🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7649@well.UUCP> crunch@well.UUCP (John Draper) writes:
>   I have heard a LOT of talk about adding Soviet Sites to the UUCP network
>but have heard nothing but VAPORWARE.    Does anyone out there in Net land
>WANT to add Soviet sites??   I can think of a hundred reasons why!!
>not to mention what it would do towards World Peace.


	I do not think this would be a very good idea.  Now that the Soviets
do not already have access to American networks (ARPANET, etc.).  (I am
saying that I am sure the KGB intercepts as much internet information as
they can.)  Although I have nothing against the Russin people, the Soviets
are NOT our friends.  The Soviet KGB has an immense information gathering
network in this country, why make it easier for them to tune into
western scientific thought?  Andrei Sakahrov has just said that the
changes are only superficial.  I do not think that he can trust the Soviet
government at all.  (Even if one believes that Gorbachev is really
sincere and wants to destroy all weapons on the Earth, it is very possible
that he will be overthrown by conservatives who wil return to the "old"
way.)  I think that we have seen how the Soviets have cut research costs
by copying our Shuttle, why let them get so much information so easily?

	Having a UUCP site would make it much easier for them to
spread a malicious virus in a time of friction.  Also, what if a virus
from the US leaks into Russia (or a virus from the USSR gets into the US)?
Such a situation would cause many problems and bad feelings.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander J. Denner                    ajdenner@athena.mit.edu
234 Baker House, 362 Memorial Drive    mit-eddie!mit-athena!ajdenner
Cambridge, MA 02139                    ajdenner%athena@mitmva.mit.edu

In article <8081@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> ajdenner@athena.mit.edu (Alexander J Denner) writes:
>	I do not think this would be a very good idea.  Now that the Soviets
>do not already have access to American networks (ARPANET, etc.).  (I am
>saying that I am sure the KGB intercepts as much internet information as
>they can.)

You are so sure, are you?  You REALLY underestimate the Soviet intellegence
gathering machine if you don't think they have clear access to a nation
spanning, unsecure network linking the ccountries universities, companies and
research institute.  Wake up, the Soviets are not stupid.  If nothing else,
they probably have Portal accounts.

>           Although I have nothing against the Russin people, the Soviets
>are NOT our friends.

Yea....we wouldn't want those godless commies to be reading soc.singles and
learning the latest in American going-to-a-bar-and-getting-laid technology, or
fining out all our closely guarded, national security secrets dicussed on
talk.bizzare...1\2 ;')

>                     The Soviet KGB has an immense information gathering
>network in this country, why make it easier for them to tune into
>western scientific thought?

Who the hell are you trying to kid?  All any KGB agent has to do to tune into
the latest western scientific thought is walk down to the library and pick
up a copy of, say, IBM Technical Journal, The New England Journal of Medicine,
ACM Transactions in Computer Science, etc., etc.  Americas scientific thought
is discussed, evangelised and paraded before the world every day in a thousand
different journals, newspapers, lectures and TV programmes.

Anything that is not suitable for those mediums is certainly NOT suitable for
the Internet.  In case you have forgotten, it is ILLEGAL for sensitive
information to be availible on the Internet....

>                              Andrei Sakahrov has just said that the
>changes are only superficial.

Umm....last I heard, Sakarov was talking about how sencere Gorbachev was...

>                               I do not think that he can trust the Soviet
>government at all.  (Even if one believes that Gorbachev is really
>sincere and wants to destroy all weapons on the Earth, it is very possible
>that he will be overthrown by conservatives who wil return to the "old"
>way.)

This kind of rabid xenophobia is sad...I bet you lose sleep wondering how long
its going to be before the Soviets invade us....

>       I think that we have seen how the Soviets have cut research costs
>by copying our Shuttle, why let them get so much information so easily?

One hundred percent, grade A+ bullshit.  The news has paraded rocket scientist
after rocket scientist across the tube and every one of them have said the
same thign: "there are only so many ways to build a space plane, and that is
one of the best..."  The Soviets didn't copy our shuttle...thats just the way
one is built....

>
>	Having a UUCP site would make it much easier for them to
>spread a malicious virus in a time of friction.

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHHA........absolutely ludicrous...you are again operating
under the assumption that the Evil Empire dosent already have connections to
the Internet.  There are a few hundred students here with Internet accounts.
I bet the commie pinkos have recruted at least one of them...;'};'}

>                                                 Also, what if a virus
>from the US leaks into Russia (or a virus from the USSR gets into the US)?
>Such a situation would cause many problems and bad feelings.

FINALLY!  A marginally valid point!  Probably would make noone very happy, but
it isnt exactly the thing nuclear wars are made of...

>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Alexander J. Denner                    ajdenner@athena.mit.edu
>234 Baker House, 362 Memorial Drive    mit-eddie!mit-athena!ajdenner
>Cambridge, MA 02139                    ajdenner%athena@mitmva.mit.edu

Lets have a little sanity check here...the way i read it, the Russians would
have a lousy mail and news feed.  You know, rec.humor, soc.culture.soviet,
soc.mtoss (KGB would LOVE that!), heavy technical stuff like
comp.unix.questions (;'}), a few electronic pen pals.  I didn't here anyone
mention accounts on 'sri.com' or 'brl.gov'.

Now I'm as patriotic and anti-communist as the next guy, probably more so.
And I'm not about to advocate jumping in bed with the Soviets just cause
Gorbie is a helluva guy, but christ, there simply is NOTHING wrong with a
little friendly communication and a little exposure to another culture.  This
little 'Electronic Exchange Programme' sure isn't giving the KGB any
oportunities that it didn't already have, and it might give
Joe-(Boris)-Average-Russian-Computer-Jock a chance to say, "hey, these guys
aren't so bad for a bunch of imperialistic money-grubbing opressors of the
working class..."  Maybe that will go both ways...

And remeber kids:  Joe McCarthy died 20+ years ago...lets keep it that way.

	ken seefried iii	...!{akgua, allegra, amd, harpo, hplabs,
	ken@gatech.edu		masscomp, rlgvax, sb1, uf-cgrl, unmvax,
	ccastks@gitvm1.bitnet	ut-ngp, ut-sally}!gatech!ken

	``The greatest pleasure is to vanquish your enemies and chase them
	before you, to rob them of their wealth and to see those dear to
	them bathed in tears, to ride their horses and to clasp to your
	bosom their wives and daughters.''
       					        -- Ghengis Kahn

In a sense, the Soviets may already have access to Usenet--through
FidoNet.  As of the last nodelist, there are two (2) FidoNet nodes
listed in Warsaw, Poland (2:480/1 and 2:480/2).  From what I understand,
these are operated by a Polish Computer Club, and are "gatewayed"
through a node in Holland.  I also understand that some sysops who have
sent mail to these nodes have never received any responses back.

Anyway, since links exist between usenet and fidonet, the link between
usenet and the Soviet Bloc (although a bit flakey on the FidoNet side),
does exist.  Whether anyone is actually using it is a valid quesiton,
but the fact of the existance of the Polish FidoNet nodes is there.

Kurt Reisler (703) 359-6100
============================================================================
UNISIG Chairman, DECUS US Chapter                       | Hadron, Inc.
.{uunet|sundc|rlgvax|netxcom|decuac}!hadron!klr        | 9990 Lee Highway
Sysop, Fido 109/74  The Bear's Den   (703) 671-0598     | Suite 481
Sysop, Fido 109/483 The Pot of Gold  (703) 359-6549     | Fairfax, VA 22030
============================================================================

In article <8081@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>, ajdenner@athena.mit.edu (Alexander J Denner) writes:

> 	I do not think this <adding Soviet sites to the UUCP network> would be
> a very good idea.  [...]
> Although I have nothing against the Russin people, the Soviets are NOT our
> friends.

Would you like to change that situation, or would you prefer to remain
non-friends?  If you seek change, how would you achieve it?  Politico-economic
pressure?  Nuke the bastards?  Invade them?  Diplomacy?  Bribery?
Carrot-and-stick?  If you prefer to remain non-friends, prepare to spend
an increasing percentage of our national resources on maintaining this
adversarial relationship.  Not an easy choice, in any event.  Perhaps we need
to re-think many of our most ingrained attitudes--such as our (and the
Soviets') perverse need for a convenient enemy that we can blame our own
mistakes on.

> The Soviet KGB has an immense information gathering network in this country,
> why make it easier for them to tune into western scientific thought?

Sorry, but we live in a democracy, and that's one of the prices we must pay.
The Soviets won't have any trouble obtaining what they want, whether they use
the net or not.  I would wager a guess that the amount of truly useful
information that passes over public networks is extremely minuscule.  Most
information classified is done so for the purpose of keeping it from the
American people, not the from the Soviets.  You may rest assured that the
Soviets have had for years all the information they need about the Stealth
Bomber, for example.  The only people who don't know Stealth details are the
American people, and that's to keep us from knowing the true amount of money
that's disappeared down that rat hole.  Bear in mind the truly awesome
accomplishments of the Soviet intelligence services in World War 2,
accomplishments achieved against the rather un-democratic Third Reich.  I'm
glad we had those folks on OUR side, thank you.

> Andrei Sakahrov has just said that the changes are only superficial.

So we are to take the word of just one person (albeit a very prestigious one)?
While I would agree that too much is being made of changes in the USSR, those
changes give the world a golden opportunity to pour oil on some long-troubled
waters.

> I do not think that he [sic?] can trust the Soviet government at all.

I don't think we can trust ANY government at all, including that of the USA.
Who says we have to trust the USSR, anyway?  Speak softly and carry a big
stick.

> (Even if one believes that Gorbachev is really sincere and wants to destroy
> all weapons on the Earth,

I'm sure he knows that is unrealistic.  What he knows is that his nation's
economy is in danger of total collapse, and if something isn't done to divert
resorces away from the Soviet military-industrial complex their massive war
machine will rot from within anyway.  And don't forget that with over 21
million Soviets killed in World War 2, they are the most anti-war people on
this planet.  But they will also behave like a cornered rat if we nudge them
into that particular mind-set.

> it is very possible that he will be overthrown by conservatives who wil
> return to the "old" way.)

Good point, but this will NOT happen if Gorbachev's policies WORK.  Currently
things don't look good.  I think it's in the world's best interest for us to
help the guy out.  Let's start feeding him some of our western-style free
flow of information and see if we can shake things up even more.  Hook up the
net!  The more Soviet sites the better!  Let the Soviet people have an
ever-increasing dose of Western thought!

> I think that we have seen how the Soviets have cut research costs by copying
> our Shuttle,

It is NOT a copy.  It looks similar (would you care to show me a hypothetical
shuttle design that doesn't?), but there are substantial internal
differences--such as the fact that the Soviet orbiter does not have main rocket
engines of its own, but it does have booster jets to assist with landing.  But
it is true that the Soviets do copy our stuff from time to time, such as with
the An-124 being a copy of the C-5.  It works both ways, though--our F-5 was
basically a feeble copy of the MiG-21, and our F-16 is (or, rather, was) an
attempt to duplicate the light-weight, low-cost, super-maneuverable aspects of
MiG designs such as the MiG-17 and -21.  Believe me, even as we speak US
designers are frantically trying to duplicate (within some kind of economic
reality) the successes of such Soviet missiles as the AA-9, AA-10, SA-10, and
SA-12.

> why let them get so much information so easily?

See above.  I wasn't aware that critical information about such things as
shuttles was being transmitted over the net.  If they want such information,
they can get it easily without bothering with the net.

Two superpowers capable of reducing each other to radioactive slag have two
options: push the button or try to develop a better understanding of each
other's viewpoints.  The more information that flows back and forth the better
off we'll both be.  Public access networks could be the most powerful anti-war
weapons the USA has.  Let's use them.

--
NSA food:  Iran sells Nicaraguan drugs to White House through CIA, DIA & NRO.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BRS Information Technologies, 1200 Rt. 7, Latham, N.Y. 12110  (518) 783-1161
"God forbid we should ever be 20 years without...a rebellion." Thomas Jefferson

In article <17651@gatech.edu>, ken@gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) writes:
> In article <8081@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> ajdenner@athena.mit.edu
>  (Alexander J Denner) writes:
> >                                                 Also, what if a virus
> >from the US leaks into Russia (or a virus from the USSR gets into the US)?
> >Such a situation would cause many problems and bad feelings.
>
> FINALLY!  A marginally valid point!  Probably would make noone very happy,
> but it isnt exactly the thing nuclear wars are made of...
>

#define SARCASM What I'm about to say

A VERY VALID POINT!  In fact, since the RTM fiasco came from Yankee-land, it
has certainly caused grievous harm to North/South relations!  And in a time
when things seemed to be improving.  No telling what kind of retaliation the
new Texan in the White House is likely to take.  We down South knew that when
we connected that we would have to watch out for the evil tricks of those
carpetbaggers, and, see there, we were right (as always).

So let's not UUCP with the Russkies - after all, Yankees on the net are
enough of a risk for us down heah!

#undefine SARCASM

Gimme a break!  This isn't even a marginally valid point.  If they (or
anyone) want to start in infestation, they *already* have the necessary
connections.

The arguments against connecting do reek of Joe McCarthy!

> Now I'm as patriotic and anti-communist as the next guy, probably more so.
> And I'm not about to advocate jumping in bed with the Soviets just cause
> Gorbie is a helluva guy, but christ, there simply is NOTHING wrong with a
> little friendly communication and a little exposure to another culture.  This
> little 'Electronic Exchange Programme' sure isn't giving the KGB any
> oportunities that it didn't already have, and it might give
> Joe-(Boris)-Average-Russian-Computer-Jock a chance to say, "hey, these guys
> aren't so bad for a bunch of imperialistic money-grubbing opressors of the
> working class..."  Maybe that will go both ways...
>
> And remeber kids:  Joe McCarthy died 20+ years ago...lets keep it that way.
>

Same here.

Besides, c'mon guys, we're all wearing condoms now, aren't we?
--
Walker Mangum                                  |  Adytum, Incorporated
phone: (713) 333-1509                          |  1100 NASA Road One
UUCP:  uunet!ficc!walker  (walker@ficc.uu.net) |  Houston, TX  77058
Disclaimer: $#!+ HAPPENS

I must certainly agree with Ken Seefried's remarks and join in
rebutting Alan Denner.  It's sheerest self aggrandizement to suppose
that anything we talk about in Usenet news would be a threat in Soviet
hands.  (I doubt even the KGB waste their time with it, and if they do,
I have a quick cost cutting measure to suggest to Gorby. :-)  As for
the supposed danger of the Arpanet link - I have no more right to see
what Arpa talks about than Roald Sagdeyev does, but no one suggests
curtailing my net access because of it.  Sensitive info has no business
on the public net - and it's Arpa's job to keep it off, not ours.  We
are already happily exchanging news with UK, Netherlands, Oz and
elsewhere with no problems.  Even Israel, and this after Pollard.  So
don't waste bandwidth arguing it's an unacceptable security risk.

We should concentrate on the stimulus value of the technical and
cultural exchange a USSR/Usenet link would offer.  From Draper's
enjoyable "Hacker's View" article it appears there are some real
hotshot programmers over there, folks not unlike ourselves who,
however, don't have any inkling of how great the electronic community
is.  If the benefits of including them really don't outweigh the risks,
someone will have to come up with some more convincing risks. :-)
Besides which, if it's to be disallowed I'm sure the State Dept. will
eagerly do the hatchet work...  why do it for them.
--
Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536	       MCI: TNEFF
	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF	       BIX: t.neff (no kidding)

In article <17651@gatech.edu>, ken@gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) writes:
> Wake up, the Soviets are not stupid.
> If nothing else, they probably have Portal accounts.

Anybody care to guess what's wrong with these two statements?

     Steve

P.S. - OK, OK, :-)
--
Steve Friedl    V-Systems, Inc.  +1 714 545 6442    3B2-kind-of-guy
friedl@vsi.com     {backbones}!vsi.com!friedl    attmail!vsi!friedl
------------Nancy Reagan on the worm: "Just say OH NO!"------------

In article <17651@gatech.edu> ken@gatech.UUCP (Ken Seefried iii) writes:
>In article <8081@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> ajdenner@athena.mit.edu (Alexander J Denner) writes:
>>	I do not think this would be a very good idea.  Now that the Soviets
>>do not already have access to American networks (ARPANET, etc.).  (I am
>>saying that I am sure the KGB intercepts as much internet information as
>>they can.)
>
>You are so sure, are you?  You REALLY underestimate the Soviet intellegence
>gathering machine if you don't think they have clear access to a nation
>spanning, unsecure network linking the ccountries universities, companies and
>research institute.  Wake up, the Soviets are not stupid.  If nothing else,
>they probably have Portal accounts.

	"Now" should have been "Not," I am sorry about this typo.  I know that
they have access (if Mr. Seefried  actually read before critizing he would
know that).  I do not think that we should help the KGB by faciliting
connections with Western computer networks.

	I am quite well informed as to their ability to intercept data and
voice communication (microwave interception is easiest, but there are many
other methods).

	I understand and respect the positions of Mr. Draper and Mr. Kennedy,
however I found the rest of Mr. Seefried's article incoherent and rude.
I would appreciate intelligent disagreements, not raving slander.

	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.

						Alex Denner
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander J. Denner                    ajdenner@athena.mit.edu
234 Baker House, 362 Memorial Drive    mit-eddie!mit-athena!ajdenner
Cambridge, MA 02139                    ajdenner%athena@mitmva.mit.edu

In article <8081@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> ajdenner@athena.mit.edu (Alexander J Denner) writes:
>In article <7649@well.UUCP> crunch@well.UUCP (John Draper) writes:
>>   I have heard a LOT of talk about adding Soviet Sites to the UUCP network
>>but have heard nothing but VAPORWARE.    Does anyone out there in Net land
>>WANT to add Soviet sites??   I can think of a hundred reasons why!!
>>not to mention what it would do towards World Peace.
>
>	I do not think this would be a very good idea.
> [...]   Although I have nothing against the Russin people, the Soviets
>are NOT our friends.

Have you ever been in Soviet? Have you ever heard of the massive interest
that the Soviet people shows about USA? No, they don't listen on the
American radio broadcasted to the Soviet (they are already fed up with
propaganda), but they read all the magasines and newspapers they can get.
A surprisingly big part of the younger people speeks english, and takes
every opportunity to practise. The younger generation is very tired of the
old peoples demagogic speeches of old times, and they regard western countries
as something very exciting and as a source of new thinking.
You can quite comfortable regard the people of the Soviet union as your
friends. I won't say though that all of the leaders in Soviet are your best
friends, but that doesn't differ from USA, does it?

>The Soviet KGB has an immense information gathering
>network in this country, why make it easier for them to tune into...

So what? The US has equal amount of information gathering devices and units
beamed towards USSR. If you really believe that Soviet is superior in
gathering information, then you are wrong.

>	Having a UUCP site would make it much easier for them to
>spread a malicious virus in a time of friction.  Also, what if a virus
>from the US leaks into Russia (or a virus from the USSR gets into the US)?
>Such a situation would cause many problems and bad feelings.

I hoped this kind of McCarthyistic rubbish was a rare thing these days!
Your view of the world is obviosly based on old cold war propaganda. What
causes "problems and bad feelings" is most of all when we don't trust
people of the very same flesh and blood, and when we are suspicious instead
of encouraging.
The best thing that we computing people can do to encourage Glasnost and
Perestroika is to welcome the people of the Soviet union into the net.
The more information channels that exists, the more difficult to control
the feelings expressed.


Per Ejeklint					per@kps.UUCP
Stockholm, Sweden

In article <8081@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> ajdenner@athena.mit.edu (Alexander J Denner) writes:
>	Having a UUCP site would make it much easier for them to
>spread a malicious virus in a time of friction.  Also, what if a virus
>from the US leaks into Russia (or a virus from the USSR gets into the US)?
>Such a situation would cause many problems and bad feelings.

I agree that a normal, or unrestricted UUCP site sounds risky.  On the
other hand, I think the offering the Soviets regulated access, in
exchange for some access to their networks (if any), could have some
benefits for the United States, e.g., if the Soviets open up.

The risks are big enough, though, for me to wish some arm of the U.S.
Government would step in and supervise US-USSR technical bridges,
especially since these exchanges are neither unregulated nor benign on
the Soviet side.
--
Geoffrey S. Knauth                 ARPA: geoff%lloyd@husc6.harvard.edu
Camex, Inc.                        UUCP: geoff@lloyd.uucp or husc6!lloyd!geoff
75 Kneeland St., Boston, MA 02111
Tel: (617)426-3577  Fax: 426-9285            I do not speak for Camex.

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.

  I seriously doubt that any world power would have trouble getting
usenet news. They could just go buy a machine, operating system, and
news software, and there are many machines who would feed them (or
anyone else). How many sites check on security levels before giving a
feed. My impression is that a number of sites will feed almost anyone,
and the questions are more like "you pay the phone bill, right?" than
"are you a spy?"

  I think that getting some dialog going between the UUSR and the rest
of the world is really desirable. Many people think that Russia is one
big country, and only with the recent happenings in Estonia (sp?) etc,
have they realized that the parts of the USSR have more differences than
just a southern drawl vs. a yankee twang.

  I have lots of things I'd like to know about them... are they using
tools like spreadsheets, word processing, pop-ups? Can the average
professional hope to have a PC, and if so would it be a model 100, a
C64, or an AT type machine. Do they have a BBS in the USSR? Are there
any decent ales over there?


  I really hope this takes place.
--
	bill davidsen		(wedu@ge-crd.arpa)
  {uunet | philabs}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me

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

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.

Yes, a network feed to the Soviet Union would allow them to acquire high-
quality information like that posted every day to this newsgroup! :-)

						Bruce C. Wright

In article <268@lloyd.camex.uucp> kent@lloyd.UUCP (Kent Borg) writes:
>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.

This is not the complete picture.  Suppose someone asks "Where can I
find such and such", or "How does one get this program to work".  The
time spent in searching for information can be reduced quite a lot
when one uses USENET.  Would you offer help to someone from the Soviet
Union?  I will not knowingly offer help to someone from the Soviet Union.

>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?

The best (peaceful) way to get the Soviets to change their ways is economic.
If they waste their resources on the military then their consumer economy will
suffer.  Over time, Soviet citizens will demand reform; this seems to be
happening now.  To what extent the changes being made are real and will result
in a more freedom in the SU remains to be seen.

>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.

A Soviet Union that is fat and happy with the status quo would seem to
me to be more likely to engage in military adventures.  Dealing with the
Soviets is a very tricky business, but one fact is very clear, they
respect military strength.

>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.

Agreed.

>Before they they push the button, let them first contemplate the
>serious prospect of USENET withdrawl.

Yeah right, get real.  I'm certain a USENET withdrawl would be at the
bottom of their list of concerns.

>Pointer: If you _really_ want to undermine the Soviet system,
>introduce something as uncontrollable and anarchic as USENET.

USENET is uncontrollable and anarchic in the free world, I believe
it could be controlled in the SU.  Every international phone call that
connects to the SU is recorded, the same can be done with USENET.  Persons
that post an illegal message would get a visit from a "moderator" and
be educated on the proper use of USENET.

lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes:
> This is not the complete picture.  Suppose someone asks "Where can I
> find such and such", or "How does one get this program to work".  The
> time spent in searching for information can be reduced quite a lot
> when one uses USENET.  Would you offer help to someone from the Soviet
> Union?

Yes

> I will not knowingly offer help to someone from the Soviet Union.

God forbid the russians get a hold of the latest proof of the
superiority of objectivist cisc cpus...

> A Soviet Union that is fat and happy with the status quo would seem to
> me to be more likely to engage in military adventures.  Dealing with the
> Soviets is a very tricky business, but one fact is very clear, they
> respect military strength.

Time to gear up those bomb factories!

In article <268@lloyd.camex.uucp> kent@lloyd.UUCP (Kent Borg) writes:
: 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?

Mostly because many people believe, on the strength of the Soviet's
own pronouncements of their intentions, that if they had the
resources, they'd use those resources to make *real* war on us.
Denying them a little money (specifically, foreign exchange, which
they can spend on acquiring our, more effective, resources) means
denying them a little of those resources and thus lessens the
likelyhood of their making *real* war on us.

: 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.

This is an old argument, which doesn't hold much water when one
considers that the Soviets have chosen their paths because they want
to run the world. (Their stated intention.) Can you say Afghanistan?
And do you have the vaguest idea why they are pulling out? Try
economics.

: Before they they push the button, let them first contemplate the
: serious prospect of USENET withdrawl.

This, and its brethren, would be meaningful if the Party thought that
the West is essential to their well-being.  But they don't.  (I don't
think. Perhaps they are wising up, in the light of the relative
performance of their economy?)

: 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

Now here, I agree wholeheartedly. A Usenet feed can only undermine
their political system, while only saving them a trivial amount of
money.

---
Bill
{uunet|novavax}!proxftl!twwells!bill

In article <sXXmKHy00UkaA8mWNJ@andrew.cmu.edu> bader+@andrew.cmu.edu (Miles Bader) writes:
: lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes:
: >
: God forbid the russians get a hold of the latest proof of the
: superiority of objectivist cisc cpus...

Can you say "ad hominem"? Good. Now, can you offer your objections
without descending to ad hominems? Wonderful!

Anyway, as I understand it, Mr. Cipriani is not an Objectivist.
However, I am.

As it happens, I disagree with him, believing that the potential
disruption caused by Usenet in the USSR more than balances the
possible savings they might obtain from not having to intercept it
outside their empire.

This opinion, obtained from uncertain evidence, is one that can be
legitimately argued, so I won't fault him, or anyone else, for
holding the other view.  We just don't know.

---
Bill
{uunet|novavax}!proxftl!twwells!bill

In article <sXXmKHy00UkaA8mWNJ@andrew.cmu.edu> bader+@andrew.cmu.edu (Miles Bader) writes:
>lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes:
>> Would you offer help to someone from the Soviet Union?
>
>Yes

Is the word traitor in your vocabulary?

>> I will not knowingly offer help to someone from the Soviet Union.
>
>God forbid the russians get a hold of the latest proof of the
>superiority of objectivist cisc cpus...

I am not an Objectivist, but a Libertarian that is very realistic and
afraid of the Soviets.  I don't pretend to have the secrets of the
universe, but there is no way I'm going to knowingly help the Soviets.

>> A Soviet Union that is fat and happy with the status quo would seem to
>> me to be more likely to engage in military adventures.  Dealing with the
>> Soviets is a very tricky business, but one fact is very clear, they
>> respect military strength.
>
>Time to gear up those bomb factories!

What is this, some kind of intelligent response?  Learn some history and
don't put words in the mouths of your opponents.

Disgusted,

bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) writes:
> In article <sXXmKHy00UkaA8mWNJ@andrew.cmu.edu> bader+@andrew.cmu.edu (Miles Bader) writes:
> : lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes:
> : God forbid the russians get a hold of the latest proof of the
> : superiority of objectivist cisc cpus...
>
> Can you say "ad hominem"? Good. Now, can you offer your objections
> without descending to ad hominems? Wonderful!
>
> Anyway, as I understand it, Mr. Cipriani is not an Objectivist.
> However, I am.

I have no idea what his political views are.  I was just trying to be
insulting.

-Miles

lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes:
> bader+@andrew.cmu.edu (Miles Bader) writes:
> >lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes:
> >> Would you offer help to someone from the Soviet Union?
> >
> >Yes
>
> Is the word traitor in your vocabulary?

Am I a traitor if I tell a soviet how to get the latest version of
workmangler running on his pc?  If I send him pointers on fast
bitblts?  Who knows, even sending them tips on making good coffee
probably advances the power of Godless Communism...  Will I get the
electric chair?

> >> ...
> >> Soviets is a very tricky business, but one fact is very clear, they
> >> respect military strength.
> >
> >Time to gear up those bomb factories!
>
> What is this, some kind of intelligent response?

No

> Disgusted,

Exactly!

-Miles

In article <268@lloyd.camex.uucp> kent@lloyd.UUCP (Kent Borg) writes:
>Saving time: So what.  I don't see things on the net that are that
>time-critical...
>
>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?

Saving time and money are central to the debate.  There are a lot of
people who are upset that the Soviets may have copied significant
portions of the U.S. Space Shuttle, for example.
--
Geoffrey S. Knauth                 ARPA: geoff%lloyd@husc6.harvard.edu
Camex, Inc.                        UUCP: geoff@lloyd.uucp or husc6!lloyd!geoff
75 Kneeland St., Boston, MA 02111
Tel: (617)426-3577  Fax: 426-9285            I do not speak for Camex.

In article <213@twwells.uucp> bill@twwells.UUCP (T. William Wells) writes:

>Mostly because many people believe, on the strength of the Soviet's
>own pronouncements of their intentions, that if they had the
>resources, they'd use those resources to make *real* war on us.

and...

>This is an old argument, which doesn't hold much water when one
>considers that the Soviets have chosen their paths because they want
>to run the world. (Their stated intention.)

Uh huh. Could you possibly cite something where the Russians have made
these "intentions" clear in some recent statement? I thought that sort
rhetoric went out in the 1960's. I suppose that you could argue
that those communist fiends are thinking this all the time but won't
be silly enough to say it. I don't think thats a terribly convincing
view. There is a big gap between Leninist/Marxist theory and practice
in the USSR, and I believe they know that very well. Could you bring
yourself to believe that they might have changed in the last twenty
years? I'm afraid that citing what "many people believe" doesn't do
your argument much good...


--
"In challenging a kzin, a simple scream of rage is sufficient.
 You scream and you leap."

Michael Hamel.

This discussion seems to have decided that, if the KGB wants Usenet access,
it can very easily get it.  For what it's worth, I've talked to people who
know first-hand that NSA personnel do, indeed, read Usenet.

However, this isn't the sort of connection that is at all interesting.
I'd like to get a connection to the students at Moscow University.
These people don't have the resources to get a Usenet connection, and
may not even know what to ask for, but it would be most enlightening
to talk to them.

So... who knows of a group of Soviet citizens who have the machines
to run Usenet software and would be interested in talking?  That's the
first step.  Then come the technical hurdles of making a reliable
communications link.

Tangent: In my parents' office, there's a guy working who's a Soviet
Citizen.  His passport is stamped "Permanently residing in Canada".
It freaks out immigration people both sides of the Iron Curtain.

Other point: "There's nothing difficult about getting an emigration visa,
it just takes time.  I applied once.  Turned down.  Applied again.
Denied again.  Applied a third time.  Granted.  The Jews aren't treated any
worse than anyone else, they just bitch louder."  (I do not vouch for the
accuracy of this statement.)
--
	-Colin (microsof!w-colinp@sun.com)

In article <sXY2j8y00Uka4=AYtI@andrew.cmu.edu>, bader+@andrew.cmu.edu (Miles Bader) writes:
> I have no idea what his (talking about me) political views are.  I was just
> trying to be insulting.
>
> -Miles

You only succeeded in being stupid.

--
Larry Cipriani, AT&T Network Systems, Columbus OH,
Path: att!cbnews!lvc    Domain: lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM

In article <UXY7V-y00VsNEfupdg@andrew.cmu.edu>, bader+@andrew.cmu.edu (Miles Bader) writes:
> lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes:
> > Is the word traitor in your vocabulary?
>
> Am I a traitor if I tell a soviet how to get the latest version of
> workmangler running on his pc?  If I send him pointers on fast
> bitblts?
So it is in your vocabulary, you just don't know the definition.

> Who knows, even sending them tips on making good coffee
> probably advances the power of Godless Communism...
Wrong again.  The one true God of Communism is named Lenin.

> Will I get the electric chair?
You won't "get the chair" from me, I don't believe in capital punishment;
aren't you lucky.  Maybe you should get Teslas vibrating electric chair
instead.

Just remember, you will be helping someone that has missiles pointed at you!

--
Larry Cipriani, AT&T Network Systems, Columbus OH,
Path: att!cbnews!lvc    Domain: lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM

In article <222@taniwha.UUCP>, michael@taniwha.UUCP (Michael Hamel) writes:

> There is a big gap between Leninist/Marxist theory and practice
> in the USSR, and I believe they know that very well.

Please tell us what the correct number of victims is.

> Could you bring yourself to believe that they might have changed in the
> last twenty years?

No way, Gorbachev has no power, he is only a figure head.  Power in the
Soviet Union hasn't been in the hands of one man since Stalin.  Power
is shared; they have a system of checks and balances (much different in
character than our system) to prevent any one power base from eating the
others.  What has changed recently is that the Soviets have much better
public relations than in the past.  That's all there is to it.

When the Soviet Union allows free immigration to all citizens then I will
believe they have *fundamentally* changed.  Until then, it is a prison,
and only a prison.

--
Larry Cipriani, AT&T Network Systems, Columbus OH,
Path: att!cbnews!lvc    Domain: lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM

In article <1025@microsoft.UUCP> w-colinp@microsoft.UUCP (Colin Plumb) writes:
>Other point: "There's nothing difficult about getting an emigration visa,
>it just takes time.  I applied once.  Turned down.  Applied again.
>Denied again.  Applied a third time.  Granted.  The Jews aren't treated any
>worse than anyone else, they just bitch louder."  (I do not vouch for the
>accuracy of this statement.)

I can vouch for the inaccuracy of that statement.  It might be true that Jews
are no more likely to be denied a visa.  But one difference, even leaving
aside differences in treatment before applying for visas, is that I bet your
friend still had a job after being turned down the first time.

--
gz@entity.com					...!mit-eddie!spt!gz

In article <sXY2j8y00Uka4=AYtI@andrew.cmu.edu> bader+@andrew.cmu.edu (Miles Bader) writes:
: bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) writes:
: > In article <sXXmKHy00UkaA8mWNJ@andrew.cmu.edu> bader+@andrew.cmu.edu (Miles Bader) writes:
: > : lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes:
: > : >
: > : God forbid the russians get a hold of the latest proof of the
: > : superiority of objectivist cisc cpus...
: >
: > Can you say "ad hominem"? Good. Now, can you offer your objections
: > without descending to ad hominems? Wonderful!
: >
: > Anyway, as I understand it, Mr. Cipriani is not an Objectivist.
: > However, I am.
:
: I have no idea what his political views are.  I was just trying to be
: insulting.

Not only have you failed to contribute anything useful to the
discussion, but you haven't even managed to insult your intended
target.

Well then, in the spirit which you intended: Fuck Off, Fool!

---
Bill
{uunet|novavax}!proxftl!twwells!bill

In article <2331@cbnews.ATT.COM> lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes:
>The best (peaceful) way to get the Soviets to change their ways is economic.
>If they waste their resources on the military then their consumer economy will
>suffer.  Over time, Soviet citizens will demand reform; this seems to be
>happening now.

"The best (peaceful) way to get the U.S.A. to change its ways is economic.
If it wastes its resources on the military then its consumer economy will
suffer.  Over time, U.S.  citizens will demand reform; this seems to be
happening now."

I changed the names and faces ... isn't this amazingly relavent at the moment
where the country is facing a massive deficit which may be about to cause
a recession - it's being caused by rising military spending coupled with
a lowered tax base. Even now there are lots of rumbling from DC about cutting
the defense budget. Of course the U.S government tends to be much more
responsive to the 'consumer economy' than the Soviet one ... for the obvious
reasons.

>USENET is uncontrollable and anarchic in the free world, I believe
>it could be controlled in the SU.  Every international phone call that
>connects to the SU is recorded, the same can be done with USENET.  Persons
>that post an illegal message would get a visit from a "moderator" and
>be educated on the proper use of USENET.

What makes you think that Usenet isn't recorded by someone at the NSA and
run through keyword searches for words like CIA, NSA, Soviet etc ....
of course all of us in this discussion  have our names and net addresses in
a database somewhere :-) (someone somewhere in Virginia is probably smiling
now ... :-)

	Paul


--
Paul Campbell			..!{unisoft|mtxinu}!taniwha!paul (415)420-8179
Taniwha Systems Design, Oakland CA

 	So which did we get, George or Skippy?

In article <2331@cbnews.ATT.COM>, lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes:

> The best (peaceful) way to get the Soviets to change their ways is economic.
> If they waste their resources on the military then their consumer economy will
> suffer.  Over time, Soviet citizens will demand reform; this seems to be
> happening now.

There is a major problem with this argument.  Soviet over-spending on their
military has traditionally been matched by USA over-spending on its military.
All the statements Lawrence makes above can just as easily be applied to the
USA.  And a "who started it first" argument is nothing more than a chicken/egg
discussion.

> A Soviet Union that is fat and happy with the status quo would seem to
> me to be more likely to engage in military adventures.

Sorry, but you have this backwards.  All nations engage in military adventures
only when they feel threatened.  The USSR is the world's leading expert at
paranoia, its land mass having been invaded 101 times and its currrent
boundaries surrounded by enemies.  Any internal problems cause them to lash out
at whatever they perceive to be a threat, even if their logic is often faulty.
When things are comfy you don't feel threatened and don't feel a need to send
out the troops to protect your interests.

> Dealing with the Soviets is a very tricky business, but one fact is very
> clear, they respect military strength.

I'm not sure what you mean by this old cold war statement.  In what way do the
Soviets respect military strength more than other nations?  I fail to note any
historical data to substantiate this.

--
NSA food:  Iran sells Nicaraguan drugs to White House through CIA, DIA & NRO.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BRS Information Technologies, 1200 Rt. 7, Latham, N.Y. 12110  (518) 783-1161
"God forbid we should ever be 20 years without...a rebellion." Thomas Jefferson

Here's my 0.02 ruples worth :-)

In the first place, anyone with a security clearance can forget sending
electronic mail to a 'designated country'.  Talking to citizens of these
countries requires extensive briefing and debriefing.  It could be argued
that someone with a clearance, who posts news with 'world' distribution
has in fact, violated the above, if the USSR is connected.  Personally,
I think it is a good idea to open up links with communist countries.  I
think we could all learn something.  I'd like to see a day, when *every*
country on this planet was connected to USENET (or some variant).  The
problem, as I see it, is not whether it is a good idea, but whether it
is legally possible.  Now don't tell me that USENET is an anarchy, that
doesn't come into it.  I dislike Government of any sort, be it in the USA
or USSR.  So, I allow a Soviet site to poll my machine (or vice versa),
then one day, some unnamed US agency decides that this is a *major* problem.
So, they dispatch half-a-dozen agents, who confiscate every piece of
computing gear I own, and revoke my permanent residency status.  That's
nice.  I don't think it's that far-fetched, either.  There are a *lot*
of paranoid security services on this planet, and in this country.  If
this is to happen, it needs the sanction of the US Government (unfortunately)
unless some European site wants to implement the actual connection.
						- Der
--
	dtynan@zorba.Tynan.COM  (Dermot Tynan @ Tynan Computers)
	{apple,mips,pyramid,uunet}!Tynan.COM!dtynan

 ---  If the Law is for the People, then why do we need Lawyers? ---

In article <222@taniwha.UUCP>, michael@taniwha.UUCP (Michael Hamel) writes:
> There is a big gap between Leninist/Marxist theory and practice
> in the USSR, and I believe they know that very well.

There's a big difference between Leninist and Marxist theory, too. There's
nothing in Marx to justify Soviet imperialism.  Marx is just a figurehead...
one they silence rather effectively by the simple expedient of censorship.
--
Peter da Silva  `-_-'  Ferranti International Controls Corporation
"Have you hugged  U  your wolf today?"     uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter
Disclaimer: My typos are my own damn business.   peter@ficc.uu.net

In article <2680@sultra.UUCP> dtynan@sultra.UUCP (Der Tynan) writes:
>
>In the first place, anyone with a security clearance can forget sending
>electronic mail to a 'designated country'.  Talking to citizens of these
>countries requires extensive briefing and debriefing.

This should not be an argument for limiting access to Usenet. It is
the responsibility of the person with a clearance to monitor their
actions. For them to expect us to is irresponsible.

> [supports soviet usenet access, but is dubious of legality]
>So, I allow a Soviet site to poll my machine (or vice versa),
>then one day, some unnamed US agency decides that this is a *major* problem.
>So, they dispatch half-a-dozen agents, who confiscate every piece of
>computing gear I own, and revoke my permanent residency status.

I would suggest that the gateway be operated by someone residing in
the U.S. who is an American-born citizen. It should also be someone
who doesn't use drugs, cheat on their taxes, associate with any groups
left of the John Birch society... 1/2 :-)

[note - that unnamed US agency would be the CIA. The NSA just listens,
and the FBI is restricted by law and constitution. CIA operations in
this country are illegal to begin with, so they are really not
restricted in any way, as far as I know.]

				Peter Desnoyers

In article <2355@cbnews.ATT.COM> lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes:
>In article <222@taniwha.UUCP>, michael@taniwha.UUCP (Michael Hamel) writes:
>
>> There is a big gap between Leninist/Marxist theory and practice
>> in the USSR, and I believe they know that very well.
>
>Please tell us what the correct number of victims is.
>
I'm sorry, you've lost me there. The point I was trying to make
was that the USSR has a formal ideology that requires them to say
certain things publicly that they may not believe in - for the very
good reason that the predictions that Marxist/Leninist doctrine made
about the future have turned out not to be true. For a good example of
this I recommend you take a look at the program of the CPSU that was
being promoted in the 1960's. It states as an accomplished fact that the
USSR would equal the U.S in industrial production in the 1970's, and that
by the 1980's would be the envy of all nations, with a 35-hour working
week and the most advanced technology and economy on earth. When you
consider that Gorbachev and the current generation of Kremlin leaders were
in their mid-thirties and probably believed at least some of this, you do
start to wonder what they think today.

>No way, Gorbachev has no power, he is only a figure head.
Funny the way he keeps dismissing and appointing people, then. How do you
propose to falsify your theory that he is a figurehead?

>  What has changed recently is that the Soviets have much better
>public relations than in the past.  That's all there is to it.
But the better public relations is *inside* the USSR as well as outside -
and that means change. You can't tell me that having the government own up
publicly to what happened under Stalin and to what has been happening to
their economy in the last twenty years isn't going to change the way things
happen at the lower levels. It has become possible to criticise the State,
and thats the first step toward a different society. Look at the unrest in
the Baltic States and Armenia. Thats what "better public relations" has done
and the response will have to be different from what it would have been 20
years ago because the rest of the USSR is watching on the TV news every night..

>When the Soviet Union allows free immigration to all citizens then I will
>believe they have *fundamentally* changed.  Until then, it is a prison,
>and only a prison.
I think you are judging the Soviets on one very narrow criteria. I wouldn't
believe they had fundamentally changed even if they did allow free
immigration - but this is semantic anyway. Describing the USSR as a prison
is a cheap shot: it is a country and a homeland with a long and troubled
history, and in no way comparable. The notion of "imprisoning" umpteen
million people is absurd. They are there because it is their country, for
better or worse.


--
"In challenging a kzin, a simple scream of rage is sufficient.
 You scream and you leap."

Michael Hamel.

In article <213@twwells.uucp>, bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) writes:

> [...] ...if they [the USSR] had the
> resources, they'd use those resources to make *real* war on us.
> Denying them a little money (specifically, foreign exchange, which
> they can spend on acquiring our, more effective, resources) means
> denying them a little of those resources and thus lessens the
> likelyhood of their making *real* war on us.

Actually, the more resources they have, the less unstable and paranoid they
are, and the likelihood of a war DEcreases.  This also applies, in greater or
lesser intensity, to all the world's sovereign nations.  Nearly all wars are
launched under circumstances in which one or more groups perceive (correctly or
incorrectly) that their interests are in grave danger, rather than simply
because they're big and powerful and want to become bigger and more powerful.

> : 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.

> This is an old argument, which doesn't hold much water when one
> considers that the Soviets have chosen their paths because they want
> to run the world. (Their stated intention.)

Yeah, right.  Read any foreign policy speech by any US president in the last 40
years and from a non-USA point of view it will seem like the USA's stated
intention is the run the world.  And we DID essentially run it from about 1945
until the late 1960s.  The Soviets simply want to prevent that from happening
again; their intention the "run the world" is simply an attempt to prevent the
USA from "running the world."  Of course their perception is grossly
incorrect, but that's their point of view and we're not about to change it.
Note that the USA has a higher percentage of its war machine stationed in
foreign countires than the USSR does, and US troops are located in more foreign
countries than Soviet troops are.  From THEIR point of view, it's the USA
that's in danger of taking over much of the earth's surface.  The Soviets are
not concerned with the fundamental differences between US troops in South
Korea and Soviet troops in, say, East Germany.

> Can you say Afghanistan?  And do you have the vaguest idea why they are
> pulling out? Try economics.

I love simplistic, one-word answers to complex problems.  There's a lot more to
the Soviet pullout than economics.  For one thing, the Defense Ministry has
been pleading for a pullout for years, citing the heavy losses to men and
equipment, not to mention the fact that the Afghanistan War has accelerated the
long-expected internal problems in the Soviet Armed Forces with regard to
Russian commanders and non-Russian troops.  There are many other reasons for
the Soviet pullout as well.

And you have completely misinterpreted the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
Suppose a bloody civil war broke out in Mexico, and after years of devastation,
anti-US forces started getting the upper hand.  Suppose the US embassy in
Mexico City was burned to the ground and US diplomatic personnel butchered and
their heads paraded around the city on poles.  Suppose the CIA began announcing
that much of the success of the anti-US forces was due to heavy covert Soviet
involvement.  Suppose the anti-US forces began making statements about taking
their fight across the border into Texas.  You may safely assume that US policy
makers would argue strongly, and probably successfully, for a US invasion of
Mexico.

--
NSA food:  Iran sells Nicaraguan drugs to White House through CIA, DIA & NRO.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BRS Information Technologies, 1200 Rt. 7, Latham, N.Y. 12110  (518) 783-1161
"God forbid we should ever be 20 years without...a rebellion." Thomas Jefferson

paul@taniwha.UUCP (Paul Campbell) writes:
\...
\What makes you think that Usenet isn't recorded by someone at the NSA and
\run through keyword searches for words like CIA, NSA, Soviet etc ....
\of course all of us in this discussion  have our names and net addresses in
\a database somewhere :-) (someone somewhere in Virginia is probably smiling
\now ... :-)

Yes, and you'll all have `accidents', just like the witnesses of the murder of
John F. Kennedy. Be prepared to die.
--
fcntl(fd, F_SETFL, FNDELAY):          |Maarten Litmaath @ VU Amsterdam:
      let's go weepin' in the corner! |maart@cs.vu.nl, mcvax!botter!maart

Information, reasonably uncensored, and widely disseminated, tends to weaken
the propaganda that any country forces on it's people.

I assume that the USSR is already getting a feed. If makeing it legitimate is
something that the USSR wants so what?
--
Steven P. Donegan                 These opinions are given on MY time, not
Sr. Telecommunications Analyst    Western Digital's
Western Digital Corp.
stanton!donegan || donegan@stanton.TCC.COM || donegan%stanton@tcc.com

In article <2353@cbnews.ATT.COM> lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes:
>
>Just remember, you will be helping someone that has missiles pointed at you!
>
Am I to understand that I must sign off from the net immediately? USA has
missiles pointed to very near me. And what about the rest of the
western world that actually has access to the *international* net? They
will also suffer from US (and Soviet) attacks...  Or maybe we should keep
both superpowers out of the net.
--
"The choir sang a capella, which means singing without music."
------------
Per Ejeklint     Phone: + 8 799 03 18       UUCP:   !mcvax!enea!kps!per
Kuwait Petroleum Svenska AB                 KPSNET: per@kps

In article <2355@cbnews.ATT.COM> lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes:
>No way, Gorbachev has no power, he is only a figure head.  [...]
>What has changed recently is that the Soviets have much better
>public relations than in the past.  That's all there is to it.
Here we go again. Mr Gorbatjov (sp!) has tremendous power today. He has
secured his position in a very impressive way. I do not doubt to call him
the most powerful man in the world. Remember, his senate, or congress
support his his descisions to 100%. I think the situation is rather
different in USA.
Public relations? I suggest that you take a trip to USSR on your next
vacation. I'm not shure wether they would let you in, though...
--
"The choir sang a capella, which means singing without music."
------------
Per Ejeklint     Phone: + 8 799 03 18       UUCP:   !mcvax!enea!kps!per
Kuwait Petroleum Svenska AB                 KPSNET: per@kps

In article <8081@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> ajdenner@athena.mit.edu (Alexander J Denner) writes:
>In article <7649@well.UUCP> crunch@well.UUCP (John Draper) writes:
>>   I have heard a LOT of talk about adding Soviet Sites to the UUCP network
>>but have heard nothing but VAPORWARE.    Does anyone out there in Net land
>>WANT to add Soviet sites??

> Andrei Sakahrov has just said that the
>changes are only superficial.  I do not think that he can trust the Soviet
>government at all.  (Even if one believes that Gorbachev is really
>sincere and wants to destroy all weapons on the Earth, it is very possible
>that he will be overthrown by conservatives who wil return to the "old"
>way.)  I think that we have seen how the Soviets have cut research costs
>by copying our Shuttle, why let them get so much information so easily?

Fact: While the Soviets obviously took advantage of the aerodynamics
work done on our shuttle, and copied superficial details such as,
e.g., the heat shield material, their shuttle is fundamentally
different from ours. For one thing, ours has engines -- theirs doesn't
(it piggybacks on their Energia rocket, which is a tad larger than our
old Saturn V was). For another thing, theirs has MUCH better
electronics (i.e., late '70s technology, instead of early '70s
technology), which is why they can do neat things such as have it take
off and land with no pilot on-board.

Let's face it, the U.S. space shuttle was no paragon of innovation...
it was basically obsolete the first time it flew, due to the rampant
underfunding of the U.S. space program (took 10 years to develop,
because of miserly R&D budgets and, also, because of the retirement of
all the Apollo rocket scientists). The Russians obviously looked at
ours, but just as obviously, they haven't limited themselves to
copying our mistakes.

>	Having a UUCP site would make it much easier for them to
>spread a malicious virus in a time of friction.  Also, what if a virus
>from the US leaks into Russia (or a virus from the USSR gets into the US)?
>Such a situation would cause many problems and bad feelings.

Sounds like paranoia to me. Do we even ship the sources groups
overseas?

In any event, the problem with the Russian system is NOT innovation --
they have bright people, too (surely we've learned that Americans have
no monoploy on brains?). Their main problem is PRODUCTION, as you'd
expect from a Communist system that gives little reward for
productivity. E.g. they may know how 1Mb DRAMS are made, but it's
damndably hard to coordinate various government monopolies to, e.g.,
get those fantastically expensive stepper motors needed at the chip
processing stage.

--
Eric Lee Green                            P.O. Box 92191, Lafayette, LA 70509
     {ames,mit-eddie,osu-cis,...}!killer!elg, killer!usl!elg, etc.