Able Archer-83, The Cold War, and Lessons for the Current Iran Crisis-1

                        For my friends and foes, I have a disclaimer about this set of postings. I am squarely in the middle politically, religiously, and socially. I have no axes to grind. However, I do heartily believe in the truth or my version of it based on research for as objective a point of view as is possible. The facts are the facts in this work you are about to read, but the opinions are mine. In short, I believe the Able-archer-83 saga was a harbinger of things to come, and we ignore the lesson as it may apply to the current escalation of belligerence occurring between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran at our peril. I pray for the leaders involved that no one inadvertently pulls the atomic trigger.

Iran has been working for twenty or more years to build a nuclear weapon and the long-range missile system to deliver the weapons upon Israel and the United States. They have successfully purchased black market uranium and the equipment—e.g. special high-tech centrifuges—to create highly radioactive U-235. The United States and several allies signed a treaty with the Islamic Republic of Iran to limit the amount, the strength, and the period of time that they would cease and desist from seeking to create nuclear WMDs. That treaty was emasculated when the United States withdrew unilaterally leaving the allies to chart their own course.

There have been provocations by Iran over decades since the Islamic Revolution of 1979. The most prominent and egregious was the armed takeover of the United States Embassy in Tehran—dubbed “The Iran hostage crisis” which resulted in a humiliating diplomatic standoff between the United States and Iran between November 4, 1979 and January 20, 1981. Fifty-two American diplomats and citizens were held hostage for 444 days which made the American president look weak and foolish. This created a U.S. fixation on regime change in Iran, a mind-set that has not resonated at all well with the Iranian Supreme Leader, the government, or the people.

Of primary interest are the recent provocations—June, 2019: Iran communicated its pique and made attacks designed to bully the U.S., its allies, and the world businesses dependent on the Straits of Hormuz to transport petroleum around the world.  There were three attacks on U.S. drones linked to Iran or its allied forces this month alone. In addition, the current U.S. administration and some allies blamed Iran for military attacks on two oil tankers in the straits—one Japanese and one Norwegian. The previous month, four oil tankers were damaged by what UAE officials called—by the euphemism—“sabotage” off the coast of Fujairah in the Gulf of Oman. During the last week in June, Iranian forces shot a $120 million unmanned U.S. surveillance drone out of the international sky near the strategically crucial Strait. At the conclusion of the last week in June, the Tehran government announced that it would enrich enough uranium to breach its 2015 agreement with the United States, Europe and other world powers. That is a direct threat to the U.S., Japan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and all businesses which depend on safe traffic through the geostrategically important international waters of the Straits of Hormuz.

Coupled with the often confusing bellicosity of the U.S. administration and the president’s abrogation of his predecessor’s treaty, the world is now facing the daunting specter of helplessly watching steadily escalating threats of war. It is no small snit. Iran sees itself being crushed by sanctions and threatened by a nuclear bully. Accurate or not, Iran does believe it—certainly the Supreme Leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei believes his own anti-Semitic, anti-American vitriol and is passionate about the Americans being aggressors who are poised to attack and to destroy the Islamic State of Iran. It is apparent that he considers pre-emptive strikes to be legitimate on his part; he has already done so. The question is how far his paranoia will push him and the world. There is a precedent that all of the leaders involved should bear in mind—the Able Archer 83 exercise of November, 1983—that brought the world far closer to a war of annihilation than any one at the time recognized. 

Carl Douglass

Neurosurgeon Turned Author Writes With Gripping Realism

Author Masterminds Charter Member

Effective Communication: Logic & Fallacy

Article 1

Logic is crucial to accurate and useful thinking, valid communication, and avoidance of confusion. Unfortunately, if political discourse, televangelist performances, and our ever-present hucksterism are indicators, logic is uncommon to rare. Our day is not much different than the communications found in history by other than philosophers, and even then, it takes some scrutiny to be sure that even philosophers are not playing fast and loose with their oratory and lectures. Greek philosopher Archimedes (BCE 287 – BCE 212 BC) famously posited, “Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum strong enough on which to place it, and I shall move the world.”

We should start with basics.

The definition of logic: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. The science that studies the formal processes used in thinking and reasoning, and over time has resulted in a system with codification of the principles of proof, inference, and explication. The “system” referred to is the systematic use of symbolic and mathematical techniques to determine the forms of valid deductive argument. Such thinking and reasoning holds the quality of being justifiable by reason. Acceptance of the validity of the argument suggests a proper course of action or line of reasoning suggested or made necessary by the deductive conclusion.

Synonyms: reason, judgment, logical thought, rationality, cognition, wisdom, sagacity, sound judgment, sense, good sense, common sense, rationale, sanity; deduction, inference, syllogistic reasoning; coherence, relevance; informally, it is what is meant by “horse sense.”

The problem with such informality is that it begs definition of terms in each specific instance. One man’s reason may well be another man’s perception of folly. Example, “the Qur’an is true because it is the direct word of God. The Holy Book answers all questions of science, law, behavior, and belief.” The evolutionist or other scientists beg to differ. “Most of what is known in present day science was unknown at the time of the Prophet, and consequently, is not in the Qur’an.”

It is necessary to understand the principle of the syllogism. By definition: A syllogism is a three-part logical argument, based on deductive reasoning. In logic, a syllogism (categorical argument or a standard categorical syllogism) is a form of deductive reasoning consisting of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. The term syllogism comes from the Greek word meaning, “to infer, to count, and/or to reckon.”

A syllogism is valid (i.e. logical) when its conclusion follows from its premises. A syllogism is true when it makes accurate claims—that is, when the information it contains is consistent with the facts. To be sound, a syllogism must be both valid and true. However, a syllogism may be valid without being true or true without being valid. Different fallacies of logic may apply.

A few simple examples should suffice for a sound syllogism—a sound argument:

Major premise: All mammals are warm-blooded. (a true statement).

Minor premise: All cows are mammals. (a true statement and pertinent to the argument)

Conclusion: Therefore, all cows are warm-blooded. (because the major and minor premises are true, it must follow that the conclusion is true, and the entire syllogism is a sound one).

An example of a true and valid syllogism relates to Socrates.

Major premise: All men are mortals.

Minor premise: Socrates is a man.

Conclusion: Socrates is a mortal.

The major premise of a syllogism makes a general statement that the writer or speaker believes to be true and is backed by verifiable and plausible evidence. The minor premise presents a specific example of the belief that is stated in the major premise and is related and pertinent to the statement contained in the major premise. If the reasoning is sound in those two premises, the conclusion should follow and the syllogism contains a true explanation of the subject, albeit within limited and clearly defined boundaries.

It is apparent that many people do not give attention to such strict thinking, speaking, and writing. It, therefore, is incumbent on the listener or reader to know what is sound or not sound about the statements of his debate opponent. It is necessary to know a complicated set of definitions of what constitutes a fallacy of logic and why. The next article will begin the effort to make clear the nature of fallacies.

Carl Douglass

Neurosurgeon Turned Author Writes With Gripping Realism

Author Masterminds Charter Member

Mary Flint's Madeliene's Cat Review