Return-Path: <sentto-279987-1671-999207204-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com> Delivered-To: fc@all.net Received: from 204.181.12.215 by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Thu, 30 Aug 2001 14:34:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 22202 invoked by uid 510); 30 Aug 2001 21:33:49 -0000 Received: from n15.groups.yahoo.com (216.115.96.65) by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 30 Aug 2001 21:33:49 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-1671-999207204-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.4.56] by ml.egroups.com with NNFMP; 30 Aug 2001 21:33:24 -0000 X-Sender: azb@llnl.gov X-Apparently-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 30 Aug 2001 21:33:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 60418 invoked from network); 30 Aug 2001 21:28:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 Aug 2001 21:28:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp-1.llnl.gov) (128.115.250.81) by mta2 with SMTP; 30 Aug 2001 21:28:48 -0000 Received: from poptop.llnl.gov (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-1.llnl.gov (8.9.3/8.9.3/LLNL-gateway-1.0) with ESMTP id OAA29815 for <iwar@yahoogroups.com>; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 14:28:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from catalyst.llnl.gov (catalyst.llnl.gov [128.115.222.68]) by poptop.llnl.gov (8.8.8/LLNL-3.0.2/pop.llnl.gov-5.1) with ESMTP id OAA14720 for <iwar@yahoogroups.com>; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 14:28:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010830141327.00c9ec40@poptop.llnl.gov> X-Sender: e048786@poptop.llnl.gov X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 To: iwar@yahoogroups.com In-Reply-To: <HJEOJIABAJCJIMKBCKIGEEMOCAAA.jsforza@isrisk.net> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010829183830.00b49ec0@poptop.llnl.gov> From: Tony Bartoletti <azb@llnl.gov> Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com> Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 14:40:49 -0700 Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [iwar] Preparing for 'Network-Centric' Warfare Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit At 09:13 AM 8/30/01 -0400, you wrote: >>I wonder how the good scientists and engineers from North Korea, Iran, >>and Pakistan must feel when the world's major superpower (US) promulgates >>the notion that without the technological gifts from "parent nations", >>these professionals would be unable to rub two sticks together. > >Driven to prove their capabilities through demonstration... Welcome to the >traditional arrogance of a world power to the lesser nations. We're going to >get our ass kicked if we don't watch our language and attitudes. In today's >world most of these folks have degrees from the same places, and never >forget raw talent. It is a dangerous precedent to associate capability >(especially short term or one off demonstration) with the density of PhD's. > >>A question: If it were possible for these "rogue nations" to fully >>develop major offensive capability without the help of other nations, >>would we (the US) still hold to the line that they got the capability >>from (Russia, China, etc) in order to pressure those parent nations into >>policing "their children"? That is, to let it be known that should any >>overt act on the part of "the child" occur, we would hold "the parent" >>responsible? > >I like it ... NOT, short term, dangerous classic escalation mentality. How >much of that material (I wanted to say c?#*) in the emerging nations is US >sourced? Unless it can be proven in world court that a 'superpower' nation >is directly assisting nuclear offensive development to offensive capability >in a state sanctioned mode you are treading on a thin shell lava field, have >fun. > >As I have said before, rockets are so damned inefficient, I grant that they >are timely delivery vehicles but I see no requirement that they get their >payloads to target in 15 minutes vs. 30 hours. Actually the 30 hours >provides considerably more Pysch Ops advantage, albeit with the heighten >risk of interception. > >Or did I miss your point Tony? > >Regards, > >John Sforza I think you got my point, John. And I agree with yours as well. Often, it seems that the "real threat" is one of perception, a "hearts and minds" issue. Some must find value in the "escalation mentality", if that is what is behind these statements. Perhaps more generously, it might be deemed a "linkage mentality". When wayward children commit some heinous act, we tend to spread the "blame" or responsibility across a wide spectrum; their parents, their teachers, their peers, societal influences via the media, etc., in addition to the child alone. We recognize that simply sanctioning the child will have essentially zero effect in deterring other children, who are rarely "consequence-oriented". We also recognize that we are all at risk from uncontrolled elements, and thus all have a stake in stabilization. Bottom line, 'though, is that I feel no compulsion to wreak destruction on others because ... I don't feel chronically cheated and desperately without effective recourse. Unless we address such issues on a global scale, all we do with non-proliferation is slow the doomsday clock a bit. It yet ticks onward. Just a gut feeling ... :( ____tony___ Tony Bartoletti 925-422-3881 <azb@llnl.gov> Information Operations, Warfare and Assurance Center Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Livermore, CA 94551-9900 ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Secure your servers with 128-bit SSL encryption! Grab your copy of VeriSign's FREE Guide: "Securing Your Web Site for Business." Get it Now! http://us.click.yahoo.com/n7RbFC/zhwCAA/yigFAA/kgFolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> ------------------ http://all.net/ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-09-29 21:08:40 PDT