Arms-Discussion Digest V11 #11
Rob Gross
From: Rob Gross (moderator)
<GR...@BCVMS.BITNET/GR...@BCVMS.BC.EDU>
Friday, October 1, 1993, 19:12 EDT
Arms Discussion Digest
Volume 11 : Issue 11
All submissions to ARM...@BUACCA.BU.EDU (ARM...@BUACCA.BITNET)
Please do not post articles, as they have a high probability
of being lost.
Today's topics:
Conflict (David Altman)
Arms-Discussion Digest V11 #10 (IRWINR)
Open Source Intelligence (6500rg)
Re: Soviet Collapse ("Wm. Michael Dante")
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 93 22:21 PDT
From: David Altman <IZZ...@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
Subject: Conflict
A note on my previous post. There seems to be some confusion as
to my assertion about military spending versus welfare spending.
To clarify let me state clearly that military spending is dwarfed
by social welfare spending. The confusion arose due to the fact
that most Discretionary Spending is for the military, BUT the
huge majority of all federal government spending in the US is for
welfare programs --- this is because very large entitlements are
in the category of Mandatory Spending within the US budget.
Which brings me to my next topic. How can the world create a
structural bias such that disarmament, internationally and
intranationally, is preffered over large military outlays or
conflict ? To answer this we need to address the purpose of arms
and the root causes of conflict. I think that most of us can
agree that a military (an armed group under the control of
government or leadership) serves essentially two purposes: that
of defense, and that of power projection. Reduced to its
essential element arms serve the purpose of protec- tion and
intimidation. It is therefore possible that by addressing these
issues one can cause the reduction of militaries. First, the
problem of protection. If we, the world communty of nations, can
establish a "police" force, that will be multilateral in nature,
strictly neutral in code, and with assets that will allow for
mobility and enforcement --- plus of course a body that will have
the political independence and will to use it, we can assure both
nation-states and other social/political entities that they will
be protected from abuse or invasion.
Second, to address the issue of the intimidation purpose of a
military. If an aggressive group believes that the use of force
will always, in every case be met with an overwhelming economic
and military response, such that no possible gain could be
achieved with force militaries will become a useless item for
individual nation-states.
Third, conflicts which qualify as wars, insurgencies, rebellions,
etc . . are usually due to either of two reasons. These
conflicts arise due to either disagreement over distribution of
wealth or oppression. Both of these can be dealt with by a body
that will have the leverage to force change in cases of unjust
oppression (again, either through economic or military means) or
to to negotiate and even infuse wealth in cases of conflict over
economic resources.
So there it is. A proposal for change. And all it will require is
a super-national agency. Unlikely you might think. Not so. As
nation-states lose power because of global economic intergration
they will seek avenues to conserve their dwindling power. They
will find being a participant in a supernational agency will at
least give them some power (if they jion in alliances with other
participants) -- some say is better than none. If nothing else
nation-states will see it as their duty to insure economic
prosperity - and that requires global stability which only a
Supernational agency can ensure.
David Altman
UCLA Economics Dept.
Undergraduate
--------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1993 20:21:32 -0600 (MDT)
From: IRW...@yvax.byu.edu
Subject: Arms-Discussion Digest V11 #10
I was just looking in on your newsgroup and it was kind of
interesting to me. I have not quite figured out how to use
E-Mail to send and receive but thought I would give it a go.
With regards to the to items posted in your newsgroup pertaining
to the military and the commies first, it is true that large
amounts of money are spent on the military however, nobody ever
thinks about what military spending has given society such as
microwave technology (used in communications, radar, cooking...)
digital technology (used in an awful lot of electronic devices)
computers (used by everyone for everything) in short, much of
that military budget is used in research and development of
future technologies. Furthermore, millions of dollars that are
placed in the military budget never make it to the military but
are merely spending bills attached to the defense budget by some
senators such as Dole and Nunn and just about everybody else for
the purpose not of defense but rather taking care of their
constituents.
As far as the commies are concerned, the CIA has constantly and
consistanly provided the best information available to the
President of the United States and his staff. Along with the CIA
are other various military and civilian sources of information.
It is the president and his staff that interpret the information
provided them by the myriad of intelligence gathering entities.
Often times the President will misinterpret the information or
even blatantly disregard the information provided. Such is the
case with Reagan and the communists in El Salvador and Nicaragua,
neither of which posed any threat to their neighbors untill the
U.S. became involved.
--------------------
Date: 30 Sep 1993 15:08:07 GMT
From: 650...@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu
Subject: Open Source Intelligence
SECOND INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM:
"NATIONAL SECURITY & NATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS:
OPEN SOURCE SOLUTIONS"
2-4 NOVEMBER 1993 at the OMNI SHOREHAM, Washington, D.C.
Brings together U.S. and foreign intelligence and academic
research community leaders with international corporate leaders
to discuss how OPEN SOURCE INTELLIGENCE (OSCINT) can contribute
to national competitiveness. Oriented toward individuals who
specialize in international unclassified data collection,
translation, processing, analysis and publication. Discounted
seats, hotel and travel available.
MAJOR THEMES:
* Sources of Public Data (Including Imagery and Signals)
* Advanced Data-Handling Technologies and Methods
* Opportunities for Government-Private Sector Collection
Partnerships
KEYNOTE SPEAKERS:
* Mr. Alvin Toffler, on Information Warfare (Author,
PowerShift)
* Hon. Philippe Malaud, President, European Economic Union
* Mr. Keiji Shima, The Shima Media Institute (Former Chairman
NHK)
OTHER SPEAKERS FOR 1993 INCLUDE:
* U.S. Intelligence Open Source Coordinator Paul Wallner
* Electronic Frontier Foundation Founder Mitch Kapor
* INTERNET Society President Vint Cerf
* Senior Vice President, BDM Federal Norm Wood
* Vice President TRW A&S Group Robert Kohler
* Yale Policy Sciences Center Dr. Lloyd Etheridge
* Four Soviet KGB Colonels on Soviet Use of Open Sources
FOR COMPLETE DETAILS AND REGISTRATION, COMMUNICATE YOUR INTEREST
TO:
Mr. Robert Steele, President OPEN SOURCE SOLUTIONS, Inc.
1914 Autumn Chase Court, Falls Church, VA. 22043-1753
Voice: (703) 536-1775, Facsimile: (703) 536-1776
INTERNET: ste...@well.sf.ca.us
--------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 93 14:25:05 -0400
From: "Wm. Michael Dante" <dan...@sc3d1053h.acq.osd.mil>
Subject: Re: Soviet Collapse
Simon Harak suggest that among the factors leading to the
collapse of the Soviet Union "not the least ... was the
courageous resistance of people throughout the years of the
dictatorship." I wonder if he could give some specific examples
of effects such resistance had on the dictatorship. Without in
any way disparaging the heroism of those within Russia who
resisted the Kremlin, I find no evidence that their actions had
any real effect on the exercise of power.
When I look at the disintegration of the USSR, what I notice is a
governmental philosophy completely inadequate to the realities of
a large state. Those in power seemed to lurch from crisis to
crisis. Power was maintained by directing the attention of the
people to "enemies": the Menshevics, the Trotskyites, the
Doctors, the Jews, the Generals, etc. within, and external
enemies culminating in the Capitalist Fascists (i.e., the U.S.).
But socialism, as a means of actually running a government, never
worked. Finally, faced by consistent Western strength that made
foreign adventure against the West too costly, the leaders
attempted to "rescue" a third world country whose common border
and lack of a modern military seemed to promise easy success.
When it was clear that Afghanistan was a disaster, it became no
longer possible to maintain that Western Imperialism was only
being held off by the might of the Soviet Army. It thus was no
longer possible to convince anyone (except a few left wing
extremists) that sacrifice was necessary to prevent invasion.
Once the people could no longer be diverted from the internal
mismanagement inherent in socialism, a rapid consensus developed
that the mode of government had to change. But socialism was the
raison d'etre for the USSR. Hence the abandonment of socialism
naturally meant the end of the union.
Thus I don't see the Soviet Union being overthown by couragous
resistance but by the fact that socialism could not deliver what
it promised and thus had to be replaced. If everyone in the
Soviet Union had been mindless monsters, which they are not, the
Soviet Union would have still crumbled when it did.
As for the CIA inflation of the estimate of the Soviet economy
and Soviet military, partly this is the mythology of the CIA
(Notice how the CIA is blamed for the overthrow of Allende when
what they did was to sneak money to labor unions and newspapers -
and not all that much money either.) The CIA has never been the
omnipotent, omniscent "secret power" that we would like to
believe that it is. Instead, like every other government agency,
it is a cross section, stupid to brilliant, of individuals mostly
trying their best to do their jobs. Since no one in the Soviet
Union knew, or currently knows, the accurate picture of the
Soviet or even Russian economy, it doesn't seem quite fair to
fault the CIA for also being wrong. Those of us who listened to
Radio Moscow and its clones remember that the picture the
Socialist States presented to the world was always one of
unremitting socialist success. With each five year plan both
Agriculture and Industry reached new heights. The CIA may not
have been completely successful in penetrating this hype but I
don't think that it is fair to say that they "inflated" anything.
Rather, they didn't deflate enough. The military, of course,
barely existed in the official Soviet economy. So when the CIA
used reasonable estimates of the share of the economy consumed by
the military, and especially when they noted how little actually
got to the people, it is not surprising, and hardly evidence of a
plot, that the estimates for the military spending figures were
also high.
Of course, after the fact anyone can see that the Soviet economy
never worked and therefore the Soviet Military could not have
spent what was claimed. But the CIA was required to release
their estimates while Soviet economic reality was still hidden in
fog.
--------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
**************************