----- Original Message -----
From: "Baardwijk, J. van DTO/SLBD/BGM/SVM/SGM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 6:15 AM
Subject: RE: Landmines RE: US Foreign Policy Re: *DO* we share a civilizat
ion?
>
> You're getting two things mixed up here, Gautam.
>
> I said that the US was wrong to use landmines, for reasons such as "there
> are better weapons available nowadays" and "US troops get injured/killed
by
> their own mines". I also said that US Military Intelligence should be able
> to find out about an upcoming invasion, but I didn't use that argument as
a
> reason why the use of landmines is wrong.
>
Huh? Let me quote the exchange from 8/13 in which it came up.
Jeroen:
>>ou really don't want a few tank companies to stop all North Korean tanks.
> >First, the terrain is less than ideal for tank movements. Second, when
you
> >combine "smart weapons" such as BAT gliders with targeting aircraft, you
> >can destroy North Korean tank columns long before they even reach the
> >border, and long before they get within firing range of your tanks.
Dan:
>Are you suggesting that the US destroy tanks when North Korea engages in
war
>games and maneuvers? We haven't been doing that. Their tanks are mostly
>within a few miles of the border, now. How can you tell the difference
>between tanks that are going towards the border and then will turn away at
>the last minute as part of war games, and those that will keep on going
>across the border?
Jeroen:
Ever heard of "Military Intelligence Operations"? If and when North Korea
wants to invade South Korea, they'll have to plan that invasion first. If
the US Military Intelligence people have done their jobs right, the US will
know about those plans well before the invasion starts.
Paraphrasing my understanding of that exchange we have:
J: Landmines are not needed because the US will be able to stop the tanks
before they get to the border with all their smart weapons
D: How can you tell if the tanks are on maneuvers going towards the border
or actually going towards the border to invade?
J: If the military intelligence does their job right, the US will know.
So, it seems to me that you brought in military intelligence to answer my
objections to your claims that the US can use its smart weapons to stop the
invasion before it got to the border. If you have a different understanding
of that exchange, I would appreciate hearing it.
While we are on the subject of the correctness of our understanding of your
arguments, after you claimed for a while that we misunderstood you, I posted
several times why I had the understanding I did. Part of it was based on
the meaning of debunk.
On 8/20, in response to my writing
----------------
Dan:
> What I wish to point out by this quotation is that, from the very
> start, I singled out the word debunking as a very strong word requiring
> a very high level of proof. (I'll stop quoting now, and start
> summarizing, but I'll quote again if need be.) You then gave an
> argument for your position and repeated the debunking claim. A bit
> later, I posted a fairly long piece describing what debunking means,
> and why the standards for debunking are set high.
------------------
you wrote:
-----------------
Jeroen:
OK, so I used what in English is considered a very strong word. Cut me some
slack -- English isn't my native language, and I don't have my copy of The
Concise Oxford Dictionary memorized either.
---------------------
I can understand cutting you slack, but I tried to do that. First, the word
"debunk" was the very best choice for you if you intended to prove that the
US had committed crimes against humanity. In order to prove "crimes against
humanity" you pretty well need to debunk, not just make a convincing
argument against the need for land mines. You agree with that, don't you?
People who are merely too cautious in defense and use weapons they don't
need are not committing crimes against humanity for as a result of a mistake
in judgment, right?
Second, after my first attempt to gently remind you of the standards for
debunking(by calling them strong), I thought that you might not have
understood the connotations of debunking. Even though I felt that one had
to debunk the needed for defense arguement, maybe you didn't. So I gave a
very explicit definition just after midnight CDT (about 5:15 GMT) on 8-16:
-----------------------
Dan:
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.
--------------------
Yet, it was over four days later that you finally said that debunking was a
stronger word than you meant. If it was, and you were worried about me
misinterpreting you, why didn't you clarify it in your next reply to me?
Are you now willing to agree that "crimes against humanity" as well as
"debunk" were a bit strong? I consider that a very nasty accusation of the
American people as a whole as well as the government (since the people were
fully informed of the actions), and if you now agree that it was a bit too
strong, then saying so would clear things up. We all make stronger
statements than we intend from time to time, and a tactical retreat from
that position will not be construed by me as total capitulation in the
argument. :-)
Dan M.
