afb@pucc-i (Michael Lewis) (01/17/86)
The recent proposal by Mikhail Gorbachev for the abolition of nuclear
weapons by the year 2000 is a revolutionary proposal, unlike anything the
Soviets have come up with before. I'm sure there are a lot of knee-jerk anti-
nuclear types who think this is a really great proposal which could make the
world a much safer and saner place to live. There are probably a lot of other
people of other political persuasions out there who feel the same. What people
are neglecting to consider, however, is the near total dependance of the US
on nuclear weapons to keep the Soviets out of Western Europe.
For the last 30 years or so, the US has lacked the conventional forces to
stop a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. We have relied primarily on a
"nuclear trip-wire" strategy of massive retaliation to deter the Soviets from
such an invasion. The Warsaw Pact outnumbers NATO tremendously in every area
of conventional weaponry, but nuclear weapons are the great equalizer.
I think the following analogy is appropriate for the world situation:
we and the Soviets are like two men with guns, except that the Soviet man is
much bigger and stronger and could bludgeon the US man into submission if
it weren't for the guns that each has trained on the other. The Soviets
propose that both sides give up their guns...
If the US and Soviets were to give up their nuclear weapons, we here in the
US and in Western Europe would have to face up to some unpleasant and difficult
choices. NATO would have to engage in by far the most massive conventional
military buildup in peacetime history, or trust the Soviets to be good boys.
The former choice would be extremely unpopular, as it would lead either to
huge deficit spending by all countries involved, or massive tax increases. I
don't think anyone in their right mind would suggest, given their current track
record, that we could afford to trust the Soviets. Conditions may change down
the road (and the leopard may change his spots, too), but hopefully the spirit
of Neville Chamberlain is dead and we won't hand the Soviets Europe on a silver
platter anytime soon.
I hate to say it (and I really mean that), but I fear that we might be stuck
with nuclear weapons for at least the next 50 years or so...
Michael Lewis @ Purdue Universitymrgofor@mmm.UUCP (Michael Ross) (01/22/86)
In article <1245@pucc-i> afb@pucc-i (Michael Lewis) writes: > > I think the following analogy is appropriate for the world situation: >we and the Soviets are like two men with guns, except that the Soviet man is >much bigger and stronger and could bludgeon the US man into submission if >it weren't for the guns that each has trained on the other. > Seriously? I toured Moscow, Kiev and Leningrad in 1970 and have known an exiled "intellectual" (poli-sci professor at Berkeley). I have been paying some attention to the news for the last 20 years. Every estimation I have ever heard is that the ONLY reason the USSR is a world power today is because it has nukes (or, "guns", in your analogy). Without nukes, the USSR would be laughable. If you think WE have problems with our economy, try finding a loaf of bread in a 7-11 store in Moscow. Hah! This is surely going to ignite someone's ire, but I would even go so far as to say that the only reasons the USSR didn't lose WWII were: 1) Russian Winter 2) US Aid (lend/lease) 3) Physical expanse of territory and 4) Hitler's arrogant incompetence. If the USSR didn't have nukes, I don't know WHO would be afraid of them, but it certainly wouldn't be US. --MKR
radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) (01/23/86)
> The recent proposal by Mikhail Gorbachev for the abolition of nuclear > weapons by the year 2000 is a revolutionary proposal... > > ...What people > are neglecting to consider, however, is the near total dependance of the US > on nuclear weapons to keep the Soviets out of Western Europe... > > ...The Warsaw Pact outnumbers NATO tremendously in every area > of conventional weaponry, but nuclear weapons are the great equalizer... > > ... NATO would have to engage in by far the most massive conventional > military buildup in peacetime history, or trust the Soviets to be good boys. > The former choice would be extremely unpopular, as it would lead either to > huge deficit spending by all countries involved, or massive tax increases... > > I hate to say it (and I really mean that), but I fear that we might be stuck > with nuclear weapons for at least the next 50 years or so... > > Michael Lewis @ Purdue University There's something strange about all this. The combined GNP of the NATO nations is several times greater than that of the Warsaw Pact. NATO has no other serious potential agressors to worry about; the USSR has China to defend against. Why should NATO lose a conventional arms race? Some may say that the command economy of the USSR can divert a larger proportion of the GNP to arms than NATO countries can (without provoking adverse politcal reactions). Maybe, but several times more? I doubt it. Some may say that Western Europe won't spend enough in its own defence. If that's the case, why should we do the worrying? I think it's more likely that there is no great conventional imbalance, or at least needn't be by the time the nuclear weapons are gone. Radford Neal
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (01/24/86)
> > The recent proposal by Mikhail Gorbachev for the abolition of nuclear > weapons by the year 2000 is a revolutionary proposal, unlike anything the > Soviets have come up with before. I'm sure there are a lot of knee-jerk anti- > nuclear types who think this is a really great proposal which could make the > world a much safer and saner place to live. There are probably a lot of other > people of other political persuasions out there who feel the same. What people > are neglecting to consider, however, is the near total dependance of the US > on nuclear weapons to keep the Soviets out of Western Europe. > > For the last 30 years or so, the US has lacked the conventional forces to > stop a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. We have relied primarily on a > "nuclear trip-wire" strategy of massive retaliation to deter the Soviets from > such an invasion. The Warsaw Pact outnumbers NATO tremendously in every area > of conventional weaponry, but nuclear weapons are the great equalizer. > > Michael Lewis @ Purdue University We often hear that the Soviets greatly outnumber American forces in Europe. This is true but it is the same kind of misleading statement as Reagan and the Committee to Promote the Present Danger's cries that the US "disarmed in the 70's" which was only true to the extent that we agreed in arms control treaties to dismantle older weapons systems only to replace them with more modern weapons systems. Reagan, the Committee for the Present Danger and the media in general neglect to mention that the Soviets *also* disarmed and dismantled some of their nuclear weapons systems to comply with arms control agreements. Of course, they too, simply replaced older nuclear weapons systems with newer and "better" ones. This is the absurd logic of the nuclear arms race. By the same token if one only takes Soviet Warsaw Pact forces and compares them to American NATO forces one comes out with a great discrepecancy. But such a comparison fails to even count the forces of Western Europe itself which would most assuredly be involved in their own defense. The number of troops from West Germany, England, France and the other NATO members to NATO far outweigh the meager contributions of Eastern Europe to the Warsaw Pact forces. So that when one compares the total NATO forces to the total Warsaw Pact forces they are roughly equivalent in uniformed manpower, and NATO is superior in *reserve* manpower. I will post some figures on this later. There is a good reason for this: the Soviets do not exactly trust her Warsaw Pact allies. As Gabor Fencsik pointed out, Hungary's forces deserted or turned against the Soviets in the blink of an eye in 1956. Remember that simply *one* member of NATO (admittedly now split in two but the fidelity of East Germany to the Warsaw Pact is questionable) namely a united Germany, sliced through Russia like a hot knife through butter, while also maintaining a front against England. The armed forces of England and France have both controlled empires stretching around the globe in the past. The combination of these former colonial powers with the US , half of Germany, and the rest of NATO certainly constitutes the strongest alliance ever seen in history. To pretend otherwise is nonsense. The Soviets' Warsaw Pact allies would do her about as much good as Italy did for Hitler during WW II - precious little as they would have zero morale. On the other hand, they *do* serve a valuable function as a buffer zone to the type of blitzkrieg invasion staged by both Hitler and Napoleon. The Soviets might wish it were otherwise but this is the reality for them even if they had the intention of invading Western Europe. Now that nuclear weapons have become generally unpopular so that mythical "bomber gaps" "missile gaps" and the like become less successful in stirring support for the Pentagon and arms-makers, the "conventional weapons gap" will now become the new rallying cry for the military industrial complex. Why even the "liberal" Democrats agree with that!..... tim sevener whuxn!orb
matt@brl-tgr.UUCP (01/24/86)
> By the same token if one only takes Soviet Warsaw Pact forces and compares > them to American NATO forces one comes out with a great discrepecancy. > But such a comparison fails to even count the forces of Western Europe > itself which would most assuredly be involved in their own defense. > The number of troops from West Germany, England, France and the other > NATO members to NATO far outweigh the meager contributions of Eastern Europe > to the Warsaw Pact forces. So that when one compares the total NATO > forces to the total Warsaw Pact forces they are roughly equivalent in > uniformed manpower, and NATO is superior in *reserve* manpower. > I will post some figures on this later. [TIM SEVENER] . . . > Remember that simply *one* member of NATO (admittedly now split > in two but the fidelity of East Germany to the Warsaw Pact is questionable) > namely a united Germany, sliced through Russia like a hot knife through > butter, while also maintaining a front against England. The armed > forces of England and France have both controlled empires stretching > around the globe in the past. The combination of these former colonial > powers with the US , half of Germany, and the rest of NATO certainly > constitutes the strongest alliance ever seen in history. To pretend > otherwise is nonsense. [TIM SEVENER] A few questions for Mr. Sevener: 1. When the Germans sliced through Russia (and France) in World War II, how did German manpower (active and reserve) compare with Soviet and French/British manpower? Was it numerical superiority of men that won battles for the Germans, or numerical (and technical) superiority of weapons, mainly tanks? 2. Does the Soviet Union (forget its Warsaw Pact allies) have more tanks in European Russia and the European socialist-bloc nations than NATO has in Europe? Does the Soviet Union have more tanks in Europe than all the NATO countries, including the USA, have WORLDWIDE? Is the Soviet numerical advantage in tanks slight, i.e., close to the 1:1 ratio it takes to stop a NATO attack, or is it closer to the 4:1 ratio it takes to launch an attack on NATO? 3. Do you think the USA tank production base, even if undamaged in a war, could do again what it did in World War II, viz., grind out enough tanks to ship to Europe in time to stop the threat from the East before it overran both Europe and the British Isles? My reaction to "abolish all nuclear weapons" is: Fine. I don't want my children to die in a nuclear war. But recognize that this means a massive conventional buildup in Europe. Not massive enough to give NATO forces the kind of advantage the Soviets have now. But enough to give NATO a 1:1 force ratio in tanks, aircraft, artillery, and the troops to man them. Such conventional parity is nothing that a truly peace-loving Soviet leadership would have to fear (and I don't blame them for fearing an eventual German thrust to the East). But in order to create such a parity, we'd have to raise taxes, AND cut social-spending giveaways, AND reinstitute the draft. Or is it better to see 350 million Western Europeans, with their industrial capacity, move into the "socialist camp" where their Eastern European brothers are? -- Matt Rosenblatt (matt@amsaa.ARPA)
afb@pucc-i (Michael Lewis) (01/27/86)
In article <915@whuxl.UUCP>, orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: > We often hear that the Soviets greatly outnumber American forces in Europe. > This is true but .... Tim, you never miss a chance to foam at the mouth with anti-Reagan rhetoric. This time I'm afraid you're pulling some figures out of nowhere... I'm very interested to see your figures. Even if your manpower figures are correct (I've seen different ones), what about the 4:1 advantage in tanks and combat aircraft? What about the huge Warsaw Pact advantage in artillery? > Remember that simply *one* member of NATO (admittedly now split > in two but the fidelity of East Germany to the Warsaw Pact is questionable) > namely a united Germany, sliced through Russia like a hot knife through > butter, while also maintaining a front against England... What do the exploits of a united Germany 40 years ago have to do with the capabilities of largely demilitarized (by WW 2 standards) West Germany? West Germany is largely demilitarized for one reason: the Soviets wouldn't have it any other way. > Now that nuclear weapons have become generally unpopular so that > mythical "bomber gaps" "missile gaps" and the like become less > successful in stirring support for the Pentagon and arms-makers, > the "conventional weapons gap" will now become the new rallying > cry for the military industrial complex. Why even the "liberal" > Democrats agree with that!..... > tim sevener whuxn!orb "Military Industrial Complex" is to knee-jerk liberals as "Secular Humanism" is to idiots in Falwell's group. I love general-purpose catch phrases! Here is proof that even a so-called undeluded pragmatist such as yourself can ignore unpleasant realities for the sake of some good old-fashioned rhetoric....I am REAL interested in seeing some of your figures, especially those about tanks, aircraft, artillery, and chemical weapons. Speaking of chemical weapons...does anyone out there know that Soviet doctrine calls for liberal use of nerve-gas and other nasty substances? That US forces are the only ones in NATO able to respond in kind? You may be correct, Tim, in saying that *total* NATO vs. Warsaw Pact forces are "roughly" equal, but what if only those forces readily available (say, within 48 hrs.) are counted? Soviet plans for the invasion of Europe (which are revised very frequently to be as up-to-date as possible) call for them to reach the Channel in *seven* days! What good are NATO's reserves then? By the way, how much more good are the forces of Belgium and the Netherlands going to do for NATO than the forces of East Germany for the Warsaw Pact? Do your manpower figures count the forces of Greece, Turkey, and Italy, all of which are unlikely to be in the thick of a Central European action? Michael Lewis @ Purdue University
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (01/28/86)
> From Matt Rosenblatt: > A few questions for Mr. Sevener: > > 1. When the Germans sliced through Russia (and France) in World War II, > how did German manpower (active and reserve) compare with Soviet > and French/British manpower? Was it numerical superiority of men > that won battles for the Germans, or numerical (and technical) > superiority of weapons, mainly tanks? > I believe it was predominantly a matter of Germany's swift and adept use of the latest technology at the time (namely tanks) coupled with weak Russian resistance. One notes that the tiny island of England did much better in holding out under conditions of regular V-2 raids. I don't suppose that Russia's morale is vastly improved. > 2. Does the Soviet Union (forget its Warsaw Pact allies) have more tanks > in European Russia and the European socialist-bloc nations than NATO > has in Europe? Does the Soviet Union have more tanks in Europe than > all the NATO countries, including the USA, have WORLDWIDE? Is the > Soviet numerical advantage in tanks slight, i.e., close to the 1:1 > ratio it takes to stop a NATO attack, or is it closer to the 4:1 ratio > it takes to launch an attack on NATO? > > 3. Do you think the USA tank production base, even if undamaged in a war, > could do again what it did in World War II, viz., grind out enough > tanks to ship to Europe in time to stop the threat from the East before > it overran both Europe and the British Isles? > Both of these are really rather foolish replies which demonstrate the typical obsession with "winning the last war". The fact that tanks were the latest thing and quite effective in WW II (when they were fairly new) hardly means that they occupy the same status today. One might as well argue that the Indians had a vast superiority over the European colonists because they had zillions more arrows than the Europeans had bullets. While the Warsaw Pact has an undoubted superiority in sheer quantity of tanks, it is also true that NATO has 400,000 sophisticated high-technology anti-tank weapons. NATO also has an air force which is vastly superior technologically as well as superior in terms of sheer quantity. The US also has a navy - the Soviet Union barely has a navy and what navy it has is very restricted due to a lack of ports. One can note the technological sophistication of the Soviet navy when their subs get stuck in fjoords in Sweden and the Swedes have no problem whatsoever in tracking them :to the Soviet Union's great embarrasment. As another poster pointed out, besides the likely recalcitrance of the Soviet's Warsaw Pact allies, one must also factor in the enormous productive capabilities of Western Europe. Which of the Soviet Union's Warsaw Pact allies ever had enough armed forces to control colonies around the world? Again I will pose the question : if the Soviet Union is so bent upon territorial expansion why have they never invaded Yugoslavia? Finally, Gorbachev's offer *includes* a proposal to decrease conventional forces as well as nuclear forces. I have not seen the details but I would imagine his offer on conventional force reductions favors the Soviets. But all the same, as with the rest of the package, it makes a good start and demonstrates a realization at the very start that nuclear arms reductions in Europe would also foster a desire by NATO countries for conventional arms reductions as well. tim sevener whuxn!orb
afb@pucc-i (Michael Lewis) (01/28/86)
In article <516@whuts.UUCP>, orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: > > While the Warsaw Pact has an undoubted superiority in sheer quantity of > tanks, it is also true that NATO has 400,000 sophisticated high-technology > anti-tank weapons. NATO also has an air force which is vastly superior > technologically as well as superior in terms of sheer quantity. Tim, you should read "World War 3: August, 1985" by former NATO commander General Bernard Rogers (among others). Then you wouldn't be so quick to make quantitative statements that are blatantly wrong. The Warsaw Pact outnumbers NATO "in terms of sheer quantity" in every area of conventional weaponry present in Central Europe (which is all that matters, given the nature of the Soviet plan), but, again, "in terms of sheer quantity", the Warsaw Pact outnumbers NATO in combat aircraft approximately 4:1. The technological gap is closing. > > As another poster pointed out, besides the likely recalcitrance of > the Soviet's Warsaw Pact allies, one must also factor in the enormous > productive capabilities of Western Europe. Which of the Soviet Union's > Warsaw Pact allies ever had enough armed forces to control colonies > around the world? > Do you really think that the productive capacity of Western Europe will be a factor? I don't think it will, given that the Soviets plan on making the Channel in 7 days! > Again I will pose the question : if the Soviet Union is > so bent upon territorial expansion why have they never invaded > Yugoslavia? They'll wait until the time is ripe to go for ALL of Europe, first. > Finally, Gorbachev's offer *includes* a proposal to decrease conventional > forces as well as nuclear forces. I have not seen the details but I > would imagine his offer on conventional force reductions favors the > Soviets.... > > tim sevener whuxn!orb Bravo! The pragmatist at last! Michael Lewis @ Purdue University
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (01/29/86)
From Michael Lewis: > Soviet plans for the invasion of Europe (which are revised > very frequently to be as up-to-date as possible) call for them to reach the > Channel in *seven* days! What good are NATO's reserves then? > 1) please cite your reference for this amazing fact. I do not find it at all credible 2) even *if* the Soviets "plans for the invasion of Europe" called for them to reach the Channel in seven days (a claim which I find on a par with Reagan's quotation of the John Birch Society on Lenin's statements about Central America) - what of it? The plans of both sides in World War I called for the whole war to be over in a *week* or so as well. It didn't turn out that way did it? Unfortunately with nuclear weapons on both sides in Europe any European invasion could well end in a matter of *hours*. Is this your preferred scenario for European conflict? tim sevener whuxn!orb
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (01/29/86)
> > By the same token if one only takes Soviet Warsaw Pact forces and compares > > them to American NATO forces one comes out with a great discrepecancy. > > But such a comparison fails to even count the forces of Western Europe > > itself which would most assuredly be involved in their own defense. > > The number of troops from West Germany, England, France and the other > > NATO members to NATO far outweigh the meager contributions of Eastern Europe > > to the Warsaw Pact forces. .............. > . . . > > Remember that simply *one* member of NATO (admittedly now split > > in two but the fidelity of East Germany to the Warsaw Pact is questionable) > > namely a united Germany, sliced through Russia like a hot knife ....... > > [TIM SEVENER] > > A few questions for Mr. Sevener: > > 1. When the Germans sliced through Russia (and France) in World War II, > how did German manpower (active and reserve) compare with Soviet > and French/British manpower? Was it numerical superiority of men > that won battles for the Germans, or numerical (and technical) > superiority of weapons, mainly tanks? > > 2. Does the Soviet Union (forget its Warsaw Pact allies) have more tanks > in European Russia and the European socialist-bloc nations than NATO > has in Europe? Does the Soviet Union have more tanks in Europe than > all the NATO countries, including the USA, have WORLDWIDE?........ > > 3. Do you think the USA tank production base, even if undamaged in a war, > could do again what it did in World War II, viz., grind out enough > tanks to ship to Europe in time to stop the threat from the East before > it overran both Europe and the British Isles? > > My reaction to "abolish all nuclear weapons" is: Fine. I don't want my > children to die in a nuclear war. But recognize that this means a massive > conventional buildup in Europe. Not massive enough to give NATO forces > the kind of advantage the Soviets have now. But enough to give NATO a > 1:1 force ratio in tanks, aircraft, artillery, and the troops to man them. > Such conventional parity is nothing that a truly peace-loving Soviet > leadership would have to fear (and I don't blame them for fearing an > eventual German thrust to the East). But in order to create such a parity, > we'd have to raise taxes, AND cut social-spending giveaways, AND reinstitute > the draft. > > Or is it better to see 350 million Western Europeans, with their industrial > capacity, move into the "socialist camp" where their Eastern European > brothers are? > -- Matt Rosenblatt There is an (allegedly true) anecdote about scientists who proved mathematically that a beetle cannot fly. Matt have just proven that Israel had to fail in the wars of 1967 and 1973. One of the issues of "Technology Review" had an assesment of Soviet military technology. The truth is that their weapons are in general much less sophisticated, so they performed less tasks than comparative Western weapons. Thus Soviets must have many more weapons (like tanks and airplanes) to achieve the parity with the West. For this very reason, they need more manpower to achieve parity. There is yet another side of the equation: does Japan and China whish to have Soviet dominating ALL Europe and hereby free to engage in the Pacific zone? No? As a conclusion, Soviets need to keep sizable forces in the Far East. Now returning to 4:1 ratio in tanks. Can tanks be stopped by mine-fields, hand-operated rockets etc.? Is it possible that defensive weapons, especially the modern light-weight rockets, are cheaper prevention than numerical parity in tanks? Now consider air-force. First, the numerical ratio is much better than in tanks (and air-force matters more in the modern war). Second, remember that Soviet-build air-defence systems are a sizable obstacle for Israel in dealing with Syria. Assuming that the Soviet airplanes are less sophisticated, and that the Western systems are more sophisticated, Western air-defence should be much more of an obstacle for Soviets. I generally believe that rocket weapons make the life easier for the defence than for attack. Hitting bridges etc. with conventional charges may create havoc for the logistics, which is more painful for the side which has to move large masses of manpower and material (the attacking side). The new achievments in electronics, image recognition etc. allow for rockets which are very accurate and difficult to stop. Summarizing, Matt's claim that the succesful defence of Western Europe requires > 1:1 force ratio in tanks, aircraft, artillery, and the troops to man them does not sound well. Why not request 1:1 force ratio in cavalry as well? Japanese thought that superiority in the number of battleships would give them victory in the Pacific. We know that they miscalculated. Piotr Berman
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (01/29/86)
Michael Lewis writes: > In article <516@whuts.UUCP>, orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: > > > > While the Warsaw Pact has an undoubted superiority in sheer quantity of > > tanks, it is also true that NATO has 400,000 sophisticated high-technology > > anti-tank weapons. NATO also has an air force which is vastly superior > > technologically as well as superior in terms of sheer quantity. > > Tim, you should read "World War 3: August, 1985" by former NATO commander > General Bernard Rogers (among others). Then you wouldn't be so quick to make > quantitative statements that are blatantly wrong. The Warsaw Pact outnumbers > NATO "in terms of sheer quantity" in every area of conventional weaponry present > in Central Europe (which is all that matters, given the nature of the Soviet > plan), but, again, "in terms of sheer quantity", the Warsaw Pact outnumbers > NATO in combat aircraft approximately 4:1. The technological gap is closing. > > Please cite your figures. I have cited mine and specified for various categories. Simply to claim that "the Warsaw Pact outnumbers NATO in sheer quantity in every area of conventional weaponry" without specifying the types and technological capabilities of the weaponry involved tells us nothing. As I said before by such criteria you may as well argue that the Indians were superior to the European settlers due to their 5000:1 advantage in quantity of arrows. We can also note that August,1985 has come and gone with no World War 3. I wonder what happened? Besides the fact that Yugoslavia has survived for almost 40 years with no Soviet invasion on an independent basis, Rumania also, a member of the Warsaw Pact, refuses to allow *any* Soviet troops or weapons on its territory and refuses to join in Warsaw Pact military maneuvers. Indeed, as I posted in an earlier article the Rumanian government sponsored a demonstration of thousands of people against *both* Soviet deployments of new nuclear weapons and American deployments of Pershing II and Cruise Missiles. Quite a subservient ally,eh? Then there is the matter of Austria from which the Soviets withdrew in the 50's after an agreement was signed guaranteeing Austrian neutrality and pledging that Austria would join neither military alliance. I wonder what happened to the Soviets horrible aggression and voracious appetite for territory at all costs in the case of Austria? I know nothing about Gen. Bernard Rogers, however I do know that it is quite common for military officers to get so caught up in taking their lessons of war and violence to heart that they lose judgment. Like the famous refrain in Vietnam "we had to bomb that village in order to save it" or like Gen. Graham, the Start Wars advocate, who said that one could escape the worst impact of nuclear war by hiding behind a lilac bush. On the other hand there are other *military* officers with more reason who have come to question their past assumptions. For example, Admiral Rickover, "father of the nuclear navy", testified to Congress that he had come to regret his part in continuing the nuclear arms race. Another former NATO commander, who has *not* written any paranoid books, has stated that he cannot understand why people keep talking about NATO's "inferiority" in conventional weapons or desparate need for more conventional weapons. I will post that exact quote later. Finally the *BEST* solution to the problem of conventional forces in Europe is the same as the solution to the nuclear arms race - mutual negotiated *reductions* on both sides to decrease the likelihood of war. tim sevener whuxn!orb
afb@pucc-i (Michael Lewis) (01/30/86)
By the way, Tim, I'm going to find and read your reference. It sounds informative (although I think some of the same criticisms applied by you to "WW 3: August 1985" about bias could also be applied to this reference, which would not necessarily detract from its usefulness; I guess "liberal" people can have biased opinions just like "conservative" people...) In article <524@whuts.UUCP>, orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: > Besides the fact that Yugoslavia has survived for almost 40 years with no > Soviet invasion on an independent basis, Rumania also, a member of the > Warsaw Pact, refuses to allow *any* Soviet troops or weapons on its > territory and refuses to join in Warsaw Pact military maneuvers. > Indeed, as I posted in an earlier article the Rumanian government sponsored > a demonstration of thousands of people against *both* Soviet deployments > of new nuclear weapons and American deployments of Pershing II and Cruise > Missiles. Quite a subservient ally,eh? Then, of course, there is the case of Hungary in 1956. Oh, those zany, fun-loving, peaceful Soviets. And that party in Czechoslovakia in 1968. What a gas!! Does General Jaruzalski (sp?) blow his nose without an OK from Moscow? Hell, the Soviets up and *cancelled* some kind of high-level contact between East and West Germany. Of late, our peace-loving friends are on a little foray into Afghanistan... > I know nothing about Gen. Bernard Rogers... I was mistaken. The book's author was General Sir John Hackett, and he enlisted the aid of diplomats, economists, and others in order to piece together a conception of what the next war might be like, given certain conditions (one of them was that President Carter is reelected in 1980, which may have had something to with Carter's being as impressed with it as he was...) I might add that one of the points made in the book is that the Soviets plan to make the Channel very quickly because they *have* to...the home situation would deteriorate very rapidly if they became stalled for a significant period of time. > On the other hand there are other *military* officers with more reason > who have come to question their past assumptions. For example, Admiral > Rickover, "father of the nuclear navy", testified to Congress that > he had come to regret his part in continuing the nuclear arms race. An interesting, if irrelevant, point. > Another former NATO commander, who has *not* written any paranoid books, President Carter did not think that this was a "paranoid book"...if you were not so immersed in the "Reagan as scapegoat for the troubles of the world" syndrome, you would recognize that Carter, not Reagan, put a lot of things in motion which Reagan merely continued. > has stated that he cannot understand why people keep talking about > NATO's "inferiority" in conventional weapons or desparate need > for more conventional weapons. I will post that exact quote later. > > Finally the *BEST* solution to the problem of conventional forces in > Europe is the same as the solution to the nuclear arms race - mutual > negotiated *reductions* on both sides to decrease the likelihood of war. > > tim sevener whuxn!orb I agree. Unfortunately, the Soviets, who do not have to be concerned with public opinion (except with respect to its manipulation toward their advantage, which they are becoming ever more adept at) have been less than accomodating in the less-publicized MBFR talks...