Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Groups keyboard shortcuts have been updated
Dismiss
See shortcuts

Arms-Discussion Digest V11 #12

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Rob Gross

unread,
Oct 9, 1993, 2:09:00 PM10/9/93
to
Subject: Arms Discussion Digest V11 #12


From: Rob Gross (moderator)
<GR...@BCVMS.BITNET/GR...@BCVMS.BC.EDU>
Saturday, October 9, 1993, 14:03 EDT
Arms Discussion Digest
Volume 11 : Issue 12

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:

But are we better off? (Owen Plowman)
Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V11 #11 (shane)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1993 19:19:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Owen Plowman <ow...@ca.oracle.com>
Subject: But are we better off?

In the latest ARMS-L digest, this posting caught my eye.

> From ARM...@BUACCA.BITNET Sat Oct 2 01:57:02 1993
> --------------------
> Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1993 20:21:32 -0600 (MDT)
> From: IRW...@yvax.byu.edu
> Subject: Arms-Discussion Digest V11 #10
>
> [...]
>
> 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. [...]

I think it would be well to step back and think hard about these
statements. First of all, plenty of people think about what
military spending has brought us. Of course, there is no doubt
that many advances in technology have occurred as a direct result
of R&D in the military sector. The writer is missing an
important question though: what *is* the benefit to society of
these so-called advances? And which society do they benefit? Is
our life here in the West really all that better because we can
microwave our food? Because we have computers all over the
place? I would contend that the answer is, for the most part,
no. I would also contend that vast numbers of people all over
the world are definitely not benefitting from whiz-bang gizmos.

Second, let's not forget that the vast numbers of dollars spent
by the military have also brought us horrendous pollution
problems, ranging from chemical to radiological. Many other
negative and potentially damaging side-effects of military
spending are hanging around. I think that we migth be better off
today if, perhaps, more cash was spent on understanding our
environment and each other instead of figuring out better ways to
kill and maim ourselves.
--
Owen Plowman Oracle Corporation Canada
Director, Consulting Programs 110 Matheson Blvd. West
Mississauga, Ontario
416.890.0800 x. 6250 L5R 3P4
Internal Vroute: 864.6250

--------------------

Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1993 08:02:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: shane <DEIC...@perch.nosc.mil>
Subject: Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V11 #11

In response to:

> Date: Sun, 26 Sep 93 22:21 PDT
> From: David Altman <IZZ...@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
> Subject: Conflict
>
> ... 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.

Your definition is vague; for instance, "an armed group
under the control of ... leadership" could be just about
anything. Would you call the Crips and Bloods of East L.A.
"military?" However, you are correct in pointing out that
there are two "purposes" -- offense and defense ("power
projection" presumes expansionism, and precludes offensive
operations for the sake of attrition, so "offense" would be a
better term).

> 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.

Sounds like Article 51 of the U.N. charter.... While this
Utopian vision sounds pleasant, it is presently both economically
and politically untenable. A nation's military is the essence of
it's sovereignty. To surrender it to an overweening "police
force" would be to sacrifice the very embodiment of its
legitimacy. I suggest you read Clausewitz's "On War"
(especially Chapter 2, Book 2), Sun Tzu's "The Art of War,"
and Machiavelli's "The Art of War" to gain a better
understanding of the indelible linkage between politics and
war (i.e., Clausewitz's famous statement that "War is a
continuation of politics by other means.")

> 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.

This is why we create alliances. Of course, it would seem
ludicrous to imagine France and Germany going to war today
(especially over strife in the Balkans, as they did nearly 80
years ago). Among Western industrialized nations, economic
interdependence has made physical confrontation nearly
obsolete. But this is more an exception that the rule. Once
again, we see that "might makes right" -- the more powerful
military (and economic) alliances would hold sway over all
others.

> 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.

Aren't these one and the same? However, you have discounted
religious wars (which are not necessarily due to oppression,
just simple, honest hatred) and nationalistic fervors not
reliant on "wealth distribution." The Crusades wouldn't fit
into your classifications; neither would the present conflicts
in Bosnia (where ethnic hatreds are over a thousand years old),
Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, or Somalia.

> 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.

Again, this Utopian vision is far from being practical.
Perhaps someday a time will come when nation-states will throw
off their shackles of sovereignty and join together in a
multinational union for the common good. However, the
renascent nationalism we are seeing proves the fallacy of
the U.N.'s containment strategies for the sake of
"peacemaking." The USSR was the last of the great European
colonial empires -- empires which began their decline in 1917
with the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand. With the
end of the Great War (since all we've been doing for the past
seventy years is cleaning up the mess of WW I), we are
confronted with a rising tide of nationalism which is sweeping
away the traditional notions of sovereignty and "national
borders." We will soon be forced to rethink the very concept
of "boundaries" -- and depending on the answer we reach,
perhaps Mr. Altman may realize his Utopia sooner than later....

shane
<deic...@perch.nosc.mil>

--------------------------

End of Arms-Discussion Digest
**************************

0 new messages