C70:arms-d (06/18/82)
>From HGA@MIT-MC Fri Jun 18 02:41:25 1982
Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 0 : Issue 123
Today's Topics:
But is Arms Control a good idea?
Alleged communist fronts
Standards of discussion among the intelligentsia
Comments on SOBER FACTS
More on why Arms Control is nearly worthless
Pacifists not informed about military options?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 17 Jun 1982 0058-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: But is Arms Control a good idea?
"It is thouht that the combination of four hydrogen atoms to form one
atom of helium occurs in the interior of stars, and could be made to
occur in terrestrial laboratories if we could produce tempreatures
compared to thos in the interior of stars. Almost all loss of energy
involved in building up elements other than hydrogen occurs in the
transition to helium; in later stages the loss of energy is small. If
helium, or any element other than hydrogen, could be artificially
manufactured out of hydrogen there would be in the process an
enourmous liberation of energy in the form of light and heat. This
suggest the possibility of atomic bombs more destructive than the
present ones, which are made by means of uranium. There would be a
further advantage: The supply of uranium in the planet is very
limited, and it is feared that it may be used up before the human race
is exterminated, but if the practically unlimited supply of hydrogen
in the sea could there would be considerable reason to hope that homo
sapiens might put and end to himself, to the great advantage of the
other less ferocious animals.
But it is time to turn to less cheerful topics."
Bertrand Russell
From: Human Knowledge, its Scope and Limits
1948
------------------------------
Date: 17 Jun 1982 10:07:33-EDT
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: Re: alleged communist fronts
In response to your message of Thu Jun 17 08:20:28 1982:
Unfortunately, many of the people I've encountered do not see any
similarity between Soviet funding of groups here and our funding of
groups there. Further, I'm not sure that I automatically regard such
activities on either side with suspicion; I have occasionally thought
that the best thing for this world would be for \all/ of the
[superpowers] to have their willingness to take arms outside their
immediate boundaries sapped.
As for the Heritage Foundation being well regarded by its
opponents, I guess you're just not very familiar with those opponents.
Even THE NEW REPUBLIC, which is no longer a staunchly liberal
magazine, has spoken poorly of their claims that the larger portion of
the news media in this country is pushing "disinformation".
------------------------------
Date: 17 June 1982 12:47-EDT
From: Zigurd R. Mednieks <ZRM at MIT-MC>
Subject: AFSC
Would the people out there who seem to know more about AFSC than I
comment on their behavior during the thirties and the Viet Nam war
era? The affiliation of a group with a church does not imply anything
about their politics (AFSC) or even their intelligence (The Moral
Majority). It would be incorrect to hold groups with church
affiliations above criticism and it would be foolish to ignore the
diversity of opinion among such groups.
Yow! Are we getting preoccupied yet? The discussion in this list leans
heavily to the discussion of strategic nuclear war. That leads to a
lot of flaming without any basis in facts because nobody really knows
anything about nuclear war. Considering all the hard facts about
modern weapons that were generated recently in the Falklands and the
middle east, shouldn't we be discussion what might deter the use of
conventional weapons? It isn't likely the next war will start with
nukes, and, offhand it seems that the best way to make sure that it
doesn't end with nukes is to make sure it never starts at all. So how
about some discussion of conventional deterrant?
Cheers,
Zig
------------------------------
Date: 18 June 1982 02:00-EDT
From: James A. Cox <APPLE at MIT-MC>
Subject: alleged communist fronts
\The New Republic/ could only be regarded as "no longer a staunchly
liberal magazine" by someone even further to the left. I know of not
a single editorial position taken by that magazine recently which I
could not arguably call "liberal."
------------------------------
Date: 17 June 1982 13:08-EDT
From: Oded Anoaf Feingold <OAF at MIT-MC>
Subject: Standards of discussion among the intelligentsia
I am getting tired of hearing people being called "pacifists" as an
explanation of why their opinion differs from yours. I am furthermore
getting tired of pigeonholing and stereotyping, but not of mudlinging,
cuz I am about to sling some mud (my natural habitat).
As far as getting one's ass shot off goes, I am pleased to explain: I
tend towards viewpoints that might get me branded "pacifist" by the
standards of this list. Therefore, even though I have not actively
advocated positions such as those put forward by Lin, Webb, Caulkins,
WDoherty and mayhap others, I feel myself included in the intended
audience for your original remarks.
So at a first approximation, the comment about shooting your ass off
was to let you know that my opinions do not make me a pacifist, or
even less bloodthirsty than the average around here.
The second-order meaning is that my feelings on arms policy can be
different from yours WITHOUT invalidating my belief that adequate
defenses (by various countries) are necessary/desirable. I don't have
any quarrel with the primary purpose of the New York demonstration,
but that doesn't make me pacifistic. Calling me pacifist by that
criterion is tantamount to asserting that my convictions in that
regard [necessity of adequate defense] are either nonexistent or
insincere. I do not appreciate that imputation.
There is a third-order meaning: Asking the "pacifists out there"
whether they know how Soviet-stoogeish these various organizations are
is a rhetorical attempt to link them (the "pacifists") with them (the
Soviet-stoogeish organizations), and by extension imply that the
pacifists are Soviet stooges, whether wittingly or not. That is
unfair, it is redbaiting, it is bullshit, it is McCarthyistic, it is
primitive, and even assuming you uncovered some truth and we (or I in
particular) were serving Soviet policy in some remote sphere, that
doesn't make the policy wrong nor me wrong in advancing it. I am
reluctant to entertain the explanation that you were actually calling
for undisclosed pacifists out there (not on this mailing list) to
examine their true backers/masters/motivators. I think you were
pulling a little rhetorical stunt to discredit people on this list (in
the best William F. Buckley style,) and I DON'T BUY that class of
argument.
Furthermore, whatever the putative merits (or lack thereof) of the
issue you raised, making a blatant factual error as calling the AFSC a
Soviet front casts doubt on whether the rest of your accusations are
righteous. So
accusing the pacifists out there
of being duped by the Soviets
and therefore wrong
by rhetorically tying them
to Soviet-fronts organizations
which might not even BE Soviet-front
is a crock of shit, intentionally stepped into.
Oh yeah, one last thing. It's REAL bad logic to make the implicit
accusation that only pacifists marched in New York. Care to tell me
(us) you didn't do that?
Hmm, I guess I have to shoot my own ass off, for using that forbidden
word. Oh well, the flame value was worth it.
Cheers,
Oded
------------------------------
Date: 17 June 1982 22:23-EDT
From: Zigurd R. Mednieks <ZRM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Standards of discussion among the intelligentsia
Intelligensia? Well anyway...
I thought I was pretty clear about differing opinion: I even stated
that I especially respected differing opinion on the maintainance of
liberty (as opposed to merely a state of peace), and that is what
seems to be at the heart of your flame. I too have doubts about nukes
-- especially the battlefield nukes that now underpin NATO defences.
I did err about the word pacifist, but only in accepting the degraded
meaning of it in the context of the current arms-d discussion. You
should be flaming at the people who label themselves pacifists and
aren't. Did you read my last message about the orthoganality of
anti-nuke/pacifist/dupe categories?
Please read what you are objecting to more carefully or be accused of
Witch-hunting yourself.
Cheers,
Zig
------------------------------
Date: 18 June 1982 01:51-EDT
From: James A. Cox <APPLE at MIT-MC>
Subject: comments on SOBER FACTS
From Caulkins at USC-ECL:
.... I think most people would prefer the 'cancer' of serfdom
to the very real cancer which many nuclear survivors would
suffer.
Unfortunately, you may be right. I say "unfortunately" because our
horror of nuclear war, and our consequent willingness to do almost
anything to avoid it, may be exactly what will bring about the "cancer
of serfdom" most quickly.
People who are not willing to risk death to preserve their freedom do
not deserve it, and usually do not have it for long.
------------------------------
Date: 17 Jun 1982 2259-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: More on why Arms Control is nearly worthless.
I skimmed an editorial in today's Wall Street Journal, by some
pathologist, on the subject of Yellow Rain and chemical/biological
warfare in general. One of his points was that these problems were
potentially at least as dangerous as nuclear weapons and easily more
so. Yet there is little uproar about them, either public or
scientific.
On the basis of (1) Nuclear Weapons, (2) Chemical Weapons, and (3)
Biological Weapons, I would be inclined to use informal induction to
assume the existance of any number of types of weapons of mass
destruction. It convinces me that we are approaching the problem of
survival the wrong way. It's like seeing an hoard of rats coming at
you and responding by organizing five or six people with sling shots
to shoot rocks at them. The argument can be made that sling shots are
better than doing nothing, but still it seems like a more effective
solution will be necessary.
Consider the suggested ideal world in which there are enough controls
on, and inspections of, research & development, the military and the
politicians to insure that we are safe from all possible weapons of
mass destruction. This is not the sort of world I look forward to
living in. I'm annoyed enough at the fairly modest requirements
imposed by our own classification and regulatory system. Well, you
say, think of the alternative: Living in constant terror of sudden,
civilization annihilating war. Well, yes, I guess that is worse, but
not much. Frankly I don't like either alternative.
The fundamental problem is that human beings are tools using animals.
Men have been manipulating their environment for something like
100,000 years. It is unreasonable to expect them to suddenly lose
interest in such activities. These "activities" are not limited to
war. Nuclear power, big water projects, genetic engineering, and
weather control (to name the first four I thought of) are all things
that present "Arms Control" like problems. Even in an area as
obviously dangerous as Nuclear Weapons arms control agreements have
had dubious success. What hope is there that more subtle dangers can
be dealt with more effectively?
A friend of mine has a Fortune Cookie fortune tacked to his wall which
reads: "Try a new system or different approach." Surely this is
called for here. As I've suggested before, I think a massive effort
to develop space is one "different approach" that has a great deal to
be said for it. This approach subscribes to the theory that mankind
has too many of its eggs (i.e. all) in one, very fragile, basket. It
should not be necessary to conjure up unlikely catacalismic events
such as are chronicled in "Lucifer's Hammer" to convince people of
this.
An important question is, are there other approaches that also have
the potential of providing us with more appetizing alternatives than
the two I rejected above? Surely there is more than just one.
Perhaps at the root of the problem is some innate aggressiveness as
some have suggested. Maybe subtle (and often not so subtle)
population pressures are responsible. Possibly within a few years the
dominant life form on this planet will be silicon based, or some
hybrid, then the rules governing behavior will be sufficently
different that we won't have to worry about these problems. On the
other hand maybe we just worry too much.
Ted Anderson
------------------------------
Date: Thu Jun 17 17:14:11 1982
From: decvax!watmath!djmdavies at Berkeley
Subject: Pacifists not informed about military options?
I don't ordinarily read this digest, but a friend asked me to comment
on the recent suggestion that American Friends Service Committee
(AFSC) is a [soviet communist] 'Front' organization. Sacnning the
recent issues, I see that others have replied already. Mind you,
though Quakers have been around since the mid-1600s, AFSC is
considerably more recent, early this century, if I remember correctly.
But, yes--it's Quaker Service for US residents.
I noted two other strains of thought. One, that there are no
pacifists reading this digest (regularly); and Two that pacifists
haven't really thought about the military (and/or other) consequences
of their stand. [stand by for mild flaming]
I was kind of surprised that noone on this list is a *real*
pacifist, but then I suppose most of you work for the US military or
are funded by grants of military origin--the ARPAnet being what it
is..? And a thorough-going pacifist would refuse such a position in
all likelihood. It does mean that there is a danger of only preaching
to the converted in the discussions.
The suggestion that pacifists haven't really thought through the
implications of their beliefs is comforting to those who support
military action as a way to resolve disputes, and may be true of some
pacifists, but is not a correct generalization. Pacifists arrive at
their beliefs for various reasons, and there are different 'flavours'
of pacifism much as there are different forms of vegetarianism (for
example).
I am a Quaker, and am a pacifist for religious/spiritual reasons. My
beliefs/actions haven't really been tested seriously yet, but that's
the direction I want to be pointing in (Canada hasn't been at war
lately). I believe that it is wrong to threaten or resist with
military violence. I cannot accept (for myself) a notion that killing
and maiming people, destroying property, etc., is an appropriate way
to stand up for ones 'rights' or way of life. I DO believe in
RESISTING, but non-violently, in the case of a military invasion-for
instance.
I do not happen to believe that the Russians are likely to invade any
part of North America, but if they were to I would not want to
participate in fighting them off. I believe that non-violent
resistance and non-cooperation by the whole population would be more
effective and much more positive as a way of reaction. Doing this
properly would mean countries setting up trained forces, to supersede
the present armed forces. Some pacifists have thought about these
issues more deeply than myself. It isn't true that pacifists haven't
thought deeply about the implications of their beliefs. We believe
the risks involved (which are very real) can and should be taken. I
am inclined to suggest that most non-pacifists haven't got beyond a
stage of seeing that there are risks, and just turning off.
This is getting too long, but I will close by remarking that the
Quaker peace testimony is not primarily a (negative) 'no' to war, it
is rather a YES to peace-- which is rather a tall order. Quakers are
concerned to seek to understand, and work to remove, the root causes
of conflicts and social problems. Emphasis on ROOT causes. Our
society isn't so hot on treating people as people either, and pacifism
in an international-conflict sense is only a small (but sometimes
visible) corner of what Pacifism means to me.
Julian Davies University of Western Ontario
------------------------------
End of Arms-D Digest
********************