orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/05/84)
> Now, I feel that in past decades USSR has been developing its military > strength[1][2] at truly cracking pace. Their success in spreading their > influence around the world is largely due to that fact. It is > important for US to all least match them in strength[1], and to > try to catch up in strength[2]. If anyone doubts that they are > eons ahead look at Afghans, Czechs, Hungarians, Poles,.............. > US successes in countering are few. > Mike Cherepov 1)Is it true that the Soviets builtup their military during the 70's? Yes, the Soviets spent enormous sums of money to attempt to catch up to the U.S. lead in nuclear weapons. Among other things they engaged in a major program to "MIRV" their landbased missiles. Certainly this is and SHOULD be a source of some concern for us. 2)Is it true that the United States "unilaterally disarmed" during the 70's? This is a stock proposition made over and over again by Reagan. He and the proponents of a new arms race have repeated it so many times that most people now believe it. It is not true. In fact: In 1970 the U.S. had 4000 strategic nuclear weapons In 1980 the U.S. had 10000 strategic nuclear weapons The following weapons programs were pursued in the 70's: Replacement of Minuteman I,II with 550 Minuteman III's MIRVing of 550 Minuteman III's Replacement of Polaris A3 SLBM's with 496 Poseidon C-3 SLBM's Addition of 65 FB-111 SAC bombers and 356 F-111 nuclear capable bombers MIRVing of 496 SLBM's on Poseidons Addition of 1140 short-range attack missiles to B-52 and FB-111 bombers Trident submarines begun 3)Is it true that the Soviets now have superiority over the U.S.? Here are some pertinent facts on this question: the U.S. has approximately 30,000 nuclear warheads the Soviet Union has approximately 25,000 nuclear warheads The Soviet Union does have more sheer megatonnage--this is not because of "superiority" but actually because of technological weakness--U.S. weapons are much more accurate than Soviet weapons--and it is accuracy as well as sheer megatonnage that is important when targeting the opposition's missiles. We have the testimony of Reagan's own Secretary of Defense on this matter-Caspar Weinberger was asked point blank if he would be willing to trade the Soviet arsenal for ours by a Senate subcommittee, his answer, "No". Even the Reagan administration* and people like Caspar Weinberger realize that the Soviets are NOT superior at this point. But they would like to go back to the days of the Cuban Missile Crisis when the U.S. had thousands of nuclear warheads and the Soviets had only 300 ICBM's. That will never happen. The Soviets have lagged behind in every major weapons development but they will eventually match everything we develop. The days when we could outnumber the Soviets 10 to 1 in nuclear weapons are over. It is very foolish to start an arms race trying to regain such superiority. Please consider these facts as you ponder the important issue of whether we should gear up the nuclear arms race or try to stop it. Tim Sevener whuxl!orb (*note:Reagan's administration generally realizes the US is superior to the Soviets. I am not sure that Reagan realizes that or not. When he doesn't even realize the Soviets major force is in land-based missiles I doubt that he understands the realities of the issue very much at all)