----- Original Message -----
From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 5:16 PM
Subject: Re: Landmines RE: US Foreign Policy Re: *DO* we share a
civilization?
> At 22:55 13-8-01 -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> > > >Another site calls a war game model of the US Army flawed, without
going
> > > >into details as to why.
>
> <snip>
>
> >On the net, you usually provide links. If it were a non-refereed
source,
> >then I would attach next to no weight to the reference.
>
> What is your opinion on the credibility of the war game models of the US
> military?
>
Well, lets look at the data. The record of war games vs. actual war
outcomes have been mixed. But, the Gulf war, the last one with significant
US ground troops has shown that the tactics were fairly successful. So, on
the whole, their claims would probably be given decent weight.
Now, if you were to tell me that you thought that the US military was
overcautious. That you realized that they had a tremendous responsibility
in Korea, but that the plus of the US taking the lead in eliminating land
mines and thus actually cutting their irresponsible use world wide would
outweigh the risks, then you might have a reasonable argument.
But, instead you use phrases like "crimes against humanity" and words like
"debunk." These words brook no contradictions. A moral person does not
commit a crime against humanity. A rational person does not accept
something that has been debunked as true.
So, you have set yourself a very high standard of proof, since you hold that
a reasonable moral person must come to the conclusion that you come to. An
example of a crime against humanity is ethnic cleansing. Do you really
think that the US and the elected South Korean government agreeing that the
risks of deaths in a North Korean invasion outweighs the risks of death due
to someone breaking through the barbed wire into mine fields?
Remember, the people voting for the South Korean government who agreed to
keep the mine fields are the same people who are at risk. Why is their
decision to take one risk instead of another a crime against humanity?
Debunking is usually used in contest of psychic phenomenon, haunted houses,
astrology, etc. It is a rigorous falsification of a premise by showing that
the phenomenon is actually explained by more conventional means. Citing web
sites of people who claim something is false does not constitute a
debunking. Even making a reasonable case for your point is not debunking.
Debunking means proving your point beyond reasonable doubt.
One other thing about web sites and believability. Sites of organizations
that have reputations to protect are more likely to have their facts
straight that web sites that are simply put up by someone who is sure about
an issue. An example would be the right wing claims that Clinton murdered
hundreds of people to cover up Whitewater. If it were in the NY times it
would be more believable than the Texas Militia web site.
And, quotes of facts are more likely to be believable than untrained
projections. For example, if you use "North Korean Army" in a hotbot search
you will find sites like
http://www.iht.com/IHT/DK/00/dk090800.html
which quote the US army as saying that N. Korea is running constant
maneuvers and that they have moved their forces south so that 70% of N.
Korea's forces are within 100 km of the border.
Now, you can claim that this is a biased source. But, they would be
absolutely stupid to claim that if it were patently false. All North Korea
would have to do is show where the tanks are and prove the US to be a liar.
So, while one might take that with a grain of salt, thinking that Army
generals are paid to be pessimistic, and the percentage within 100 km might
actually be closer to 60%, there is probably something going on. And with
the tunnel under the DMZ discovered in South Korea in the last few years, it
is hard to paint these generals as paranoid.
If you were arguing that Clinton, in trouble with the military as it was,
decided to not confront the generals on a tough call, then the standards of
proof for your argument would have been much lower. But, with the
accusations you chose to make, you set the bar very high.
Finally, hanging on to land mines does not meet the personal self interest
of the generals. No general got a star for keeping land mines. Plenty got
stars for championing a new high tech program. That adds credibility to the
argument that it is the generals honest assessment of the risks/benefits of
land mines.
Dan M.
