🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <8114@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> ajdenner@athena.mit.edu (Alexander J Denner) writes:
..
>	To clarify:
>	I think that it is great that Mr. Draper is sending bits of news
>to his Russian friends.  Such an act is good.  What I think would be bad
>is the Soviets becoming a large network connected with the West.  As I have
>said many times already, this allows the KGB to eliminate information sorting/
>acquistion operations in the US.

There seems to be agreement that the Soviets would not gain anything
new if they had a USENET feed, only that it might save them time and
money.

Saving time: So what.  I don't see things on the net that are that
time-critical.  If I want to get real up-to-date news (even on the
internet worm) I listen to National Public Radio (plug, plug) or read
the New York Times.  The KGB can do that too.

Saving money: Why are we so posessed with the notion that it is in our
interest to try to get the Soviets to waste their money?  Why are we
bent on this notion that economic warfare is good?

I think that we are better off with a Soviet Union that is fat and
happy with the status quo than we would be with a threatened Soviet
Union that feels backed in a corner, that it has nothing to loose.
Whether you think the Soviets are people or just gruff bears, you
still don't want to corner them and give them nothing to loose.
Before they they push the button, let them first contemplate the
serious prospect of USENET withdrawl.

Pointer: If you _really_ want to undermine the Soviet system,
introduce something as uncontrollable and anarchic as USENET.  We
shouldn't be fighting to _prevent_ a USENET feed, we should be
fighting to _install_ one (unless we are afraid the Soviets might get
suspicious and prevent it themselves, in which case some of use should
argue against it to make it more acceptable to them--Mr. Denner: Glad
to know you are on my side, keep up the good work).

Kent Borg
kent@lloyd.uucp
or
hscfvax!lloyd!kent