rfs@loral.UUCP () (01/08/85)
Who cares about the arms race? I was born in 1947 and we had the bomb. Since 1953 both the Soviets and the US have had the bomb. No one has ever pushed the button. When I was going to school we had weekly air raid drills and all students had to get under their chairs. Both countries have had ICBM missles since 1957 on land and sea. No one has pushed the button yet. The Soviets will never attack us unless we attack them first. Look at their history. They're bassically cowards. Before world war II they attacked small helpless countries on their borders (i.e Poland in 1939 (along with hitler)). Since WW II they've attacked only helpless countries DIRECTLY on their borders (Hungary, Checz, Afganastan and threatened Poland). If you think about it they've never gone beyond their borders. The US on the other hand goes acrossed oceans and attacks another country. We have guts. Sometimes more guts than brains. We should'nt worry about the Soviets as long as we don't bother their MOTHERLAND. The arms race is good for peace. We make something then the Soviets make it too. We have more money than they do. If we keep this up they will go BANKRUPT and we win. Why do you think they're in Geneva this week for arms talk. Their losing the arms race. Especially in space. The're running out of BUCKS. What they want is a rest so they can catch up. We were stupid once and gave them the SALT I treaty. We stopped and they caught up (took ten years). We ought to keep up the pressure and crank out those new weapon systems. In two to three years the Soviets will be BUSTED. Then we can give them high intrest loans, sell them blue geans, Chevys, stereos, and other sorts of goodies. Hey the Chinese learned their lesson. They came around.
rohn@randvax.UUCP (Laurinda Rohn) (01/09/85)
> from !loral!rfs (?) > The Soviets will never attack us unless we attack them first. Look > at their history. They're bassically cowards. Before world war II > they attacked small helpless countries on their borders (i.e Poland > in 1939 (along with hitler)). Since WW II they've attacked only > helpless countries DIRECTLY on their borders (Hungary, Checz, Afganastan > and threatened Poland). If you think about it they've never gone > beyond their borders. The US on the other hand goes acrossed oceans > and attacks another country. We have guts. Sometimes more guts than > brains. We should'nt worry about the Soviets as long as we don't > bother their MOTHERLAND. I think it's unsafe to assume that they won't attack unless we attack first. This all depends on how we perceive each other's posture. If the USSR thinks the US is getting superior and will stay superior, they might just attack as, from their perspective, things will only get worse. Unless they think the US would never attack, at which time the USSR might not attack either. It all depends... As far as the Soviets never going beyond their borders, if I were a Czech, I might dispute that. Tanks rolling through Czechoslovakia is, to me, going beyond their borders. > The arms race is good for peace. We make something then the Soviets > make it too. We have more money than they do. If we keep this up > they will go BANKRUPT and we win. I don't think the arms race is good for peace. Stability, communication, and a good working relationship are good for peace. What do we win, by the way? And what if we run out of money first? There is a chance of that, you know. > Why do you think they're in Geneva > this week for arms talk. Their losing the arms race. Especially > in space. Perhaps they are in Geneva because they are interested in limiting arms and pursuing peace. I'm not so sure about them losing the arms race in space as there really isn't much of one yet. But maybe they just want to keep weapons out of space. So would I. I don't much care about their reasons. As long as each side knows the other is stcking to the agreement... Lauri rohn@rand-unix.ARPA ..decvax!randvax!rohn The opinions expressed above are mine and do not necessarily bear any relationship to the opinions of the RAND Corporation or any other reasonable entity. (Well?)
cliff@unmvax.UUCP (01/10/85)
> The arms race is good for peace. We make something then the Soviets > make it too. We have more money than they do. If we keep this up > they will go BANKRUPT and we win. Why should we stop at bankruptcy? Let's go for the really big win and see if we can push them into a national debt of more than $1,000,000,000,000!! (those are exclamation marks, not factorial signs). > We ought to keep up the pressure and crank out those new weapon systems. > In two to three years the Soviets will be BUSTED. Then we can give them > high intrest loans, sell them blue geans, Chevys, stereos, and other > sorts of goodies. Hey the Chinese learned their lesson. They came > around. I think they would prefer Chryslers. While we're at it let's give them Lee Iacocca. :-) Cliff
lydgate@reed.UUCP (Chris Lydgate) (01/11/85)
In article <734@loral.UUCP> rfs@loral.UUCP () writes: >Who cares about the arms race? I was born in 1947 and we had the bomb. >Since 1953 both the Soviets and the US have had the bomb. Gee, that reminds me of the guy who took shelter from a storm by standing under a tree. He wasn't worried about getting wet, you see, because he figured that since the tree had kept him dry so far... > No one has ever pushed the button. As a matter of fact, we have used the Bomb. Twice. >The arms race is good for peace. We make something then the Soviets >make it too. We have more money than they do. If we keep this up >they will go BANKRUPT and we win. Think about this. What do you think you'd do, if you were in Chernenko's place, and the country was running out of money. Would you say "Ok, Yankee, I give up."? Or would you be tempted to use your forces before you became hopelessly out- numbered? No one 'wins' the arms race, because our real enemy is FEAR. Spending roughly 300 billion dollars a year (I don't know the exact number- could someone post it?) on the pentagon hurts our economy, too. What are we fighting for? To prove 'who's best' ? To 'preserve freedom' ? Nuclear war won't help us with either of those objectives. Nuclear weapons are useless. Building more of them weakens our economy, and makes our opponents frightened, and therefore dangerous. Let's keep talking. Chris
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) (01/13/85)
> No one 'wins' the arms race, because our real enemy is FEAR. > Spending roughly 300 billion dollars a year (I don't know the exact > number- could someone post it?) on the pentagon hurts our > economy, too. What are we fighting for? To prove 'who's > best' ? To 'preserve freedom' ? Projected spending is 300 billion dollars per year. The average over the past two years comes out to something between 200 and 250 billion per year. However, only about 10% of this was spent on nukes and missiles! The rest was for conventional defense. Nukes are cheaper than other kinds of defense. With a nuke, You can kill someone for something between one and one hundred dollars, depending on what kind of nuke you use. If we had no nukes, overall defense spending would probably be higher. Nevertheless, I wish that nukes had never been invented. --- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "Nice boy, but about as sharp as a sack of wet mice." - Foghorn Leghorn
mike@erix.UUCP (Mike Williams) (01/14/85)
In article <733@loral.UUCP> rfs@loral.UUCP () writes: >The Soviets will never attack us unless we attack them first. Look >at their history. They're bassically cowards. Not cowards, realists (rather unpleasant realists admittedly). Look at how many of them were killed in WW1 and WW2. They probably have a far better idea of the effects of WW3 than most of us in the West. >Before world war II >they attacked small helpless countries on their borders (i.e Poland >in 1939 (along with hitler)). Since WW II they've attacked only >helpless countries DIRECTLY on their borders (Hungary, Checz, Afganastan >and threatened Poland). If you think about it they've never gone >beyond their borders. So... Get those nukes out of Europe. The Russians are far less of a threat to us if we don't have nuclear weapons in Europe. >The US on the other hand goes acrossed oceans >and attacks another country. We have guts. Sometimes more guts than >brains. We should'nt worry about the Soviets as long as we don't >bother their MOTHERLAND. The US have never lost nearly as many people in a war as the Soviets have. Pearl Harbour was maybe the nearest approximation to a modern war on US soil. I doubt that the "Average American Politician (however you define that) can realy envisage what a full scale nuclear war in the US would mean. I am far more worried about trigger happy American ex-filmstars (well, minor filmstars) than the senile leaders in the Kremlin. > >The arms race is good for peace. We make something then the Soviets >make it too. We have more money than they do. If we keep this up >they will go BANKRUPT and we win. I don't believe that. The Soviets will continue to match US nuclear arms production even if they cause famine in the USSR. They also seam to be crazed by the idea that the only way to maintain peace is to maintain the balance of nuclear arms. They would probably see famine as preferable to nuclear war. Mike Williams (mike@erix)
serge@rna.UUCP (01/18/85)
>/***** rna:net.flame / loral!rfs / 8:24 pm Jan 7, 1985*/ >Who cares about the arms race? I was born in 1947 and we had the bomb. >Since 1953 both the Soviets and the US have had the bomb. The U.S. started the nuclear arms race. If we had not continued testing and developing nuclear weapons after WWII things may have been diffrent. Soviet military doctrine had no coherent nuclear strategy until the mid-50's, they were merely trying to match our capabilities. Of course now nuclear weapons are critical elements of the strategic picture for both sides. > No one has pushed the button yet. That dosen't mean it will never happen. >The Soviets will never attack us unless we attack them first. Look >at their history. They're bassically cowards. Before world war II >they attacked small helpless countries on their borders (i.e Poland >in 1939 (along with hitler)). Since WW II they've attacked only >helpless countries DIRECTLY on their borders (Hungary, Checz, Afganastan >and threatened Poland). If you think about it they've never gone >beyond their borders. The US on the other hand goes acrossed oceans >and attacks another country. We have guts. Sometimes more guts than >brains. We should'nt worry about the Soviets as long as we don't >bother their MOTHERLAND. It is true that until the mid '60s the Russians did not have a truly global military capability. We proved that in the Cuban Missle crisis. However, today they have a true blue water navy with more ships than ours (technologically less capable,yes, but the Soviets have opted for greater numbers hoping to saturate the defences of our smaller fleet). The most disturbing thing about this navy is that the USSR is a continental power, controlling most of Asia, having all but three of it's strategic material needs satisfied by resources within it's own borders. We, on the other hand are a maritime power, relying heavily on our Sea Lanes Of Comunications (SLOCs). If you look at both navies you notice that the Soviet forces are designed to cut our SLOCs while our navy is designed to keep them open. The Russians are ready to go for our jugular, so don't tell me they haven't gone beyond thier borders. As for thier conquests in Eastern Europe and Afganistan these also have a global conquest element. The Eastern European slave states form a buffer between the Soviet Union and the West. Both we and the Russians seem to believe that the major theatre of warfare in the next hypothetical (i hope) World War shall be europe. This is evidenced by the massive buildups of arms in Europe. The buffer states exist because, as a huge continental power, the the Russian military doctrine has always been to trade real estate for time and position. Just look at their military history. The buffer states add more real estate to play with and delay the enemy from actually getting within thier borders. Afganistan was taken over because the Russians are trying to get a naval base on the rim of the Indian Ocean, that has a direct and unbroken line of supply to thier homeland. Soviet military doctrine favors central control and thus favors operations that are as directly linked to thier homeland as possible. This also explains the Soviet emphisis on land based nuclear missles, since these always lie within thier borders and thus afford the highest level of security with respect to control. At any rate, the Indian Ocean base is important because all of the current Soviet naval bases are situated behind choke points where our Anti-Sub and Anti-Ship Warfare forces can concentrate thier efforts. The rim of the Indian Ocean is also attractive because of it's proximity to our oil supply. >The arms race is good for peace. We make something then the Soviets >make it too. We have more money than they do. If we keep this up >they will go BANKRUPT and we win. Why do you think they're in Geneva >this week for arms talk. Their losing the arms race. Especially >in space. The're running out of BUCKS. What they want is a rest >so they can catch up. We were stupid once and gave them the SALT I >treaty. We stopped and they caught up (took ten years). >We ought to keep up the pressure and crank out those new weapon systems. The question of the goodness of the arms race and driving the Soviets bankrupt is not so simple. The problem with arms agreements is thier verifiability and enforceablity. Another problem is that the technology changes so fast that by the time an agreement is reached it may no longer mean very much. Still without talks the arms race is completely out of control. At least with talks there is hope. We should not talk ourselves into a disadvantage (very unlikely with Reagan), but we should try diplomacy where ever possible. Driving the Russians bankrupt is a dangerous gamble. Some say that the next generation of Soviet leaders show a greater leaning toward working on internal problems. If so, this would mark a period where Russia again turns inward to deal with her problems. The current militarism is typical of the Russian tactic of blaming foriegn enemies for internal problems, so as to justify the sad state of it's economy and system to it's people. If the inward trend comes about, and we have our lines open to the Soviets then we may see some positive results. Unfortunantly, the old guard is still in control so that this posibility does not yet exist. In either case, we must be careful not to back the Soviets into a corner. If we start putting to big a technological distance between us and them, they may get agressive while they still can. Just think what would happen as we begin to build a ICBM shield. As that sheild goes up, the concept of Mutal Assured Destruction and Counter Force start to go out the window and First Strike and the Winnable Nuclear War become a reality (at least in theory) for our side. It may become a matter of use 'em or loose 'em for the Russians, depending on the state of world tensions at that time. Or more likely, if thier economy starts comming apart, they may start something to divert thier populace's attention to external problems. They may try to heat up the world situation in some way, which always raises the odds for an major conflict. On the other hand, if don't do enough they will continue thier salami tactics. Slice off a piece here, slice off a piece there. Finlandize the rest of europe. Consolidate the third world support. Expand the borders bit by bit. The Russians can be very patient. The arms race can be used to keep them off balance, but it takes finesse, not loud mouth demagougery. What the U.S. has lacked (and the Soviets have not) is a long term, well thought out, strategic program intergrating all aspects of economy, military and diplomacy. We must take a good long look at what we want for ourselves and the world and then go ahead and work towards it. We are inherently stronger than the Soviets because our society and economy has a fundamentally better orgainization (a topic in itself), if only we weren't so stupid and short sighted. All we do nowadays is support unpopular third world leaders just because they are not socialists. We should assert our strength in positive ways. We should police those we keep in power and make sure that the interests of the people they rule are realised. We should show to the world that we are commited to justice, freedom and economic growth. Perhaps this is to much to ask, but the alternative is not pleasent. >Hey the Chinese learned their lesson. They came >around. The Chinese are still very much a Marxist-Leninist Totalitarian 1984-type state. They are doing what the young Soviet state did in the '20s, namely courting money hungry capitalists who see a market for thier goods. Sure, they just love our technology and our weapons systems. Sure, they are at odds with the other great Asian power, the USSR, who also are at odds with us. But don't be fooled, they are only doing what is thier interest and they have no special love for the U.S. and no desire to become a Capitalist-Style Democracy.
rjc@snow.UUCP (R.caley) (01/18/85)
>The Soviets will never attack us unless we attack them first. Look >at their history. They're bassically cowards. Before world war II >they attacked small helpless countries on their borders (i.e Poland >in 1939 (along with hitler)). Since WW II they've attacked only >helpless countries DIRECTLY on their borders (Hungary, Checz, Afganastan >and threatened Poland). If you think about it they've never gone >beyond their borders. The US on the other hand goes acrossed oceans >and attacks another country. We have guts. Sometimes more guts than >brains. We should'nt worry about the Soviets as long as we don't >bother their MOTHERLAND. There not cowards they've just got more common sense than to fight a war at the end of a long supply line (unlike the US - look at south east asia).Like the US the see themselves as haveing the ultimate social system and the moral responcibility to spread it to the rest of the world.Unfortunately the rest of us dont want either (I hate Mc Donalds and don't want cheep vodka). >The arms race is good for peace. We make something then the Soviets >make it too. We have more money than they do. If we keep this up >they will go BANKRUPT and we win. Why do you think they're in Geneva >this week for arms talk. Their losing the arms race. Especially >in space. The're running out of BUCKS. What they want is a rest >so they can catch up. We were stupid once and gave them the SALT I >treaty. We stopped and they caught up (took ten years). >We ought to keep up the pressure and crank out those new weapon >systems. In two to three years the Soviets will be BUSTED. Then we can >give them high intrest loans, sell them blue geans, Chevys, stereos, and >other sorts of goodies. Hey the Chinese learned their lesson. They came >around. And maybe if they see that the US has such a great lead in wepons they will remember the famous US respect for *foreign* countries (Grenada?) and think that they've got little to loose by takeing a chance on a first strike rather than waiting for the US marine corps to walk into red squere. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- "In the beginning was a flame ...... " Paul Kantner. .......... mcvax!ukc!flame!ubu!snow!rjc [ Any opinions in the above crawled in while I wasn't looking ]
al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus) (02/06/85)
> > > > >The Soviets will never attack us unless we attack them first. Look > >at their history. They're bassically cowards. Before world war II > >they attacked small helpless countries on their borders (i.e Poland > >in 1939 (along with hitler)). Since WW II they've attacked only > >helpless countries DIRECTLY on their borders (Hungary, Checz, Afganastan > >and threatened Poland). If you think about it they've never gone > >beyond their borders. The US on the other hand goes acrossed oceans > >and attacks another country. We have guts. Sometimes more guts than > >brains. We should'nt worry about the Soviets as long as we don't > >bother their MOTHERLAND. > > There not cowards they've just got more common sense than to fight a war at > the end of a long supply line (unlike the US - look at south east > asia).Like the US the see themselves as haveing the ultimate social system and > the moral responcibility to spread it to the rest of the > world.Unfortunately the rest of us dont want either (I hate Mc Donalds and > don't want cheep vodka). > Russia is basically a land power. The U.S. is basically a naval power. These facts explain why each invades who they invade. Both powers have been expanding for centuries. Now they have come into contact. Each is capable of decimating the human race in a few hours. We're in very serious trouble. > > >The arms race is good for peace. We make something then the Soviets > >make it too. We have more money than they do. If we keep this up > >they will go BANKRUPT and we win. Why do you think they're in Geneva > >this week for arms talk. Their losing the arms race. Especially > >in space. The're running out of BUCKS. What they want is a rest > >so they can catch up. We were stupid once and gave them the SALT I > >treaty. We stopped and they caught up (took ten years). > > >We ought to keep up the pressure and crank out those new weapon > >systems. In two to three years the Soviets will be BUSTED. Then we can > >give them high intrest loans, sell them blue geans, Chevys, stereos, and > >other sorts of goodies. Hey the Chinese learned their lesson. They came > >around. > Of course WE can't go bankrupt, we just have this teensy little $200 billion deficit and a $100 billion plus negative trade balance PER MONTH. Anyone familiar with the Soviet reaction to the German invasion of WWII will realize that they will do whatever is necessary to defend themselves regardless of the cost. In fact, they might even have a little left over to invade a few neighbors from time to time.
ashby@uiucdcsp.UUCP (02/10/85)
Our trade deficit is NOT 100B per month, but per year (give or take a billion).