mjk@ttrdc.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (04/03/85)
>From: gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) >the Soviet threat [in Europe] is real--- >they put in MIRVed IRBM's to "balance" our nuclear >shells and nuclear-capable artillery. At the moment they have 350 >missiles, which makes over 1000 warheads which can be delivered in less >than 20 minutes. We have put in 100 (single-warhead) Pershing II's so >far to counter. The Soviets claim that their missiles are in Eastern Europe to counter the British and French strategic missiles. The U.S. refuses to include these in negotiations because they are not under U.S. control. The Soviets have offered to reduce their total to the British and French total if the U.S. would not deploy any missiles. Reagan refused. So, of course, the Soviets are going to increase their missiles in Eastern Europe to counter the total of British, French and American missiles. If the Soviet missiles are present to counter U.S. tactical nuclear weapons, that is only a secondary reason. The primary reason is to counter those French and British missiles presumably targeted on the Soviet Union. Can anyone explain why Reagan refuses to count those missiles in the negotiations? Mike Kelly
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (04/03/85)
> > >From: gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) > > >the Soviet threat [in Europe] is real--- > >they put in MIRVed IRBM's to "balance" our nuclear > >shells and nuclear-capable artillery. At the moment they have 350 > >missiles, which makes over 1000 warheads which can be delivered in less > >than 20 minutes. We have put in 100 (single-warhead) Pershing II's so > >far to counter. > > The Soviets claim that their missiles are in Eastern Europe to counter the > British and French strategic missiles. The U.S. refuses to include these > in negotiations because they are not under U.S. control. The Soviets have > offered to reduce their total to the British and French total if the U.S. > would not deploy any missiles. Reagan refused. So, of course, the Soviets > are going to increase their missiles in Eastern Europe to counter the total > of British, French and American missiles. > > If the Soviet missiles are present to counter U.S. tactical nuclear weapons, > that is only a secondary reason. The primary reason is to counter those > French and British missiles presumably targeted on the Soviet Union. Can > anyone explain why Reagan refuses to count those missiles in the negotiations? > > Mike Kelly In general I agree with Mike Kelly. However in this case there are several things to be considered. First off, is that, beyond "nuclear shells" the U.S. and NATO forces do indeed have nuclear *missiles* in Europe and has had them there for some years. Therefore it is false to argue that the Soviets have so many SS-20's etc. and we are only now deploying cruise missiles in response. In fact, in part we are replacing *current* missile forces with more modern cruise missiles. Secondly however there are some problems with including British and French forces. Number one is that the arms talks so far have been *bilateral*. Unless the British and French governments are explicitly included in arms talks then it would be just as presumptuous of us to mandate a reduction or freeze in another country's forces as it is presumptuous of us to currently install cruise missiles against the will of most of the European people. This does not mean that it might not be a good idea to include all the world in agreements to limit nuclear arms. But that is really another matter and also one which, while extremely important for such things as nuclear non-proliferation, could really bog things down. The more parties to a negotiation the more problem getting them all to come to an agreement generally. One idea which has been suggested is establishing nuclear-free zones beginning in Central Europe and expanding outwards. A major source of tension for both sides is fear of another conflict in Central Europe and particularly Germany. Russia is paranoid about Germany having suffered invasions from that direction from both Hitler and Napoleon. A nuclear-free zone in both East and West Germany would make a good beginning for a nuclear-free Europe. The "Walk in the Woods" agreement showed that Soviet negotiators at least would be willing to come to some sort of limits on both sides. Unfortunately the hawks on both sides shot it down. *IF* Reagan wanted to, he probably could achieve an agreement which did not include British and French forces. Whether he wants to is questionable to say the least. tim sevener whuxl!orb
matthews@harvard.ARPA (Jim Matthews) (04/04/85)
> If the Soviet missiles are present to counter U.S. tactical nuclear weapons, > that is only a secondary reason. The primary reason is to counter those > French and British missiles presumably targeted on the Soviet Union. Can > anyone explain why Reagan refuses to count those missiles in the negotiations? > > Mike Kelly 1) Because we have no right to negotiate with other people's weapons. 2) Because the British and French missiles aren't in the same class as the Soviet ones -- Britain has Polaris subs, which are close to obsolescence, and France's weapons are similarly backward. The Soviet SS-20 is a generation more advanced than anything the allies have, and the Soviets are now working on replacing them. 3) Because the respective deployments are so lopsided. There are some 162 British and French warheads, whereas yesterday's Wall Street Journal reported that there are now 414 SS-20s -- that's 1242 warheads, not counting the old SS-4 and SS-5 missiles. Acting as if the SS-20 are a "counter" to the British and French is to distort the situation. Jim Matthews matthews@harvard
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) (04/04/85)
> > >From: gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) > > >the Soviet threat [in Europe] is real--- > >they put in MIRVed IRBM's to "balance" our nuclear > >shells and nuclear-capable artillery. At the moment they have 350 > >missiles, which makes over 1000 warheads which can be delivered in less > >than 20 minutes. We have put in 100 (single-warhead) Pershing II's so > >far to counter. > The Soviets claim that their missiles are in Eastern Europe to counter the > British and French strategic missiles. What the Soviets claim is bullshit (not too surprising). The United Kindom has about 40 SRBM's, 50 nuclear submarines, and 100 strategic bombers. SRBM's have a range of 200 km, which is not far enough to reach East Germany. France has 18 IRBM's, 50 SRBM's, and 50 strategic bombers, and 100 subs. France's SRBM's can barely reach East Germany. And the Soviet Union? In SS-20's alone, they had at least 200 (I'm not sure on the exact figure; it may be more) in 1979, which was before the Pershing plan was thought up. Each SS-20 has three warheads, can reach any point in Europe, and is deployed far behind the Soviet border. Even the Pershing II's can only reach *some* of the SS-20's deployed in Europe. All told, the Soviets had *at least* 600 missile warheads versus *at most* 300 French and British missile warheads before any knowledge of deployment of Pershing II's and cruise missiles by NATO. > in negotiations because they are not under U.S. control. The Soviets have > offered to reduce their total to the British and French total if the U.S. > would not deploy any missiles. Reagan refused. So, of course, the Soviets > are going to increase their missiles in Eastern Europe to counter the total > of British, French and American missiles. I believe that the Soviets offered to reduce their total number of *missiles* to French and British levels, giving them a warhead superiority margin of three to one, as well as much, much longer range for the Soviet missiles. > ...French and British missiles presumably targeted on the Soviet Union. Can > anyone explain why Reagan refuses to count those missiles in the negotiations? ... > Mike Kelly Your presumptions is wrong. French and British missiles are defensive in a real sense since they can't reach the Soviet Union. Reagan refuses because he, like every other nuclear negotiator, recognizes the Soviets' claim as propaganda and nothing more. -- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "No Marxist can deny that the interests of socialism are higher than the interests of the right of nations to self-determination." -Lenin, 1918
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) (04/04/85)
> First off, is that, beyond "nuclear > shells" the U.S. and NATO forces do indeed have nuclear *missiles* in > Europe and has had them there for some years. Therefore it is false to > argue that the Soviets have so many SS-20's etc. and we are only now > deploying cruise missiles in response. In fact, in part we are > replacing *current* missile forces with more modern cruise missiles. ... > tim sevener whuxl!orb If you find 100 American missile warheads in Europe (that is, other than the Pershing II's), I'll give you a cigar. My source, which is the New State of the World Atlas (by Michael Kildron and Ronald Segal, says that there aren't that many warheads deployed in Europe by the U.S. -- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "No Marxist can deny that the interests of socialism are higher than the interests of the right of nations to self-determination." -Lenin, 1918
nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) (04/05/85)
>If you find 100 American missile warheads in Europe (that is, other than >the Pershing II's), I'll give you a cigar. My source, which is the New >State of the World Atlas (by Michael Kildron and Ronald Segal, says that >there aren't that many warheads deployed in Europe by the U.S. Firstly, we are deploying over 300 cruise missles in Europe. You forgot to put an exception on them in your request! :-) (Keep the cigar, I am allergic to tobacco.) However, a serious question: What about the US nuclear submarines that are always patrolling near or in European waters? Admittedly, they are "strategic" nuclear weapons as opposed to "tactical" nuclear weapons, but they are there. (I have seen one in Scottish waters.) By the way, lets hope that when our cruise missles start falling on Soviet soil, they remember that they are "tactical" warheads, while millions of their citizens die, and don't use their "strategic" warheads. (From what I've read, the Russians do not really make a difference between those two.) >> >the Soviet threat [in Europe] is real--- >> >they put in MIRVed IRBM's to "balance" our nuclear >> >shells and nuclear-capable artillery. At the moment they have 350 >> >missiles, which makes over 1000 warheads which can be delivered in less >> >than 20 minutes. We have put in 100 (single-warhead) Pershing II's so >> >far to counter. > >> The Soviets claim that their missiles are in Eastern Europe to counter the >> British and French strategic missiles. > >What the Soviets claim is bullshit (not too surprising). The United Kindom >has about 40 SRBM's, 50 nuclear submarines, and 100 strategic bombers. >SRBM's have a range of 200 km, which is not far enough to reach East >Germany. France has 18 IRBM's, 50 SRBM's, and 50 strategic bombers, and >100 subs. France's SRBM's can barely reach East Germany. What is the range of the nuclear submarine's missles? With 50 nuclear submarines, (each with how many missles?) steaming around the Baltic Sea, say, 50 miles from the Lithuanian coast, how much damage to the USSR could be done? Throw in the 100 French subs, strategic bombers, and the two countries (induvidually) have enough to make life awfully difficult in Mother Russia. Combined, the two countries probably have enough to trigger the "Nuclear Winter" which would make life difficult anywhere on the planet. >And the Soviet Union? In SS-20's alone, they had at least 200 (I'm not >sure on the exact figure; it may be more) in 1979, which was before the >Pershing plan was thought up. Each SS-20 has three warheads, can reach any >point in Europe, and is deployed far behind the Soviet border. Even the >Pershing II's can only reach *some* of the SS-20's deployed in Europe. All >told, the Soviets had *at least* 600 missile warheads versus *at most* >300 French and British missile warheads before any knowledge of deployment >of Pershing II's and cruise missiles by NATO. The USSR deployed 333 SS-20's for 999 warheads. I do not know the total number on launchers, but it is less that 333, and I don't know the total reload time. >> in negotiations because they are not under U.S. control. The Soviets have >> offered to reduce their total to the British and French total if the U.S. >> would not deploy any missiles. Reagan refused. So, of course, the Soviets >> are going to increase their missiles in Eastern Europe to counter the total >> of British, French and American missiles. > >I believe that the Soviets offered to reduce their total number of >*missiles* to French and British levels, giving them a warhead superiority >margin of three to one, as well as much, much longer range for the Soviet >missiles. The only range you listed was for SRBM's (*SHORT* Range ballistic missles). What about for I (Intermediate) RBM's, startegic bombers, nuclear subs, etc? I am sure the British bomber could strike deep into the heart of Russia. London to Moscow air distance is 1565 miles, and the British were striking the Falklands from Ascencion island, over 4000 miles away! >> ...French and British missiles presumably targeted on the Soviet Union. Can >>anyone explain why Reagan refuses to count those missiles in the negotiations? >... >> Mike Kelly > >Your presumptions is wrong. French and British missiles are defensive in >a real sense since they can't reach the Soviet Union. Reagan refuses >because he, like every other nuclear negotiator, recognizes the Soviets' >claim as propaganda and nothing more. A "defensive" weapon, in my mind, is something that prevents the user from being killed. A shield, for example, or armour. Regardless of their range, the British and French weapons are offensive, ie. Their sole purpose (in use) is to kill other people. > Greg Kuperberg > harvard!talcott!gjk > >"No Marxist can deny that the interests of socialism are higher than the >interests of the right of nations to self-determination." -Lenin, 1918 This sounds no worse that Nixon and Chile. Most socialists in Britain have little or no respect for the USSR. I assume the same is true in the democratic countries. The USSR is a capitalist state, with the sole capitalist being the state, the sole beneficiaries are the (higher) members of the Communist Party, and the exploited are still the working classes. The failure was when Lenin instituted his NEP in the early twenties to start to build Russia's industries, and Stalin used that as a basis for totalitarian rule. --- James C. Armstrong, Jnr. ihnp4!abnji!nyssa Your system is wrong! We sell ourselves cheaply, for nothing, to such as Sil! I see my words mean nothing, you want this system of Varos to continue. So be it.
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) (04/07/85)
> >If you find 100 American missile warheads in Europe (that is, other than > >the Pershing II's), I'll give you a cigar. My source, which is the New > >State of the World Atlas (by Michael Kildron and Ronald Segal, says that > >there aren't that many warheads deployed in Europe by the U.S. > > Firstly, we are deploying over 300 cruise missles in Europe. You forgot to > put an exception on them in your request! :-) (Keep the cigar, I am allergic > to tobacco.) > > However, a serious question: What about the US nuclear submarines that are > always patrolling near or in European waters? Admittedly, they are > "strategic" nuclear weapons as opposed to "tactical" nuclear weapons, > but they are there. (I have seen one in Scottish waters.) > > By the way, lets hope that when our cruise missles start falling on > Soviet soil, they remember that they are "tactical" warheads, while > millions of their citizens die, and don't use their "strategic" warheads. > > (From what I've read, the Russians do not really make a difference > between those two.) No cigar yet, because we have not yet deployed the cruise missiles (I thinkk--don't flame me if I'm wrong). In any case, the important point is that the Soviets had several hundred SS-20's *in 1979*, before we even thought of putting cruise missiles and Pershings in Europe. The fact of the matter is that in 1979 we had very few nukes that could actually reach the Soviet Union. Most of those that could were deployed in bombers, which are no comparison to IRBM's. Why do the Russians not make a difference between tactical and strategic? Because it's convenient; it makes our arsenal look bigger. They simply choose to ignore the fact that most tactical warheads will not be used in a missile exchange. > >And the Soviet Union? In SS-20's alone, they had at least 200 (I'm not > >sure on the exact figure; it may be more) in 1979, which was before the > >Pershing plan was thought up. Each SS-20 has three warheads, can reach any > >point in Europe, and is deployed far behind the Soviet border. Even the > >Pershing II's can only reach *some* of the SS-20's deployed in Europe. All > >told, the Soviets had *at least* 600 missile warheads versus *at most* > >300 French and British missile warheads before any knowledge of deployment > >of Pershing II's and cruise missiles by NATO. > > The USSR deployed 333 SS-20's for 999 warheads. I do not know the total > number on launchers, but it is less that 333, and I don't know the total > reload time. The Soviet Union is still deploying them. Last count according to Jim Matthews: over 400. During Reagan's first four years, the US deployed 100 Pershing II's; the Soviet Union deployed 200 or 300 more warheads during the same period. > A "defensive" weapon, in my mind, is something that prevents the user from > being killed. A shield, for example, or armour. Regardless of their range, > the British and French weapons are offensive, ie. Their sole purpose (in use) > is to kill other people. British and French weapons are defensive in the sense that they are absolutely useless to the two countries in almost any realistic offensive on any other nation. Simply by the rules of warfare, they will only be used if Britain or France is attacked. > >"No Marxist can deny that the interests of socialism are higher than the > >interests of the right of nations to self-determination." -Lenin, 1918 > > This sounds no worse that Nixon and Chile. Most socialists in Britain > have little or no respect for the USSR. I assume the same is true in > the democratic countries. The USSR is a capitalist state, with the sole > capitalist being the state, the sole beneficiaries are the (higher) members > of the Communist Party, and the exploited are still the working classes. > --- > James C. Armstrong, Jnr. ihnp4!abnji!nyssa My quote is utterly irrelevant to Nixon, Chile, Britain, and the Russian economy. However, it is very relevant to, among other things, the current situation in Nicaragua. -- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "The eerily accurate drawing of Goetz showed the face of the 'before' figure in comic-book ads for body-building devices."-Time Magazine, April 8
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (04/08/85)
> >If you find 100 American missile warheads in Europe (that is, other than > >the Pershing II's), I'll give you a cigar. My source, which is the New > >State of the World Atlas (by Michael Kildron and Ronald Segal, says that > >there aren't that many warheads deployed in Europe by the U.S. > > Greg Kuperberg > > harvard!talcott!gjk > > In fact we had over 100 nuclear missiles deployed in Europe at the time we began deploying the second round of Pershing II's. Here is a table from Strobe Talbott's "Deadly Gambits" which deals with the question of missiles in Europe at great length: U.S. Pershing I missiles in W. Germany 108 W. German Pershing I's 72 ("Deadly Gambits", p.88) Since I don't smoke I'll forgo the cigar. I have no idea why the "New State of the World Atlas" fails to list this weapon system. If they are interested in weapons systems at all perhaps they only list "strategic" weapons systems. Here is another interesting quote from Zbigniew Brzezinski, a confirmed hawk whom I usually find abhorrent: "I was personally never persuaded that we needed [the new weapons ] for military reasons. I was persuaded reluctantly that we needed [them] to obtain European support for SALT. This was largely because Chancellor Schmidt made such a big deal out of the so-called Euro-strategic imbalance that was being generated by the Soviet deployment of the SS-20. To keep him in line we felt that some response in Europe on the intermediate level would be necessary." ("Deadly Gambits", p.33) I hope it will be generally recognized that the Pershing II was indeed preceded by the Pershing I? "all we are saying, is give Peace a chance" tim sevener whuxl!orb
matthews@harvard.ARPA (Jim Matthews) (04/09/85)
> > >If you find 100 American missile warheads in Europe (that is, other than > > >the Pershing II's), I'll give you a cigar. My source, which is the New > > >State of the World Atlas (by Michael Kildron and Ronald Segal, says that > > >there aren't that many warheads deployed in Europe by the U.S. > > > Greg Kuperberg > > > harvard!talcott!gjk > > > > > In fact we had over 100 nuclear missiles deployed in Europe at the time > we began deploying the second round of Pershing II's. > Here is a table from Strobe Talbott's "Deadly Gambits" which deals > with the question of missiles in Europe at great length: > > U.S. Pershing I missiles in W. Germany 108 > W. German Pershing I's 72 > ("Deadly Gambits", p.88) > > tim sevener whuxl!orb The Pershing I is a battlefield weapon -- it doesn't have the range to reach the Soviet Union, though I can't remember exactly what it's range is. It bears no similarity with the purpose or function of its successor. Furthermore, it is next-to obsolete, and will be replaced soon. Yesterday's USA Today reported that we now have 138 missles in Europe, and since that includes 108 Pershing IIs, I think Greg will keep his cigar. It also reported that there are 414 SS-20s, giving the Soviets almost a 10-1 advantage in land-based warheads. Jim Matthews matthews@harvard
mjk@ttrdc.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (04/12/85)
From: matthews@harvard.ARPA (Jim Matthews)
> The Pershing I ... is next to obsolete.
What does that mean? That it won't kill people anymore? Has the nuclear
warhead "spoiled"?nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) (04/15/85)
> > The Pershing I ... is next to obsolete. > >What does that mean? That it won't kill people anymore? Has the nuclear >warhead "spoiled"? No, it means they shouldn't be counted when we compare NATO numbers with the Soviets. -- James C. Armstrong, Jnr. ihnp4!abnji!nyssa The cameras are still on, let the show begin! I want to hear them scream, until I'm deaf with pleasure! I want to see their limbs twist in excruciating pain! Ultimately, their blood must gush and flow through all the gutters of Varos!