HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eugene@wilbur.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya)
Subject: Re: Greatest Military/War Games
Organization: NAS, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 22:04:32 GMT

Back again.  Having fun?

I'm not certain.  The most interesting one I've played so far has been
the Janus simulator at Lawrence Livermore.  It was interesting enough
that we organized a SIGGRAPH tour of the facility (US citizens only).
I kow there are others, but this was the easiest to relate.

	"So what's this 'chemical option?'"
	"Oh, (he sounded bored) your standard non-persistent nerve agent."
	"Okay." <pushing the menu item, it was disabled>

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov
  Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers
  {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
This is the Usenet: do you expect anything other than gross generalizations?
Ref: Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning, vol. 1, G. Polya
Xref: sparky alt.war:659 soc.culture.asian.american:3403
From: geoffb@coos.dartmouth.edu (Geoff Bronner)
Newsgroups: alt.war,soc.culture.asian.american
Subject: Re: The War in 2020 (was US military policy)
Date: 9 Apr 92 19:41:11 GMT
Reply-To: geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU
Organization: Amos Tuck School

In <1992Apr9.161534.14433@cs.yale.edu> yarvin-norman@CS.YALE.EDU (Norman Yarvin) writes:

>Well, do you see war between civilized countries any more?  I think Nobel was
>right.  It just took the rest of the human race a hundred years or so to
>realize it.

Nobel, like many people, was no longer able to accept the cost of war. The
benefits weren't worth the cost in human life (as he saw it, I'm not sure
I totally agree).

That's real nice, but war has continued anyway.
I'm not sure how to take your reference to 'civilized countries.' Are you
implying that every nation that has engaged in war since Nobel's day is
uncivilized? Or are you trying to draw a line between wars and so called
'police actions?'

I could sort of go along with the first statement because I can't think of
a nation, or civilization, that meets the current definition of
'civilized.'
Stupid word really.

-Geoff
--
geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU  -  Computing Support Consultant, Tuck School of Business
    "An ancestor of mine maintained that if you eliminate the impossible,
     whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
		-Spock, "STVI:TUC", Stardate 9523.8
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: A word to Viking (that I posted anyway)
From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:23:21 MST

In article <1992Apr12.203831.1@acad3.alaska.edu>, fsrla@acad3.alaska.edu writes:
> Interesting comments, Viking.  Not that I agree with them or
> anything... *GRIN*
> Anyway, did you ever think that perhaps it was not our place to
> be in the Middle East in the first place?  Explain to me why we
> were there.  Was it to defend the rights of some small Mid. East 
> country?  Well, considering few people but the rich have any rights
> there, I somehow doubt it.  Ask any woman from the area.

Some people would say that the UN resolutions against Iraq gave us an
obligation to be there. Others might say that as long as the US supports
Israel to the degree that it does we will always be involved there. I'm
sure that any number of other reasons could be postulated. 

> 
> I find your insentivity toward civilians rather alarming.  I hope most
> of America doesn't share your views.  They are frightening.  Tell me how
> you propose telling the families of these civilians that they were "Just
> in the way"  That is plain ignorant.  In Korea over 1 million civilians
> died.  Were they all just "In the way"  or were they diliberatly targeted?
> Perhaps to demorilize the "enemy"?  How can that many people just be in the
> way?  Tell me how the poor farmers of the Vietnamese plains could ever know
> that there fields were good for the next battle-field.  Explain to me why
> poor and INOCENT men, women, and CHILDREN were burned out of there homes
> and shot in the dirt roads in Vietnam.   EXPLAIN THAT TO ME!  Or can you?
> Somehow, I doubt it.
> Don't spend your time babbling about "Orders"  why not spend a second and
> take a thought about morals.  We all have the ability to say no.  Even to
> our highest superiors.  Tell me, which would you rather have on your 
> concious.  A dead child, or a discharge from the military?
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe you could explain how abandoning the Korean peninsula to the tender
mercies of the N. Korean gov. would have made things better there?

maybe you could explain (especially to the boat people) how the communist
takeover of S. Vietnam was such a wonderful thing.

Maybe you can explain why the US is responsible for all those civilian
deaths. There was after all another side in both Korea & Vietnam. Sides
which have been & are currently noted for their lack of any concern at
all for basic human rights.

PHIL


Newsgroups: alt.war
From: fsrla@acad3.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: How to stop wars
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 07:54:46 GMT

In article <92102.230859DAM137@psuvm.psu.edu>, DAM137@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
> Just a quick solution that was put forward by a German poem entitled
> "Sagt Nein! (Say No!)" written just after WWII:
> 
> If all the soldiers refused to fight, if they just said no, then there would
> be no armies.  If all the laborers who produce war materials just said no, then
> the armies would have nothing to fight with.  If all the mothers who are told
> to raise their sons to be soldiers just said no, there would be no manpower.
> If all the scientists who are told to make new, more destructive weapons just
> said no, then there would be no more mass destruction.  In short, if everyone
> just says no, then the governements will find themselves without sufficient
> means to fight.  All it takes is the will of the people of the Earth to end
> war at all costs...
> 
> Just say no...
> 
> Dave
----------------------------
I find this a very good idea.  But how would one go about starting 
such a thing?  
                    Any ideas out there anyone?
I'm very interested....
-------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Asbury                       email:  fsrla@acad3.alaska.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------
"Find the cost of freedom buried in the ground"  ---CSNY---
-------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.war
From: bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: To the Pacifists (A Challenge Not a Flame)
Date: 15 Apr 92 20:21:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: linus.1992Apr15.202159.743
Organization: The MITRE Corporation

In article <james.703349795@menaik> james@cs.UAlberta.CA (James Borynec; AGT  
Researcher) writes:
> steph@cs.uiuc.edu (Dale Stephenson) writes:
> 
> >  I'm waiting for any example where pacifism
> >prevented a *single* war.
> 
> Well, if you count pacifism for pragmatic reasons (as opposed to pacifism
> for ideological reasons) I can think of a number of wars which were
> averted including: The 1981 Polish war. The liberation of East Europe.
> The Soviet Civil War (at least for now). 

Pacifism had little or nothing to do with it.  The collapse of the Soviet  
Communist party and the nomencultura prevented the wars.  The only time  
pacifism has an affect is if it can depend on the other party to have moral  
qualms about shedding blood.  I believe Gandi even said that about the British.   
Look what happened in China in the same timeframe you are referring to.
--
Barry Wise
(bwise@hemlock.mitre.org)
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: pdunn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Patrick L Dunn)
Subject: Re: My thoughts
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 08:11:50 GMT


My thoughts about the war and peace debate:

If there were no criminals, we would need no policemen.

If there were no criminal nations, we would need no armies.

PDunn
pdunn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
From: zippy@cs.mcgill.ca (Fotis XIPOLITAKIS)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: How to stop wars
Date: 12 Apr 92 19:22:18 GMT
Organization: SOCS, McGill University, Montreal, Canada

In article <1992Apr12.180539.7780@wam.umd.edu> spinoza@next03wor.wam.umd.edu (Prince Lev of the Domovoi) writes:
>In article <1992Apr12.080249.1763@cs.mcgill.ca> zippy@cs.mcgill.ca (Fotis  
>XIPOLITAKIS) writes:
>> In article <92102.230859DAM137@psuvm.psu.edu> DAM137@psuvm.psu.edu  
>writes:
>I'd just like to point out here that the soldier is not obligated to  
>follow orders which are manifestly immoral (at least that's what I've  
>heard about US and Israeli armed forces, I imagine the same principle is  
>expounded in other countries. In any case, the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials  
>seem to have established this principle pretty well by demolishing th  
>e"just following orders argument"....................
>
>lev

	This is a very valid point. Some orders though are clearly 
unlawful ("Go out and kill six peasants named Joe") while others may
fall into a very large grey area... To complicate things even more there
is no real cross national standard and the rules of the game tend to be
dictated by the winner of the war... Alot of people were unjustly
accussed and charged in the Nuremburg trial (in my opinion). Granted
some were just fanatic murdering scum... But many people got sentence
just for being on the loosing side...

	In a military command structure there is also an obligation to
the chain of command. Failure of the chain of command can can cuase loss
of life and resources. If every junior officer questioned every order he
recieved to save his own butt there would be a massive breakdown.
Refusing to carry out an order promptly can be seen as an act of mutiny.
In the Canadian armed forces this situation is not taken lightly. Many
serious reviews of this nature are undertaken all the time... A couple
of years ago a few officers refused to jump out of a plane sighting
unsafe wheater conditions... The wheather conditions were infact unsafe
and large number of paratroops did get injured during the jump... This
apparently did not matter... The officers were promptly discharged
(dishonerably).
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: ksun@jarthur.claremont.edu (Kang Sun)
Subject: Re: war is hell.
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 16:40:10 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.085458.13613@acsu.buffalo.edu> v080lmaq@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (MIKE) writes:
>Wars have frequently been a means of distracting attention from domestic
>problems with economic issues involved.  This is true whether of the U.S.
Sadly, how true.  Many wars or skirmishes were a result of domestic problems.
I guess Gulf war can be "classified" as one of these although I think it is
more grayish since there were other "causes".

It can be argued that many wars started as a result of domestic problems.  I
will list some here.
China waged war against Vietnam as a mean of distracting population.  China
at the time is still suffering from the effects of Culture Revolution,
domestic contempt is high so one way out is to have a war to raise the
public moral and support.  Unfortunately/fortunately China suffered heavy
casualties against Vietnam and stopped.  However, the goal was "achieved" as
the population was briefly distracted by the war.

Japan went to war against China because of domestic problems.  Japan's
population was growing at a very fast rate, unemployment, etc. are becoming
a problem, after the U.S. closed Japanese immigration, Japan look towards
war as the solution to its problems.

Germany is another one, Hitler used domestic discontent and transformed them
into a war machine.

There are many examples and granted, the above 3 examples has some other
causes just like Gulf War but I think war is often a tool employed by the
leader to distract the population from the present domestic problems.

"Never forget love....Like a dream...Tell me the secret"  Eve Tokimatsuri
From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: Invade Colombia ?!?
Date: 10 Apr 92 22:35:10 GMT

In article <1278@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, rjl+@pitt.edu (Richard J. Loether) writes:
> In article <1992Mar31.202638.2542@vax1.umkc.edu> molaughlin@vax1.umkc.edu writes:
>>
>>	Recently, I've been thinking that perhaps we could put some of this
>>military surplus and extra, dormant conventianal weaponary to some use. For,
>>example, a very major problem in the U.S. is drugs. Living in the inner-city, I
>>know drugs is the root of many social problems like crime, illiteracy, gangs,
>>etc. ----
> 
> Living in the inner-city, you've now doubt heard about the evils of
> drugs many times.  Surprise - you've been lied to.  We have major
> problems with exactly two drugs in this country, alcohol and tobacco.
> Everything else is small potatoes.  Alcohol causes the most social
> problems and tobacco the most medical problems.  And they're both legal.
> 
> Maybe you've heard that we tried to eliminate alcohol once.  Maybe you
> know the outcome of that experiment.

Anyone who livs in the inner-city *knows* about the evils of drugs, no
matter what people who live elsewhere think. The major problems in the
inner-cities are quite different than the major problems elsewhere in
the country, as any inner-city resident knows also. Besides, I suspect
that if the other drugs were legalized the problems they would create
would rapidly dwarf the present ones. Making things worse is no solution
to me.

>>
>>	I put to you for your debate the idea that the U.S. should militarily
>>intervene where the crap is coming from. (S. America, SE Asia, etc.) Let's take
>>Colombia for example. I propose the U.S. should launch an opperation where a
>>full-scale invasion (unlike 'Nam) occupies the capital, all major cities and
>>industrial areas, commences a naval blockade along the coast, and proceeds to
>>issue an air-campaign to burn all big drug producing plantations. Then, set up
>>a puppet regime to maintain control. 
>>

I really don't see how any forseeable US gov. could consider taking the
risk on something like this. VietNam wasn't *that* long ago.

PHIL
From: dmz1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Daniel M Zabetakis)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Group Charter  <== READ
Date: 12 Apr 92 23:06:07 GMT
Reply-To: dmz1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Daniel M Zabetakis)
Organization: Columbia University


     Just a few observations on the current state of the group. I pretty
much said what I'm going to say here in a followup to another article,
but I want to get this out because I think it will help the group.

   Anti-war discussions are OK:

   I think that the discussions going on now are within the charter of
the group. So I would suggest to the regular readers to not get defensive
about the anti-war posts. Don't flame them. Read them, and respond to 
the ones about which you have some comment.

    Don't engage in political flame wars:

    Current politics doesn't belong in this group. Try not to bring
it in if you can avoid it. There are several *.politics.* groups around
that would be happy to see you thoughts. Talk.politics.thoery just had
a thread (a few articles were crossposted here) about why some people
think war is inevitable. Look there if you want to see why I think it is.
    Arguments about the Gulf War don't belong here either. If you think
you will be debating that war, go to alt.desert-*. There are many of
these groups availible. Your site probably has at least 4 groups to
debate that war.
    I can't stop anyone from refering to the Gulf War. But I think that
it is not usually a productive move. The real regulars here may know that
I have taken a vow to not cite the Gulf War for 5 years, at least. To
discuss a war academically, you need an academic hindsight. Without it,
you will have trouble getting people to see what your point is. If the
events are too recent, they will often think your point is something else,
and so you will end up arguing in circles. Better (I think) to avoid the
issue by citing other wars.


   As always, these are just my thoughts. Feel free to disagree, by e-mail
or otherwise.

Danz

This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions, or
narratives contained herein are not necessarily true, and do not
necessarily represent the views of any particular person.
From: youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Scott D. Young)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: Flowers?
Date: 12 Apr 92 02:10:33 GMT
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada

In <1992Apr9.131914.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsrla@acad3.alaska.edu writes:


>              WHERE HAVE ALL THE FLOWERS GONE....(Peter, Paul, & Mary)
[song lyrics deleted]
>_______________________________________________________________________
>"Find the cost of freedom, buried in the ground"     ---CSNY---
>_______________________________________________________________________

Interesting how your post and signature are contradictory.  The post is an   
anti-war song, while your sig points out how war can be necessary to
preserve freedom.  It would be great if people could find another solution
to disputes, but racial prejudice and hatred ensure war will be around
at least as long as humanity.  Peace is an idealization; war is (unfortunatly
reality.

Scott
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: nigel@rs733.GSFC.NASA.Gov
Subject: Re: A voice to be heard
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md, USA
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 16:49:36 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.225051.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsrla@acad3.alaska.edu writes:

[lot o'stuff deleted]

>      I don't mind the questions I get.  I'm pretty sure you are all not
>use to some anti-war guy from alaska posting anti-war lyrics on your
>precious news group.  But I'm here.  And as long as there are people
>hoping around waiting for the next war to talk about, I will be here.
>To those of you who will dismiss me for some 60's throw back, go ahead.
>But for those of you who are interested in other ways.  Why not ask.

Okay Roger, a quicky litmus test I use on pacifists to see if I simply
ignore them or respect their views (since they are reasonably well
thought out and consistant with reality ;-).  Don't get me wrong...I
ignore brain-dead hyper war mongers too ;-).

1) What kind of pacifist are you?  (ie how far does your belief in
non-violence extend.  Personal safety, safety for others, never etc).
If you don't believe in self-defense why?  If you do but don't believe
in using violence to protect your neighbor (in the same way that you
would use to protect your self or your familiy) why do you see this as
ethical?

2) If you don't believe violence is EVER necessary (as in personal
defence etc) how do you propose to keep aggressors from taking what
they want from you.  More importantly how do you keep them from raping
your wife, spearing your kids on bayonets and shooting you?

3) You do understand that the above can be the result in not defending
yourself (in war) or not defending yourself enough, right?  You do
understand that by not helping to defend your neighbor from aggressors
you are condeming them to the above, right?  You do understand that
there are people who would do such things to you, your family and your
neighbor, right?

If you don't understand (or believe) any of the above, why?  Do you
believe that people simply wouldn't do such things (despite recent
historical examples...like what Iraq did to Kuwait, N. Vietnam did to
S Vietnam, Japanese did to China) to each other or do you simply not
care?

If you don't care (about these other people) then how do you justify
your belief as ethical or moral?

Sorry for the 20 questions grilling but if you want to convince me of
the morality and "rightness" of your views (which is why you're
posting in alt.war right?) and to convince me to continue to read your
posts you'll have to answer them in a convincing way...in a way that
keeps my friends and family safe in a concrete manner.

>Roger Asbury                            email:  fsrla@acad3.alaska.edu

--
Nigel Tzeng
.sig under construction
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: steph@cs.uiuc.edu (Dale Stephenson)
Subject: Re: To the Pacifists (A Challenge Not a Flame)
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 03:36:18 GMT

In <1992Apr13.012824.4651@cs.yale.edu> yarvin-norman@CS.YALE.EDU (Norman Yarvin) writes:

>jsast@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Jonathan S. Anderson) writes:
>>Accepting any possible good which might come from evil does not negate the
>>evil.  If you disagree, then you must accept that the ends justify the
>>means.  I claim that such a philosophy is dangerous as:
>>
>>	1) human beings can never predict with %100 certainty what the
>>	   consequences of their actions will be.
>>	2) it makes almost any possible action morally acceptable

>If actions are not to be measured by their consequences... then what are
>they to be measured by?  What else can possibly be used to judge the worth
>of an action than the events that it causes?

According to an absolute scale.  "Do what is right, though the world may
perish"--Kant.  This is what I call idealism.

On the other hand "The end justifies the means" also has its attractions.
Of course, the proper consequentialist statement would "the greatest
possible good for the greatest possible number".  

The first school of thought still has the problem of decided what is "right",
the second has to make judgement calls concerning consequences.  WRT war,
an idealist might well abstain from war on moral grounds.  To do so, they
must make a (justified) assumption that war is inherently evil.

Personally, I believe that there *are* absolute truths which require
obedience *regardless* of circumstances.  However, I do not believe that
pacifism is one of them.
-- 
Dale J. Stephenson |*| (steph@cs.uiuc.edu) |*| Gigabit Study Group 

  "It is considered good to look wise, especially when not 
   overburdened with information" -- J. Golden Kimball
From: v010mzxg@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (The Greatest)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: war games
Date: 9 Apr 92 02:25:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


For the computer, I would have to recomend Harpoon.

on board games Flight leader for pure acm. 

if you don't mind sci fi then I would highly recomend 

centurian, and leviathan from fasa's renegade legion series.

Hawk 
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: fsrla@acad3.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Flowers?
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 07:36:25 GMT

-In article <1992Apr12.021033.24661@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Scott D. Young) writes:
> In <1992Apr9.131914.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsrla@acad3.alaska.edu writes:
> 
> 
>>              WHERE HAVE ALL THE FLOWERS GONE....(Peter, Paul, & Mary)
> [song lyrics deleted]
>>_______________________________________________________________________
>>"Find the cost of freedom, buried in the ground"     ---CSNY---
>>_______________________________________________________________________
> 
> Interesting how your post and signature are contradictory.  The post is an   
> anti-war song, while your sig points out how war can be necessary to
> preserve freedom.  It would be great if people could find another solution
> to disputes, but racial prejudice and hatred ensure war will be around
> at least as long as humanity.  Peace is an idealization; war is (unfortunatly
> reality.
> 
> Scott
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
If you find the signiture in any way post-war, you need some serious help.
It simply states that the freedom we seem to be protecting (remeber, this
lyric comes from a song written at the time of the vietnam war, and the
Kent state massacre) is costing the lives of innocent people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Asbury                              email: fsrla@acad3.alaska.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Find the cost of freedom buried in the ground"   ---CSNY---