----- Original Message -----
From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 3:14 PM
Subject: Re: Different standards of proof was Landmines
> At 23:52 15-8-01 -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.
>
> I find this rather surprising. You always claim that reports must be
> peer-reviewed, and you want a link to them so you can examine them in
> detail. Yet, the contents of these wargames are not publicly available
(the
> Pentagon conveniently uses the argument "that information is classified")
> so the validity can not be determined, but you nevertheless seem to
believe
> that those wargames are accurate.
>
Yes, because there does seem to be some experimental verification for their
games. I would guess that the US military based their strategy for the Gulf
War at least partially on the analysis they did during wargames. Since that
strategy was very successful as well as innovate, one has experimental
verification of the models, if you will.
Now, those same models overstated the casualties suffered by the allies.
Thus, one might come to the conclusion that the military models are on the
pessimistic side. Well, that's understandable, military men are paid to be
pessimists, not optimists.
BTW, I didn't say "I believe the war games to be accurate.", I said "given
decent weight." I don't see evidence in terms of black and white. I look
at probabilities, likelihoods, etc. I give greater weight to data from a
source that I've been able to test independently of the analysis in question
compared to analysis quoted from sources I haven't heard of before. If the
latter appear in peer review journals, than I give them a weight based on my
understanding of that peer review process.
> >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.
>
> Let me apply your standards to that article. The article cites "an
> intelligence report prepared by the U.S. military command", but it does
not
> provide a link to that report. Is that report available to the general
> public (preferably on-line), or has the US military command conveniently
> labeled the report "classified"? If that report is not available to the
> public, its validity is questionable at best.
>
But, I directly addressed that in what you snipped:
"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."
If the US army was wrong, and only 15% of the army was below that line, all
North Korea would have to do is call people in to observe the truth and the
US army intelligence would immediately look stupid. If the Texas militia
website has falsehoods on it, nothing much is lost.
> The article also cites a document titled "North Korean Threat", compiled
by
> the intelligence section of the U.S. command. Again, no link to that
> document was given, and again: if it's not publicly available, its
> credibility is virtually non-existant.
But, as I said, there is a difference. The US military has the credibility
they've built up over the years of making reports and having their reports
checked against reality later. It is a mixed bag. Viet Nam did tremendous
damage to their credibility, at least in my eyes. Their later successes in
developing tactics has restored some of that credibility.
If you want to be critical of their views, it is reasonable to say that they
are over cautious. It is also reasonable to say that, since some
legislators who do get to read those top secret reports are still calling
for the US to sign the treaty, that the reports don't make the need for the
land mines a foregone conclusion. If anything, I am leaning towards the
position that Gautam use to hold. The only thing that keeps me from simply
embracing it is a failure to understand what the impact the US signing the
treaty would have. No one is claiming scores, let alone thousands, of people
are being killed and maimed by US mines. The US mines are really quite
different in deployment and in type. I doubt that most people who are hurt
by land mines are hurt by mines that are designed to turn off or self
destruct in 48 hours to two weeks and/or are used as protection for
anti-tank mines.
>
> BTW, I found the "Exploding the Landmine Myth in Korea" report; the URL
> takes 2-3 lines of text, so I've taken the liberty of copying the file (60
> Kb, .txt format) to my own website:
> http://www.geocities.com/jeroenvb.geo/Landmine_Myth.txt
>
>
I appreciate you taking the trouble to post the site. I read it, and will
comment on it at some length later. It seems, on the whole, like a reasonab
le analysis. I think the title is a bit of a hype, which is a negative for
me, but the analysis is more balanced than the title.
Finally, I'm going to be boring and repeat a point. You made a very large
claim: that the US refusal to sign the land mine treaty and its use of mines
in Korea constitutes a crime against humanity. So, let me ask again, why is
the use of mines in Korea a crime against humanity. The people who are at
risk of being hurt by these mines have elected representatives who concur
with the need for these mines. I can understand the position that this view
is mistaken. I could see why you would say that the refusal to sign the
treaty was an error in judgment. But to rank it with ethnic cleansing as an
evil?
Dan M.
