Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!ncar!unmvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!uccba!uceng!dmocsny
From: dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Robots and Free Will
Summary: Warfare: causes and preventions
Keywords: Robots, Electronic Warfare
Message-ID: <601@uceng.UC.EDU>
Date: 23 Jan 89 16:38:02 GMT
References: <3336@sdsu.UUCP> <43333@linus.UUCP> <1643@cveg.uucp> <43770@linus.UUCP>
Organization: Univ. of Cincinnati, College of Engg.
Lines: 44

In article <43770@linus.UUCP>, bwk@mbunix.mitre.org (Barry W. Kort) writes:
[ a reply to (L. Adrian Griffis) about warfare ]

Organized warfare is, without a doubt, one of the more remarkable
aspects of human behavior. How can people profess universal hatred and
disgust for an activity, and elect to indulge in it so frequently?
But while we speculate on how personal aggression extrapolates into
collective clashes, let us remember one thing: no two liberal
democracies have ever come to blows. This does not necessarily imply
that fostering liberal democracy will eliminate warfare. However,
when the people making the decision to attack are not the same people
who will be coming home in the body bags, certainly the threshold for
conflict is lower. The real world bears witness: modern wars do not
start without absolutist governments.

I think this may have as much to do with the inherent inefficiency of
representative democracy as with the noble sentiments of the voters.
Before a democracy can go on the offense, dozens of interests must be
heard and persuaded. Since a large country will always have sizable
power blocks with nothing to gain from a war, a liberal democracy
essentially always goes to war only in response to absolutist
aggression.  If the aggression does not threaten the liberal democracy
enough, the response will be half-hearted and ineffective. An
absolutist government, on the other hand, merely gives the order to
attack. Once the war is underway, dissenting voices are easy to
suppress in the name of national security.

In light of this, nuclear weapons become a powerful tool for justice,
because they threaten governments as well as the governed. If we
cannot eliminate nuclear weapons, we should do the next-best thing:
prevent governments from taking steps to protect their officials from
a nuclear attack. I worry when I read about hardened underground
shelters for government officials. We take a huge risk if we allow
the people who order mass destruction to escape it.

>  >    o  When should we use weapons.
> When we have identified the true enemy.

The enemy appears to be anything that reduces personal liberty:
ignorance, poverty, and the non-representative governments that
exploit individual weakness to attain power.

Dan Mocsny
dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu