C70:arms-d (06/23/82)
>From HGA@MIT-MC Wed Jun 23 01:51:00 1982 Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 0 : Issue 127 Today's Topics: No First Use pledge Pacifism Voodoo politics Pacifists not informed about military options? Risking death --> USA helping Soviet war machine? Aiding the USSR Reply to comments of Will Doherty A hidden assumption "Sober Facts ...", a clarification Keep your peace ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Jun 82 1:12:42-EDT (Sun) From: J C Pistritto <jcp@BRL> Subject: Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V0 #124 Re No First Use pledge: When I heard Gromyko make the NFU pledge at the UN last week, I started worrying that Reagan would get pressured into following him up with one of our own. Making general statements about how one would employ one's arsenal of weaponry before the battle has begun is about the most counterproductive thing I could imagine for a chief executive to do. You just don't give a potential adversary that kind of information. As I pointed out in a discussion with LIN over this list about two months ago, at the moment, nuclear weapons are about all that are keeping the Russians from making a total walkover of Western Europe. If both us and the Russians made an NFU pledge, then we, (NOT THEY), would have to engage in a massive conventional armament, (much more massive than the President has proposed), to catch up in conventional weapons, resulting in a another arms race, with conventional weapons, rather than nuclear. This time, however, we won't have the stabilizing influence of the terrible consequences of nuclear combat. Suddenly 'small, isolated' wars become possible without the threat of escalation. Result: The Russians engage us in 'limited conventional war' in Europe. The Arabs & Israelis fight to the death, with lots of US and USSR weapons and probably troops. The Russians invade Iran, (and maybe Iraq and Saudi Arabia), the US finds itself locked in a massive conventional war in the Middle East. Castro starts throwing his weight, (and MiGs), around in South America, resulting in several expensive brush-fire wars, (kind of like Vietnam, remember that non-nuclear conflict?) Pick one of the above, or maybe more, depending on how much effort one side or the other is willing to put into it. Personally, I'd rather have the THREAT of a nuclear war, rather than the ACTUALITY of conventional war on one or more fronts continuously, until either we or the Russians have totally sapped our strength and withdrawn from the field, (which could take decades, maybe even centuries). I think that people are forgetting, in their haste to dismantle the nuclear weapons, that they are some of the few reasons that the world lives in comparative piece, (at least to the first part of this century). -JCP- ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jun 82 00:11:04 EDT (Mon) From: Steve Bellovin <smb.unc@UDel-Relay> Subject: pacifism The problem with pacifism is not, as Cox has claimed, that it doesn't work; rather, it only works in a limited set of circumstances. Specifically, the practitioners and the enemy must share a common moral code. If they do, an effective program of passive resistance can sap the enemy's will to resist. Two examples come to mind: the way the British were forced out of India, and the way that the Civil Rights laws were brought about in this country. (Yes, the latter worked because of the publicity the sit-ins, etc., caused. So what? The atomic bombs forced Japan to surrender, but not because of the physical effects of those two blasts. Incidentally -- speaking of Japan -- David Kahn's book "The Codebreakers" contains the statement that "starvation at home caused Japan to make surrender overtures even before the atom bombs exploded". Does anyone know more about that? I have the paperback, unannotated edition of Kahn's book.) A classic example of where passive resistance would have been useless is the victims of the Nazi concentration camps. A second problem with Davies' proposal for activist pacifism is that it requires a much greater degree of commitment from a much larger percentage of the population. Specifically, only a small percentage of a country is actively risking their lives fighting a war; for a civil disobedience campaign to be effective in the face of armed attack, many more have to be willing to take the consequences of their actions. (In either case, the civilian population suffers the risk of bombings, etc.) ------------------------------ Date: 22 June 1982 09:55-EDT From: Zigurd R. Mednieks <ZRM at MIT-MC> Subject: Voodoo politics Does one two-hundred-and-fiftieth of the populace that perhaps "represents", without being elected, a fifth of the populace constitute an overwhelming majority that is being ignored by the goverment? This sort distortion of reality is most frighteningly, strongly reminiscent of the sort of voodoo politics that brought Hitler to power. Do you really believe that the governments of the Soviet Union and the United States are so similar in disregarding the people they govern? Your democracy-is-oppression logic is, I'm sure, quite capable of standing any reasoned argument for a deterrent on its head, but the peace you believe you are seeking would be the first victim of government by those who yell loudest. You have completely lost sight of the differences between East and West. Try this thought experiment: would you rather live in South Korea or Romania? What is the difference? Is it just material wealth, or something else? Which country do you think is farther down the road toward being a pluralistic republic such as the U.S.? Find what characterizes the difference between these two countries and you just might find the reason the U.S. supports regimes that are not as liberal as our own goverment about civil liberties. You might also gain some insight as to the difference between Soviet Socialism and our own imperfect means of providing representation to the people. Liberty! Zig ------------------------------ Date: Tuesday, 22 June 1982 09:58-EDT From: Jon Webb <Webb at Cmu-20c> Subject: Pacifists not informed about military options? I think you're [Cox -Mod.] seriously distorting my view. I'm not saying the Soviets couldn't invade and set up a government if there were no resistance at all. Of course they could. What I am saying is that they would have a hard time keeping control of that government over time. And in any case, complete passive resistance by the entire U.S. population is a fantasy case: of course many people would resist violently. So I'm not sure what, or who, you are arguing against. Jon ------------------------------ Date: 23 June 1982 01:49-EDT From: James A. Cox <APPLE at MIT-MC> Subject: Pacifists not informed about military options? Jon Webb: >From your original message, it was not clear exactly how you proposed that non-violent means would defeat an armed invasion. When you clarified that point, I simply wished to point out that absorption of the invading force would probably take centuries. Since the Soviet Premier would not be likely to worry too much about the danger that his invading force would be absorbed 200 or 300 years hence, non-violence is not an effective response to threatened violence in this case. I apologize if I distorted your view. It was not intentional. Perhaps I did not understand you clearly. Also, it is possible to make points without arguing "against" anyone, is it not? ------------------------------ Date: 06/22/82 15:40:47 From: REM at MIT-MC Subject: Risking death --> USA helping Soviet war machine? Let me rebut two poins you [ES -Mod.] made. Making sure the Russian economy doesn't collapse is prudent. If they become so desperate they have nothing to lose, they may commit suicide by attacking us with nuclear weapons. Better they have something to live for. Thus sending wheat etc. to them is good. It's not the job of a university to restrict access to general research not specifically related to warmaking. Robotics can be used to manufacture complicated items, to help physically-handicapped people move around, to explore other planets, to replace our dangerous private-automobile system with an automated and safe transportation system, ... I see no more reason to restrict robotics information than to restrict just about any other kind of research and engineering being done at any university. If a foreign citizen isn't to have access to our general-purpose technology, heesh shouldn't be admitted to this country, and that is the job of the government not the universities. ------------------------------ Date: 06/22/82 22:47:08 From: ES at MIT-MC Subject: Aiding the USSR I disagree with REM's comment that we should bail out the Russian economy because they might decide to start a nuclear war if their economy collapsed. First of all, they might not. Once we follow this policy there will be no hope of ever ridding the world of the cancer of communism. They will have no reason to let up on their oppression because they will know that if their slaves can't produce what they want, we will give it to them. After a while they will take for granted our economic aid, and like our own welfare scums, demand such aid as their right. Once we allow ourselves to be blackmailed by threat of nuclear war into actually helping those who threaten us with said nuclear war, then our ability to resist is reduced, and their ability to attack is increased. Now they are on more solid ground for their next blackmail threat. The final result is our surrender, and to an entity on the verge of economic collapse. On the contrary, if their economic system is weak, it is they who should be the blackmail victims. We could sell them grain, but only if they allow American newspapers and magazines and books to be sold in the Soviet Union. The value of the arms race as an economic weapon seems to be much overlooked. Our economy could be pulled out of the recession now, just as before World War II. Of course, we would not actually use the weapons, its just part of the game. Nevertheless, these weapons would be functional and available should the necessity arise. Meanwhile, the presumably inefficient communist economy must make its slaves suffer more and more if they wish to keep up with us. This provides us with the opportunity to also use psychological warfare to defeat communism. I cAn think of no better example of strategic stupidity than the recent gas pipeline deal between Western Europe and the USSR. Let me quote from the July 1982 issue of "Access to Energy". ... The construction of the gas pipeline from Siberia to Europewith West European technology and finances is going ahead; in fact, W. Germanyhas agreed to increase the financing of its contribution from 80% to 100%, and this includes Mannesmann 56 inch pipe. (The Soviets total annual pipe production amounts to only 1/15 of what it needs for that line!) ... The Soviets need the pipeline badly, above all for their own energy; if technology transfer and credits were stopped, or even curbed, the Soviets would have to - "turn their attention inward, take care of their own people, ... and stop diverting vast resources to the military." The quote is from the President's defense strategy (24 May 82) ... . What sane US or other banker would lend communist economies a single cent if the loans were not guaranteed by their governments? I would add to this that the money could better be spent on energy self sufficiency for thousands, if not millions, of years by constructing breeder reactors. ------------------------------ Date: 06/22/82 23:05:21 From: ES at MIT-MC Subject: Reply to comments of Will Doherty "... until we are sure that our very survival depends on the use of violence, I feel that we should not use violent measures." Does this mean that we don't try to stop the Russians when they invade, rape, loot, enslave and kill. But if they kill too many people, the survivors, hiding in the mountains, picking berries and trapping squirrels for food, can build plutonium production reactors. But that would be mean and nasty; maybe they should only throw rocks. ------------------------------ Date: 06/22/82 23:32:47 From: ES at MIT-MC Subject: A hidden assumption There has been throughout these discussions on ARMS-D a certain assumption whose truth seems not to have been questioned. I refer to the claim that nuclear holocaust can, with certainty, be avoided if only we surrender. Why is this true? With the surrender of the United States, there would be no military force in the world that could stop the Soviet Union from doing whatever they damn well please. I will suggest a reason why they might actually want to use nuclear weapons after an American surrender. When the occupying forces arrive, they would see the wealth and splendor of the ordinary American citizen. They would see the houses, cars, shopping centers. They would see that worker have fairly pleasant working conditions and are not chained to their machines. This view of American life probably is in contradiction to what they have been told by their propaganda, although I admit I don't really know what the Russians are told about America. This could possibly pose some risk to the loyalty of their troops. To avoid the problem, the Soviets can, using officers or others of unquestioned loyalty, first secure control of American nuclear weapons. Then, using these very weapons perhaps, wipe out all trace of the American lifestyle. Why do it with nuclear explosives? Because its the cheapest way to get the job done. ------------------------------ Date: 06/22/82 23:50:31 From: ES at MIT-MC Subject: "Sober Facts ...", a clarification In the July 1982 "Access to Energy", Beckmann clarifies the assertion that 438 one megaton bombs would be required to destroy Los Angeles. The claim refer to the 3000 square miles of metropolitan L. A. and not the 450 square miles of incorporated inner city. ------------------------------ Date: 23 June 1982 01:57-EDT (Wednesday) From: Robert A. Carter <CARTER at RUTGERS> Subject:keep your peace Date: Sunday, 20 June 1982 20:01-EDT From: WDOHERTY at BBNG 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. Peace, Views of this sort are passionately expressed, but not unfamiliar. They were not new to me before they were expressed here. Perhaps there should be a list called DISARMAMENT-D for those who wish to hear, or say, more of this. I would like to see discussion on ARMS-D turn to topics about I want to learn, and about which some readers of this list are uniquely qualified to teach. To leave strategic planning and the theology of nonviolence for a while, and talk about tactical hardware. For instance, it seems to me that some remarkable things must have happened quite recently to target-acquisition technologies used by air-to-ground and surface-to-air high-explosive missiles. The Israelis appear to have disposed with little or no trouble of Syrian (Soviet) ground-based systems that are in my impression of exactly the generation of the ones successfully used by the British in the South Atlantic. How? What are the processing requirements of the task, and how are they handled? What are the technical problems of homing on the other systems' guidance radar, and why did the Soviet designers not provide for quickly changing the radar wavelengths to avoid the problem? Is it too difficult to do cheaply? Did they just not think of it? Are there any interesting technical reasons for the astonishing Israeli success ratios over Syrian aircraft? The Israelis had our second-best tactical air platform off the coast - the one considered much less powerful than AWACS. What are the parameters of the processing task that unit faces, and what general kind of equipment does it use? Why was it not shot down immediately? I have heard that the Israeli main battle tank has American-made engines. The only American-made tank engine I know of is the notorious turbine used in the M1 Abrams. Have all the bugs been fixed? I can't imagine that we manufacture Diesels better than the Germans, or, indeed, better than the Israelis themselves could. You get the idea. I would be most interested in any detailed information anyone can provide, but if you don't know the details, make them up. Anything but more sanctimony. R. Carter ------------------------------ End of Arms-D Digest ********************