healthy)? There are planty of problems
to be solved without a nuclear war.
We can start by recognizing that almost all of the conflicts
we have are solved peacefully, that violence is the exception not the
rule. We need to study peaceful resolution to conflict, for peaceful
resolution is the most frequent and most desirable outcome.
Peace,
Will Doherty (WDOHERTY@BBNG)
------------------------------
End of Arms-D Digest
********************