HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: aryk@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (a.j.s. nusbacher)
Subject: Re: How to stop wars
Organization:  University of Toronto 
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 04:07:47 GMT

The cynical but effective practice of the Red Army, and I would assume the
People's Liberation Army in China, is to deploy troops in one military district
who were raised in another, preferably in a district with a different language.
I assume (and I would appreciate confirmation or contradiction) that the Chinese
soldiers who were deployed in Beijing to put down the Tienamen Square rising
spoke a different dialect from the people they were putting down--if I were a
bloodthirsty gerentocrat that's what I would have done.

_____________________________________________________________________________
        Aryk Nusbacher                .. ..       Hart House, 1916
                                      ||_||  Women Admitted since 1972
          Hart House                  | I |     || ||          || ||  ..    ..
Informal Education in the University  |   |   . ||_||__________||_||  || ___||
                                      | O |___|_|__________________|__| /  \ |
    aryk@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca         |   |       o oo  oo  oo   o      |__| |
                                      |_A_|_______A_oo  oo  oo   A__^^^______|
_____________________________________________________`------------____________
From: fscdh3@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: How to stop wars
Date: 15 Apr 92 19:21:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: acad3.1992Apr15.102131.1
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <1992Apr11.225446.1@acad3.alaska.edu>, fsrla@acad3.alaska.edu writes:
> 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---
> -------------------------------------------------------------
 
	And exactly HOW are you going to do that?  I mean, you can't
exactly tell a soldier, who is being PAID by the government to disobey
a DIRECT order....... Sorry folks, when it comes down to it, 
refusal to obey orders doesn't pay the bills, and it ain't healthy for your
career....
Xref: sparky alt.war:641 soc.culture.asian.american:3359
From: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell)
Newsgroups: alt.war,soc.culture.asian.american
Subject: Re: The War in 2020 (was US military policy)
Date: 8 Apr 92 10:25:29 GMT
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology

In article <1992Apr4.010011.13911@nas.nasa.gov> eugene@wilbur.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) writes:
>Well, I was informed of this very interesting thread.
>No, I have not read the book, but I shall make an effort to try and find it.

  I've read it, and my opinions about it are very mixed. Taken as a pure
techno-thriller in the Red Storm Rising/Red Phoenix school it is a good book.
It gives a interesting picture of the nature of future warfare and and while it
makes some wild flights of fancy, most of the technology are not that far out.

  But, while I'm far from being a bleeding-hearts liberal or PC-extremist, 
I must say that it is anti-Japanese (and anti-Moslem, and probably anti-African
and anti-European too) enough to give me the feeling of drinking a detergent-
contaminated coca-cola when I was reading it.

  What the book basically says is that "The only reason the Japanese is 
pissed about Hiroshima is because it was us doing it to them and not the 
opposite, and given a chance they'll do it to us ten times over."

  I used to think thought that Clive Cussler grew pretty anti-Japanese in his
later books, but this guy (I forgot the name) is worse.

-bertil-
--
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."
From: c34657b@saha.hut.fi (Tuomas Viljanen)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: Greatest Military/War Games
Date: 9 Apr 92 18:34:59 GMT
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

In article <1992Apr7.030804.19912@descartes.waterloo.edu> sjknell@descartes.uwaterloo.ca (Jason Knell) writes:
>Ok.  Here's a RELATIVELY simple question that I need answered (out of 
>curiousity):
>
>   What are the greatest/best military/war games to play?  I'm more   
>   interested in games of strategy and/or tactics.  Some people have
>   suggested to me that chess is the ultimate.  But what do you war
>   experts think?
>
Miniatures rules: WRG Ancients 6th Edition
Strategy game: Pacific War (VG)
Tactics game: Flat Top (AH)

> Jason Knell, Undergrad (Math)        

  ++ Tuomas Viljanen                     ++ For a battle like Crecy, you do  ++
  ++ Lahderanta 20 A 19                  ++ not need a military genius like  ++
  ++ SF-02720 Espoo 72 FINLAND           ++ Edward III. All you need is an   ++
  ++ 358-0-592175 or c34657b@saha.hut.fi ++ idiot like the Duke of Alencon.  ++
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: To the Pacifists (A Challenge Not a Flame)
From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:15:06 MST

In article <james.703443457@menaik>, james@cs.UAlberta.CA (James Borynec; AGT Researcher) writes:
> bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise) writes:
> 
>>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  
> 
> The party collapsed because they (or their soldiers) got *squeamish*.
> If they had used their machine guns, they would still be in power.  When
> it became obvious that they weren't going to use them, they were run out
> of town.  In other words, they lost their stomachs *first* and then
> they lost their power - *non-violently*.
> 
>>Look what happened in China in the same timeframe you are referring to.
> 
> Exactly my point.  
> 
> j.borynec james@cs.ualberta.ca

##########################################################################
The main point I see is that with pacifism you become dependent upon the
other sides 'conscience' to decide if you will prevail or not. Many pa-
cifists were 'sacrificed' when the Soviet gov decided it didn't care be-
fore the gov finally fell. Looking around the world & thru history I have
to conclude that the fastest way to get rid of an unpopular/non-elected
gov is to force them out. I also think that most people prefer the speedy
method that just waiting for the old gov to crumble on it's own. Consider-
ing the aftermath of events on the Indian subcontinent & parts of the old
USSR, it seems that violence really can't be avoided , eventually, in any
case.

PHIL
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: Interesting challenge.
From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Date: 14 Apr 92 15:02:07 MST

In article <1992Apr14.155958.5363@linus.mitre.org>, bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise) writes:
> In article <viking.703133928@aviator.cc.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan  
> Sorenson) writes:
>> 	Because killing him would have made him a martyr, and as
>> a defeated but alive political leader he is much less powerful.
> 
> It would have been an assassination and we don't do those things do we? We'd  
> much rather kill the grunts out in the field. Wars are started by leaders but  
> the soldiers do the dying. I don't think a leader has led the charge since the  
> War of the Roses.
> --
> Barry Wise
> (bwise@hemlock.mitre.org)

And then there was also the big flap over the legality/illegality of assas-
sinating a foreign head-of-government.

PHIL

Newsgroups: alt.war
From: p0lu@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Leslie Mills)
Subject: Re: How to stop wars
Organization: University of New Brunswick
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 21:13:22 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

Good idea, but...

What if one group decided not to go along with the disarmament?

That's the basic problem confronting us.  In order to have a successful
negotiation, both sides must be willing to compromise and try to sort things
out; in order to have a war, all you need is a minimum of one group willing 
to fight.  The other side's only viable options are:

  -- give them what they want (appeasement).  Take a look at the events leading
     up to World War II to see the long-term results of this.

  -- fight back.  When someone starts bombing your cities and using your
     citizens for target practice, this is probably the only option you would
     consider.

This view is grossly oversimplified, but what view isn't?

"At Munich, Hitler offered you a choice: War, or Dishonour.  You chose
 Dishonour, and you shall get War." 
		-- Winston Churchill to Prime Minister Chamberlain
-- 
"If you love something, set it free.       |
 If it doesn't come back to you,           | Leslie Mills
 Hunt it down                              | Disclaimer: Letter? What letter?
 And kill it..." -- Thus sayeth a T-Shirt  |
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: james@cs.UAlberta.CA (James Borynec; AGT Researcher)
Subject: Re: To the Pacifists (A Challenge Not a Flame)
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 16:57:37 GMT

bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise) writes:

>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  

The party collapsed because they (or their soldiers) got *squeamish*.
If they had used their machine guns, they would still be in power.  When
it became obvious that they weren't going to use them, they were run out
of town.  In other words, they lost their stomachs *first* and then
they lost their power - *non-violently*.

>Look what happened in China in the same timeframe you are referring to.

Exactly my point.  

j.borynec james@cs.ualberta.ca
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: yarvin-norman@CS.YALE.EDU (Norman Yarvin)
Subject: Re: war is hell.
Organization: Yale Computer Science Department
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 23:34:14 GMT

jsast@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Jonathan S. Anderson) writes:
> wars frequently distract us from
>problems occurring at the time and divert our attention.  Do you disagree
>with this?

Whose attention?  There are hundreds of millions of people in this country,
and you can be sure they are not all paying attention to the same thing.  I
suppose "the public's attention", which is a code word for whatever is on
television.  Supposing it to be true, what is the problem with "the public"
not paying attention to certain domestic issues for a year or so?  Policies
like that should be set in the long term anyway.  They are maintained by
government structures and thus it doesn't particularly matter if "the
public" doesn't pay attention for a short time.

>  Look at the popularity George Bush gained as a result of
>desert storm.  He gained this popularity, DESPITE his almost total lack
>of concern for domestic issues and policies.  The American public is not
>stupid and they know that Bush hasn't helped them much on the domestic front.

This is not really a topic for this group, but you might consider that some
of the people who support Bush are anti-big government and thus don't think
anything much _should_ be done "on the domestic front".

>I'm not going to go out on a limb and say that George started the Persian
>Gulf conflict as a means of raising his approval ratings, but I think you
>would also be going out on a limb by saying it wasn't in the back of his mind.
>Obviously, something as complicated as conflict is not entered upon for one
>simple set of reasons, is it?

Accusing a politician of doing things so he will be re-elected is like
accusing a fish of swimming.  It is a "hard constraint" on leadership in a
democracy.  The question is not whether the fish will swim, but where it
will swim.

I was personally quite pleasantly surprised by the way in which Desert Storm
was handled.  I didn't think anything like what we eventually did could be
done; nor did almost any of the media at the time.  I recall seeing comments
like "well, what can we do, send in the Marines?" used as sarcasm.  Bush was
treated with quite a bit of skepticism for promising that the invasion of
Kuwait would be reversed.  Now of course it is regarded as having been
inevitable.

--
Norman Yarvin						yarvin@cs.yale.edu
 "Power corrupts.  Absolute power is kind of neat."
		-- John Lehman, Secretary of the Navy 1981-1987
From: bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: Interesting challenge.
Date: 16 Apr 92 12:47:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: linus.1992Apr16.124717.9196
Organization: The MITRE Corporation

In article <1992Apr16.005400.6617@pimacc.pima.edu> ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu  
writes:

> Well *I* believe there is a *little* bit of difference between assasinating
> someone & arresting them, for one thing. I think we would've had one hell
> of a time trying to arrest SH. Could've been as bad as Berlin in 1945 IMHO.
> Also, there had been a recent election in Panama that had been overturned
> by Noriega so there was a replacement gov waiting in the wings with a good
> claim to the title, as it were. The situations in Panama & Iraq had many
> significant differences between them.

Panama is a semi-colony of the US and our relations with the rest of the world  
are somewhat different. My original comment was meant tongue in cheek.  We do  
use assassination but there is a lot of hypocrisy about it.  Remember when they  
bombed that bunker in Bagdad?  They weren't trying to kill the janitor!   
Government does tend to have a gentleman's agreement about offing the  
competition at the same level since if you shoot at the other guy he might  
start shooting back at you!  And I don't have any problem with the concept of  
knocking off the king or whoever of a country if I'm at war with them.  The  
only problem is if you kill the head of state it's hard to get him to negotiate  
a peace treaty after the war.

--
Barry Wise
(bwise@hemlock.mitre.org)
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: some more to viking. 
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 04:51:26 GMT

In <1992Apr13.163948.1@acad2.alaska.edu> fsrla@acad2.alaska.edu writes:

>More to Viking  (this is an interesting converstation)

	Thanks for the interest -- always good to hear what others
think and use that data to re-evaluate my own views.  [rest deleted]

> Anyway, those are answeres to a question someone else asked.
> Now, Viking, I still am stunned at you lack of sensitivity.  But, like 
>I said, our morals are different.  You say that if the orders were to kill
>children, you'd do it.  That there would be a reason your superior gave you
>the order, so you would do it.  Did you hear about Mia Lie (my spelling is 
>probably wrong) were the villigers were killed without cause, and it was 
>proven as such?

	Like any good scientist, though, I covered myself on that one.  I
said that I cannot be given a legal order to kill children unless they
somehow pose a threat to myself or my unit.  Simple.  If I had been told
at My Li (or however you spell it) to open fire, I would have replied that
the order was illegal.  I must admit, though, that if I hear a bunch of
rifles going off and I happen to hear what sounds like an AK instead of
an M16 (and you can tell the difference) I quite probably would have
opened fire along with everybody else.  Is it moral to do so?  I think it
the most moral thing to do -- when somedbody is shooting at you, the fact
that you wear a uniform does not in any way make it less than self-defense
when you shoot back.  But this is all hypothetical constructs on events
neither of us will ever know all the facts about.

>I would never deliberatly aim to kill anybody.
>I couldnn't do it.  And I wouldn't want to.
>How can a person end a life, and then just walk away?  I couldn't.
>And NO (for those people about to scream "Then you want others to do
>it for you") I do not.  War shouldn't be neccisary.

	No, it shouldn't be.  But not everybody else shares your morals
and hence wars are fought.  Like I said once before, live with it.  Do
what you can to fight it, but live with it.  It is part of the reality
we live in, and your getting shot by your own troops for mutiny or
treason is hardly a way of converting people.  Martyrs can either be
great symbols or forgotten fools.  Which will you be?

<Daniel R. Sorenson   Dod #1066  |If Iowa State University agreed with me >
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu <- work |I'd make $90K/yr.  They don't, I don't. >
<viking@iastate.edu      <- play |"I am *not* goofing off.  I am driving  >
< myself mercilessly in the pursuit of relaxation." -- T. Weeds           >
Newsgroups: alt.war,soc.culture.asian.american
From: kniaz@cat3.cs.wisc.edu (Joel Kniaz)
Subject: Re: The War in 2020 (was US military policy)
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 18:59:49 GMT

In article <NIGEL.92Apr13110313@rs733.GSFC.NASA.Gov> nigel@rs733.GSFC.NASA.Gov writes:
>In article <viking.702968302@aviator.cc.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>
>[much deleted]
>
>I once saw an interesting movie my behavioral psych class about primate
>behavior (as it relates to human behavior).  The most amusing sequence
>was of a female chimp cheating on the dominant male with one of the
>lesser males.  She and the other chimp hid behind a rock and every so
>often she'd poke her head up to make sure the alpha male was occupied
>with something and not looking for them.  She also would go up to him
>every so often and groom him and otherwise cuddle up with him so he
>didn't suspect anything.  The film also showed the difference between
>typical chimp lovemaking (which was quite noisy) and the illicit
>behavior (much more silent).
>
>A lot of human behavior can be found in animals...


	This is absolutely true.  In fact, in studies of this behavior,
	genetic testing indicated that more than half of the offspring 
	of the troops can be sired by these sub-dominant males. Apparently
	these males held some skill or qualities which made them more
	attractive to the females than the alphas.  Comparing the alphas
	to Jocks and the sub-dominants to, say,  computer science geeks,
	I would say that this could indicate a source of hope for us 
	sensitive, nerdy guys out here...  :>
								-JOK

     ______________________________________________________________________
    / "Lo, Though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death,       /
    \    I fear not!                                        ______________\
    /  For I am the biggest son-of-a-bitch in the valley." / My favorite  /
    \______________________________________________________\ expression...\
    / Joel Kniaz   kniaz@garfield.cs.wisc.edu  kniaz@jomby /      __i     /
    \______________________________________________________\_yiLballe(Mu)_\
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Saturday, 11 Apr 1992 23:08:59 EDT
From: <DAM137@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: How to stop wars

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
Newsgroups: alt.war,soc.culture.asian.american
From: nigel@rs733.GSFC.NASA.Gov
Subject: Re: The War in 2020 (was US military policy)
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md, USA
	<1992Apr9.194111.5003@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
	<1992Apr10.230007.8183@cs.yale.edu>
	<viking.702968302@aviator.cc.iastate.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 16:03:13 GMT

In article <viking.702968302@aviator.cc.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

[much deleted]

>   It is also interesting to note that chimps have been filmed
>hunting down, killing, and sharing a monkey.  Never a gorilla, but
>always a much smaller monkey.  This also leads me to believe that
>perhaps there is some inbred warlike tendencies in humanity, we not
>being much above apes in many respects.  At least the apes know not
>to try hunting prey that can effectively fight back.

I once saw an interesting movie my behavioral psych class about primate
behavior (as it relates to human behavior).  The most amusing sequence
was of a female chimp cheating on the dominant male with one of the
lesser males.  She and the other chimp hid behind a rock and every so
often she'd poke her head up to make sure the alpha male was occupied
with something and not looking for them.  She also would go up to him
every so often and groom him and otherwise cuddle up with him so he
didn't suspect anything.  The film also showed the difference between
typical chimp lovemaking (which was quite noisy) and the illicit
behavior (much more silent).

A lot of human behavior can be found in animals...

><Daniel R. Sorenson   Dod #1066  |If Iowa State University agreed with me >


--
Nigel Tzeng
.sig under construction
Newsgroups: alt.war