Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 Tandy Xenix 02/17/86; site gilbbs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!well!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020
From: mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Dangerous Military Myth
Message-ID: <59@gilbbs.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 9-Mar-86 20:35:33 EST
Article-I.D.: gilbbs.59
Posted: Sun Mar  9 20:35:33 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Mar-86 05:15:18 EST
References: <373@ihnet.UUCP> <711@mtuxn.UUCP>
Organization: Gil's Place, Santa Rosa CA
Lines: 502
Summary: innuendo and pseudo-logic harmful


   First, an apology to most of you for the unGhodly length of this article.
I honestly couldn't think of a way to keep my responses to Guy Ferraiolo
clear and meaningful in context.

In article <711@mtuxn.UUCP>, gdf@mtuxn.UUCP (G.FERRAIOLO) writes:
> 
> >>  devonst@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht)
> >> Oh, get off it Tim.  Cut the histrionics.  Reagan is no pathological liar.
> >> He happens to disagree with your point of view.  You want us to believe
> >> that the majority of Americans who voted for him in the last election
> >> were simply deceived and couldn't see through the lies?  
> 
> >It's possible.  Does this seem implausible to you?  Perhaps you overestimate
> >the intelligence of Americans.  Watched any network TV lately?
> 
> True, anything is possible.  It is also possible that the people who voted
> for Reagan agree with him.  Since you think Reagan is an idiot, therefore
> all his supporters are idiots.  How inconvenient (sic?).  Perhaps a
> vanguard of dedicated social reformers should take over the government 
> until the poor foolish people learn 'the right way to do it'.  Maybe you
> could tell us all?  
> 
> 
   It is much more likely that the people (most of them) who voted for Reagan 
haven't any idea of the issues involved.  They voted on the basis of personal
charisma and popularity.  Reagan is a distributor of massive quantities of 
misinformation.  "Pathological liar"?  Maybe not, but his respect for truth
is questionable at best.

> >> the politburo doesn't have to contend with a
> >> congress that may cut defense funding at the drop of a hat.
> 
> >Unfortunately, neither does Reagan.
> 
> Statement contrary to fact.
> 
   
   Technically, you are correct, Reagan *DOES* have to deal with a congress
that *MAY* cut defense spending.  However, what Sevener obviously meant by
his statement was that Reagan doesn't have to deal with a congress that *WILL*
cut defense spending at the drop of a hat.  Reagan has managed to cow the 
congress into several stupid acts, and while he may not get *EVERYTHING* he
wants, he will, once again, get most of what he wants.  Wait and see (and oh
GHOD, do I hope I am wrong on this one!).

> >What advantage?!?  Do you really believe it is better to have 50,000 missiles
> >than 500?  Especially since many reputable independent scientists have
> >recently estimated that ~200 nuclear explosions will
> >irreparably damage the *entire* ecology of our planet.
> 
> Great, as soon as the Russians do it, we'll THINK about it.  By the way
> who has 50,000 missles.  Isn't 50,000 ONE estimate of the total warheads
> on the planet?  As I recall, the US has about 1000 strategic missles (ground
> based) with a total of about 3000 strategic warheads.  Please let us all know
> about the secret 49,000 missles the US has.

   Well, Guy, seeing as we're playing at picking nits about numbers, since when
is 50,000 - 3,000 == 49,000????  According to *MY* understanding, the US has
considerably more than 3000 nuclear warheads stockpiled.  I don't know the
exact number, and neither do you, because the exact number *IS* classified.

> 
> Of course, you ASSUME  that hypothesis is correct.  Let us continue
> research.  If, and that is a big IF, the hypothesis is proven correct,
> you have the beginnings of a point.  Until that hypothesis is PROVEN
> correct and is known to policy makers both here and in all nuclear powers,
> it is irrelevant.  

   I see.  So until we actually have a significant nuclear exchange, and
see that in fact, the ecology has been irreparably damaged, we should *ASSUME*
that it isn't going to be that way, and continue on helter-skelter, right?

> Incidentally, Japan was forced by surrender with 2
> nuclear weapons (rather small by today's standards) , 

   Irrelevant and misleading.  First, no one in the world had eve been attacked
with nuclear weapons before.  The shocking magnitude of the destruction was
mentally and emotionally crippling to the Japanese, and much of the rest of
humanity.  MOreover, as *I* understand the history of the Japanese bombings,
the Japanese has already offered to surrender prior to the first bomb, and
agreed to unconditional surrender prior to the dropping of the second bomb.
*YET*, we dropped them anyway!  I contend that the dropping of the bombs was
not, in fact, what stimulated the Japanese surrender.

> so even if the
> nuclear winter theory (that's theory, not fact), is correct, it is
> still national suicide for the US to allow the Russians total nuclear
> supremacy.  

    In the first place, no one is suggesting that we should permit the Soviets
"total nuclear supremacy".  What *IS* being proposed is that the construction
further nuclear weapons does not noticeably enhance our ability to defend 
ourselves against a Soviet (or any other nuclear power) attack.  Further,
there is *NO* evidence to suggest that the number of nuclear weapons we have
in any way deters the Soviets, or that more weapons would further deter them.

> I personally believe that the nuclear winter theory is a
> crock.  Ten years from now, let's see who is right.
> 

   I see.  You *BELIEVE* that the nuclear winter theory is a crock.  I find
this very interesting.  Can you provide meaningful evidence to support this
belief?  Can you show any signifcant errors in the mathematics or the reasoning
that goes into the nuclear winter theory?  Defend your proposition, or can it!


> >Yes, they might be wrong, but it is rather idiotic to
> >take the chance.  Communism is infinitely preferable to
> >radiation, hypothermia, or starvation.
> 
> Surrender, Dorothy.  After all the wicked witch will be very angry if 
> you don't do as she says.  And if later on the Communists kill half
> the population of the country and enslave the rest, well, I guess that
> is ok.  This argument is not even related to nuclear weapons.  If someone
> sufficiently ruthless threatens you, then give in.  You make it easy
> for evil to triumph.  Maybe evil will triumph, but we should resist.
> 
> 	Gandalf: If Sauron gets the ring, he will enslave Middle Earth.
> 	Frodo(new version):OK, that's 'infinitely preferable' to me 
> 			   getting hurt.
> This would make for an interesting version of Lord of the Rings.
> 

   Unreasonable analogy.  In the first place, if the choice is between total
annihilation of our society, or the potential murder of half our population,
I would think that opting for the latter makes more sense.  At least then, 
there will be someone left *TO* resist!

   Secondly, for someone who complains about liberals using emotional as opposed
to logical arguments, I find your characterization fo the Soviets as evil to
be most interesting.  Prove that they are evil.  (not that I in any way believe
that the way the Soviets work is desireable...but that is a separate issue)

   As for the LOTR analogy, hold the phone!  We are *NOT* talking about giving
in in order to avoid a minor (or even a major) "hurt".  We are talking about
holding the vaule of "LIFE AS WE KNOW IT ON THIS PLANET" as being somewhat 
higher than the value of our attachment to the particular socio-political
perversions we cling to - named pseudo-capitalims/democracy.  

   Do we, as the United States, have thr right to decide for the entire world
whether or not to continue existence?  If we choose to cling to the principal
of Mutual Assured Destruction, then we are in essence saying that our wish to
defend our way of life is of greater value than the wishes of the rest of the
world to continue to live.  Typical Amerikan imperialism.

> 
> >Since we would not, could not, send more than 500 missiles streaking towards
> >Russia (or anyone else), and both sides know this,
> > it is silly and dangerous to have 50,000.
> 
> Too bad both sides don't know it.  Of course I claim it's not the case,
> so it makes sense that both sides don't know it.  Even if it is the
> case, it is not currently assumed to be true by both sides.  (What happened 
> to the other nuclear powers in your discussion)?
> 
> >Silly, because it is driving our economy into the ground.
> 
> Statement contrary to fact.  The cost of nuclear weaponry is not significant
> in 'driving our economy into the ground'.  Please provide some proof that
> our economy is being driven into the ground and that cutting expenditures 
> on nukes to ZERO would help.

   Hold it!  It is the proponents of continued nuclear development that are 
spending BILLIONS of dollars to provide nuclear weapons and delivery systems.
Therefore, it should be *THEY* who prove that their programs are *NOT* 
significantly contributing to the decline of our economy, not the other way 
around!

   Furthermore, it is patently obvious that such expenditures are contributing
to the decline of our economy, in terms of inflation at least.  Classically, 
inflation is defined as too much purchasing power chasing too few goods.  The
construction of nuclear (and other miliatry) weaponry and systems pumps large
quantities of cash into the moeny market, while at the same time permanently
removinf resources (thus, potential goods) from the economy...inflation.
> 
> >Dangerous, because it makes nuclear war a little more likely,
> >and it is just that much more weapons grade nuclear technology we must
> >protect from accidents, terrorists, etc.
> 
> Not proven (as opposed to provably false). If you want we can debate this 
> at length too.


   Really?  It is a known fact that the more complex a system is, the more likely
it is to fail.  MOreover, system reliabilty is directly related to the number
of components in a system.  Thus, the more nuclear weaponry we have, themore 
likely an accident becomes.  It is also reasonable to assue that there are'
nations and terrorist groups who would be willing to steal nuclear weapons
and technology.  This need not be proven.  It only makes sense to protect
ourselves against it.  The more we have, the more difficult such protection
becomes.

   As for the increased probabilities of nuclear war breaking out because of
larger stockpiles of weapons, prove that it isn't so.  After all, *YOU* are
the ones building more and more clearly dangerous items, therefore it is 
(or should be) incumbent upoin you to prove the safety of such a course.
Consider that the more weapons we build, the more personnel will be involved
in storing and maintaining them.  Thus, there becomes a statistically 
increased probability that one of them will accidentall or deliberately
cause a warhead/deliver system to be engaged and deployed.  Thus, the
probability of a war *DOES* in fact, increase with the construction of
more weapons.

> >> The only thing worth working
> >> for is a verifiable arms reduction treaty.   
> >That would certainly be ideal, but I strongly disagree
> >with the word "only".  We could do a great deal of
> >unilateral disarmament without risk, and the entire world would benefit.
> 

   Oops...gee whiz.  I have to jump on Sevener here.  I would not at this
time support unilateral disarmament.  What I *DO* support is a uni (or bi)
lateral weapons *FREEZE*.   Not at all the same thing!

> Great, you at least say it.  Of course, unilateral disarmament has
> NO CHANCE of being accepted by the American people.  I guess that
> just proves that they are all morons compared to 'progressive' folks
> like yourself.  Since we see no democratic way of implementing 
> your policies in the US, how do you plan to go about it?  How about
> a lot of pseudo-moralistic arguments mixed in with just plain anti-facts
> (50,000 missles? nuclear winter)?  Naaah, you wouldn't do that, would you?
> 
   There you go again.  Show me some reasonable evidence to believe that the
nuclear winter theory is an "anti-fact".  Take a simple mistake in identifying
a number and blow it up into a deliberate attempt at mis-information, why
don't you?  (odd, if Mr. Reagan had made that same error, you would undoubtedly
chuckle and insist it was just an honest mistake...)

> >If we were to take such a bold step, the Soviet Union would do
> >the same, since its economy is weaker than our own.
> >This does not arise from any "niceguy" characteristics,
> >the motivation is strictly intelligent calculated self interest.
> >Excess missiles don't buy Russia anything either.
> 
> BY YOUR CALCUATION.  Of course, maybe the Russians would think the wisest
> couse of action would be to blow the US up, 99 cities at a time, wait
> for the (supposed) particulate matter to fall from the atmosphere and
> continue in that manner.  The fact is that you ASSUME that you know 
> how the Russians would behave. The responsible approach is to plan
> so that WHATEVER the Russians do, the people of the US are as safe as
> we can manage.
> 


   If we implement a nuclear weapons freeze, it is highly unlikely that the
Soviets are going to consture this as an indicator that they may now attack us
with impudence.   Building more nuclear weapons does *NOT* improve the safety
of the people in the US.  IN fact, there is good reason to believe that it 
detracts from their safety.

> >In fact, they have already taken the lead in halting the arms
> >race.  Unfortunately, we are too paranoid to follow their lead.
> 
> I guess I missed this.  Are you talking about the fact that the
> Russians don't need to test right now, or have they stopped building
> missiles and bombers?  Maybe it isn't paranoia, but just rational
> scepticism.  Please provide whatever 'facts' support you in this case.
> I will be glad to retract this portion of my posting if you can convince
> me I'm wrong.
> 
> >> We have to keep an eye on those sneaky Communists or they'll try 
> >> to get the best of us every time.
> 
> >Can you say paranoid schizophrenic?  I knew you could.
> 
> Are you aware that the USSR has withdrawn from the major international
> psychiatric association to avoid censure?  Why were they about to
> be censured?  They claim that people who oppose them are 'schizo'
> and imprision them in 'hospitals' where the victims are tortured with
> electoshock and drugs.  Real psychiatrists are revolted at this, like
> real people. Of course, it really IS paranoia to think
> that Communism is wrong and that the Russians impose it through
> 'unlimited force', right?


   To begin with, the American public *IS* paranoid about the Soviet Union.
This is primarily due to a great deal of mis-information foisted upon them
by the American govenrment.  Further while it is needful to be watchful,
I would suggest that you review the history of the Oktober Revolution,
Guy.  If anyone has a justification for being paranoid of another people,
it is certainly the Soviet Union.  Again, this is by no means to be construed
as a statement that I think the Soviets are wonderful filk.

> 
> >We are trying "to get the best" of central America, South Africa, etc,
> >at the expense of their citizens' long term interests.
> 
> Just like Korea, Cambodia and Vietnam? Isn't it true in fact that
> the only thing standing between the world and a virtual utopia is
> the evil USA?  
> 
   Specious argument.  We are not saying that the Soviets don't do "bad"
things.  We are saying that the US *DOES*.  Are you suggesting that we should
pattern our behaviour after the Soviet Union?  That certainly seems to be the
direction of your argument.

> >If you mean something more substantial, like an invasion,
> >you have no evidence to back up your claim.
> >Yes, if we were a small country on the Soviet border,
> >We would have every right to be paranoid, but that is not the case.
> 
> Like China, right?  That's ok, with your approach, we will be on the
> Soviet border soon.  Fortunately, that isn't anything to worry about.
> Can you say that in Latvian, Lithuanian, Estonian or Afghani?
> How about Mongolian?


   Are you seriously suggesting that the Soviets are going to arm the Mexicans 
and manipulate them into invading our country?  Come now. Even a right wing,
administrative apologist such as you can see that this is silly?
> 

> >The Soviets do not take over distant countries, they convince people that
> >revolution is better than the oppressive dictators that enslave them.
> >Quite a reasonable assertion, I think.
> 
> And this 'convincing' is done by sweet reason?  More like brutality,
> but let that slide.

   Again, that isn't the issue.  I suppose you would argue that the Contras
are trying to persuade Nicarauguans to their point of view through "sweet
reason"?  Or that Savimbe is using anything other than brutality to
make his points in Angola?

> 
> >Of course, we then support the dictator, because after all,
> >we just couldn't side with Russia.  What would the neighbors think?
> >It's the principle of the thing!
> >Communist Russia becomes the friend, while capitalist U.S.
> >becomes the ruthless ideological enemy.
> >After the inevitable revolution, the new government hates us as
> >much as the ousted dictator.   (repeat scenario over and over and over ...)
> >But I digress.
> 
> Just like in Poland, right?  Or was that Hungary? Gee, I'm getting confused,
> maybe it was East Germany?  Then after the revolution (it is inevitable
> isn't it?) the people decide to express their hatred of the US by
> living in wretched slavery.  Occasionally they massacre themselves if
> they think it would make the point better (Cambodia, Tibet, Ukraine, etc
> ad nauseam).

   Hold it!  Completely irrelevant appeal to emotional responses.  We are
again not claiming that the Soviets are wunnerful filk.  What is being
pointed out here is that American is well known by the rest of the world
as habitually supporting dictators.

> 
> >Since we are satisfied with our current form of government,
> >we have little to fear from the Soviets.
> 
> Really?

   Well, darn!  Here I am again, disagreeing with Sevener (sorry  Tim).
There is some truth in what Sevener says here, though I think the manner in
which he states it is naieve and possibly dangerous.  We *DO* need to keep
a watchful eye on the doings of the Soviets.  We do *NOT* need to be
paranoid of them.

> 
> >Of course, if we continue our paranoid "defense" buildup,
> >we could evolve into a country similar to the Soviet Union in many ways.
> >A country with its power concentrated in the hands of a few appointed
> >militaristic decision makers,
> >who classify information they don't want the public to see,
> >restricting freedom at every turn,
> >and making democracy empty and void.
> >This transition will not happen in a lifetime, but it could happen,
> >and it looks like it is on the way.
> >Reagan has weakened the already inadequate controls over what gets classified
> >and why.  The checks and balances are conspicuously absent.
> 
> Compared to just about any other country, the US has very lax security
> laws.  In Russia, the size of the grain harvest is a state secret!
> I don't think we should do that, but there is room for a reasonable tightening
> of security.  Of course, I'm a paranoid.
> 
   Again, Guy, you seem to be suggesting that we should pattern our behaviour
after that of the Soviets, and other repressive/oppressive regimes.  Odd point
coming from someone one who *CLAIMS* to cherish freedom so much.

> >The other alternative is economic exhaustion, while Japan laughs
> >all the way to the bank (quoted from someone else).
> >A dissatisfied citizenry with a low standard of living and
> >rampant poverty is ripe for the communists' picking.

> ... on and on about economics versus military spending ...

   Indeed.  And on and on and on.   We *MUST* maintain a well equiped and 
prepared military (not just because of the Soviets).  Wasting money on useless,
dangerous weapons and systems does not meet this goal.  The money so spent would
be better spent on education and bettering the plight of the poor, which would
directly benefit *EVERYONE*.

> >Suffice to say that any wastefule defense program reduces national security
> >by eroding our economy.  Nuclear excess is a prime example.

> You have to spend your economic strength on weaponry sometime, or
> economic strength is irrelevant in a military conflict.
> 
   True enough.  See my response above.  Sevener *SPECIFICALLY* refers to
wasteful military programs.  Neither Sevener, nor any other poster I have
seen here has suggested that *ALL* military spending is wasteful.  Again,
through mis-information and emotional arguments, you seek to re-direct the
reactions of the people from the real issue, in order to avoid admitting
your errors.

> >Oh, I can feel the flames now.  If you wish to ramble on about
> >how naive I am, and how the Soviets will invade us, or Europe, or whatever
> >if we don't have zillions of nuclear weapons, please provide
> >some evidence.  Our magnificent arsenal did not prevent the last two
> >invasions, and its reduction would not facilitate future invasions.
> 
> You _are_ naive (I'm being charitable).  We do need at least nuclear parity.

   Yup..and we have it.  SO why continue to build more?

> And what 'invasions' are you talking about?  This section of your
> posting is rather confused.
> 
   I can't figure wehere Sevener gets the number 2 from, but our impressive
nuclear arsenal certainly did nothing to deter the Soviets from invading
Afghanistan, did it?

> >Hundreds (not hundreds of thousands) of missiles are enough to
> >guarantee a first, second, or third strike, depending on your mood that day.
> 
> Statement contrary to fact.  How does my mood affect all this.

   Mr. Sevener is projecting the obvious result of continued construction of
nuclear weapons and delivery systems.  Unchecked, it *COULD* result in 
hundreds of thousands.  Once again, you deliberately miss his point in order
to attempt to make him appear foolish.

> Of course, maybe you are being 'humorous'.  Is your whole posting 'humorous'?
> I'm glad to see we are up to 'hundreds of thousands' of missles.  Keep
> going, why stop there.  If you're wrong, you're wrong, so why not
> hundreds of trillions?  What a waste, the Reagan administration is spending 
> hundreds of googleplexes of dollars on a wasteful military buildup.
> How outrageous.  
> 
   Now you resort to sarcasm and ridiculousness, attempting to imply that the
ridiculous sceanrio you refer to is being presented by Sevener.  Amazing how
committed you are to honesty and directness, isn't it?

> >The "more is better" myth must die.
> Please kill it. Then tell the Russians.

   Sevener is correct in his statement.  So are you.  (huh?  Did I really
say that???)

> 
> >I realize everything in this article *might* be wrong,
> >but I have seen no solid evidence refuting the points I have raised.
> >Military officials might say "yes, we have evidence, but it is
> >classified".  Well, I cannot relinquish my right to make decisions
> >and vote accordingly, just because these facts are not available to me.
> 
> To say the least.  Vote any way you want, it's a free country.  Don't
> complain when few people agree with you.  And when it comes to evidence,
> you don't need secret data to realize that there aren't 'hundreds of
> thousands' of strategic missles sitting around.  If you can't get
> your facts straight, shut up.  Even Tim Sevener must be embarrassed by
> your foolish posting.
> 
> Guy
> 

   ~sigh~, there you go again, (oops...did I just utter a Reaganism?)
misrepresenting Sevener's statements, as well as his obvious intent.

(have I confused Sevener with someone else?  Ah well, it mattereth not,
'tis the content of the argument, not the identities of the arguees that
weighs in the end)

   One final point.  Guy, you have repeatedly made reference to the "majority"
of Americans who support Reagan.  Show me the majority.  Approximately 35% of
the registered voters voted in the last election.  Reagan received just over
50% of the POPULAR vote.  Combine these facts with the fact that over 50%
of Americans are *NOT REGISTERED VOTERS*, and as I count it, somewhere between
5% and 10% of the American people voted for Reagan, *AT BEST*...more likely
2% to 5%.  Consider further that the vast majority of voters (in either camp)
do not vote the issues, but rather vote in a popularity contest, what percentage
of Americans actually support Reagan?  .2%?  .02%?  Hmmm....

Disclaimer:  Once in a great while, Reagan actually does something I agree with.
I find this most disconcerting, given my feelings about the man.  What bothers
me most is that I suspect that Ronnie is actually a very nice man, at home,
away from the political arena.  I might actually truly like him, given the
opportunity.  I consider  his Presidency to be the most harmful presidency
of this century...probably more harmful than Nixon's.

-- 

====================================

Disclaimer:  I hereby disclaim any and all responsibility for disclaimers.

tom keller
{ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020

(* we may not be big, but we're small! *)