Re: "Gentlemen do not read each other's mail"

[hallam@w3.org]

>On the other hand, with inaccurate information concerning enemy
>capabilities and will, one is more likely to believe that the
>enemy is incapable of destroying you from the grave, or lacks the
>necessary will to destroy the world in response to a small
>"surgical" nuclear strike.

Actually the MAD doctrine is critically dependent on mutual knowledge
concerning military capability. I have met UK intelligence types who
have discussed how they have deliberately permitted Soviet espionage
activities in order that they could confirm that the NATO alliance was
a defensive one.

Throughout the majority of the cold war both sides took great pains
to avoid creating a situation which forced the other into nuclear
brinkmanship. Indeed until Regan there were strenuous efforts made to
preserve the balance of power. 

>They called it the peace of fear, the peace of terror, and the pax
>atomica.  They did not call it the peace of the NSA

They probably should do, the NSA was critical in ensuring the demise
of the USSR and in maintaining stability throughout the cold war period.

The point is not that the NSA had no military function. The point is that
it is now an agency searching for a role. It is often a dangerous thing
for the military to involve itself in civil affairs. 

		Phill