Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military
From: mr-frog@fx.com (Dave Pare)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Reliability of Ballistic Missiles
Message-ID: <6835@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 24 May 89 04:10:57 GMT
References: <6801@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: FX Development Group, Inc., Mountain View, CA
Lines: 29
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: mr-frog@fx.com (Dave Pare)

In article <105868@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> cramer@sun.com (Sam Cramer) writes:
>> Cockburn functions as an apologist for the Soviet Union and other
>> left-fascist regimes.

> With due regards for your viewpoint, I would like to point out that
> a: sci.military is not a political forum and
> b: these are political, not technical defeciencies in his writing.

As we have seen in both Soviet Military Power, and Whence the Threat
to Peace, politics has a great impact on how facts on weapons systems
are presented.  When talking about such a speculative subject as
the reliability of a full-scale ICBM launch in a nuclear war environment,
it becomes even more critical to ascertain whether or not the author
is not perhaps exaggerating his claims because of some bias.

When studying history, or reading a report from a think-tank,
or reading an article in the newspaper, it is important to note
the slant that the source places on the facts it presents.

I found the extra bit of data provided by Sam Cramer as enlightening,
simply because I felt it explained in part why the author's numbers
seemed to me to be so extreme.  As they say on all those TV court
dramas, "Goes to credibility of the witness, your honor..."

Dave Pare