ARMS-D-Request@MIT-XX.ARPA (Moderator) (01/25/86)
Arms-Discussion Digest Friday, January 24, 1986 4:40PM
Volume 6, Issue 32
Today's Topics:
The Budget, Defense & Human Resources
NATO/WP balance of manpower
offensive lasers
shoot the instigator
Stalin & Hitler
Soviet Defense
re: Poland
CARVING UP POLAND
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 22 Jan 86 21:34-EST
From: Samuel McCracken <oth104%BOSTONU.bitnet@WISCVM.arpa>
Subject: The Budget, Defense & Human Resources
-----
Hank Walker suggests that my figures for the proportion of the budget
devoted to defense are distorted by fiddling with social security.
They are not, being derived from historical calculations which
transcend the off-line, on-line machinations of the politicians.
In 1960, security included, the total human resources expenditure
was $26.2 billion, or 28% of total outlays. In the same year,
defense was $48.1 billion, or 52%. The latest figures
I have to hand, in the current Statisitial Abstract of the United States,
are 1984 estimates: human resources $437.9 billion (51%) and
national defense $237.5 (28%).
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 86 15:01:58 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: NATO/WP balance of manpower
I promised I'd get back to the list on this. In an earlier msg, I
claimed that NATO outnumbered the Warsaw Pact in total armed forces.
I had two things confused.
The NATO:WP ratio of total men under arms is about 1:1.2 in favor of
the WP. The total ground forces of NATO:WP that could be brought to
bear in Europe is 1.06:1 in favor of NATO -- this of course excludes
Soviet troops in the East aligned against China.
Mea Culpa.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 86 08:44:56 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: offensive lasers
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 86 13:56:19 est
From: decwrl!decvax!linus!alliant!gottlieb at ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bob Gottlieb)
To: decvax!MC.LCS.MIT.EDU!LIN at ucbvax.berkeley.edu
cc: decwrl!+usenet at ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Re: offensive lasers
It's not clear to me that you would need adaptive optics to "zap"
missiles in the boost phase, as once they reach high altitude (100 km+)
the density of the air is low enough to permit directed fire w/o said
optics. I am not disagreeing that with an adaptive lens, certain frequency
lasers could be used to strike (small) earth targets, merely that doing
so is somewhat noticable.
Incidently, if you want to direct energy weapons at terrestrial targets
(something I am NOT advocating having the capability to do), I suggest a
simpler route: send up a 10 square km mylar solar mirror in the shuttle.
That would be far more devastating (consider a .1 square km focus, with
local temperatures above the flash point for wood), and a lot less high-tech.
-- Bob Gottlieb
UUCP: ...!linus!alliant!gottlieb
Mail: Alliant Computer Systems Corp, 42 Nagog Park, Acton, MA 01720
Phone: (617) 263-9110
Foot: "You can't get there from here".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I don't know what I'm doing, and Alliant isn't responsible either, so there!"
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 86 16:13:39 EST
From: Jim Hofmann <hofmann@AMSAA.ARPA>
Subject: shoot the instigator
Here is a proposal I read in an independent publication entitled
_the_ink_blot:
That in case of a nuclear war, the people who authorize the button
to be pushed on our side will automatically gain a bullet in the
head.
The reasoning being: is that these people are likely to be insulated
and meant to survive (whatever is left) a war. They would think twice
if they knew that an executioner stood by to deal out the same fate
they are causing millions of others.
I guess you would have to extend this to Chief of Staffs and the President
and the Vice President would take over.
Comments?
hofmann
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 86 14:51:56 CST
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA>
Subject: Stalin & Hitler
One thing Stalin gained by the pact with Germany was, I recall, training
and assistance in developing the Soviet Air Force. I do not, however,
recall reading any expert evaluation of the quality of this assistance
that the USSR received from the Third Reich -- anyone out there have
knowledge of this? Did the Germans really do a good job in this (which
would, of course, have been to their disadvantage later on)?
Will
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 86 17:17:51 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Soviet Defense
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 86 11:04:08 EST
From: Jeff Miller AMSTE-TEI 4675 <jmiller at apg-1>
< With regard to c3i and logistics >
Lin Then why do we spend so much money on these things?
Miller What makes you think the Soviets don't spend as much or more in the
same areas?
HL That is not the issue. If we spend money on them, we should get
credit for them.
What are you talking about when you say we should get credit for them? I
was interpreting you to mean that our outlays in money and effort in these
areas offset WP manpower/weapons superiority, as if they had no systems
for c3i/log. If you are talking about bean counting, compare men/weapons to
men/weapons and support systems to support systems. I was starting to get the
impression you wanted to count NATO men/weapon & supp sys against WP
men/weapons only.
No. I mean that since we spend much more money on things that don't
get listed in the balance, either the balance is more favorable to us
than crude bean counts make it appear, or we are being dumb in how we
spend out money. C3/log is supposed to be a force multiplier for our
forces, as theirs is for them. How come these effects never get taken
into account.
- I don't believe there is much to be learned from just comparing dollars
spent on defense. After all, in the Soviet economy one US $ buys
a lot more
bullets and pays a lot more coporals' salaries than in the US.
True. But comparisons between US and Soviet defense budgets are based
on the analytical assumption that a Soviet corporal gets what a US
corporal gets. If the budgets reflected what they actually spend on a
corporal, our defense spending would be significantly greater than
theirs.
I find
comparisons of how much of each particular nations' own wealth is
expended to
be more interesting...
( We spend 7.5%, or half as much % of our national treasure as the Sovs.)
So what? What difference to the military balance does percentage of
GDP make?
------------------------------
Date: Fri 24 Jan 86 14:59:17-EST
From: RKIERAN@G.BBN.COM
Subject: re: Poland
>From: Lynn Gazis <SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
>Subject: carving up Poland
>But, if war with Germany was inevitable, couldn't Stalin have fought
>just as much of it on Polish soil by sending troops to Poland when
>Germany attacked it? Why should he let someone he knows he will be
>going to war with gain more territory?
While Stalin may have believed war with Germany was inevitable, he did
not believe that it was imminent. Stalin chose to disbelieve his own spies
when they reported that Hitler was planning to attack the Soviet Union.
Even as late as June 22, 1941, when Soviet border units reported German
troops streaming across the frontier, Stalin believed it to be a mistake
and insisted the reports must be wrong.
And as for Stalin attacking Germany in Poland so as to avoid a war
on Russian soil: remember that it was Stalin's own actions that made
Hitler's assault on Poland possible. The Non-aggression Pact that Stalin
signed with Hitler in August, 1939 enabled Hitler to invade Poland without
worrying what the Russian response would be. The secret protocols of the
treaty specified the zones of occupation each country was to receive in
Poland, in addition to giving Stalin a free hand in the Baltic states of
Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.
Stalin's reasons for signing this treaty were varied. One often over-
looked reason was to regain Russian territory that had been annexed by
Poland during the Soviet Civil War. Another equally important reason was
that the treaty established trade relations with Germany that were important
to both nations: in return for raw materials, Russia received finished goods
and machine tools from Germany. Also, the treaty allowed Stalin to annex
the Baltic states, therby securing access to the Baltic Sea.
Finally, Stalin was unable to come to terms with the west. The British
and the French had turned down Stalin's previous proposals to form a united
front against Hitler. When the Allies finally did send a delegation to Moscow
to discuss such a treaty, it was too late. In fact, the Allied delegation was
still negotiating with the Russians in Moscow when the Russo-German Pact was
announced.
In sum, Stalin felt he had more to gain and little to lose in collaborating
with Hitler in the destruction of Poland.
------------------------------
Subject: CARVING UP POLAND
Date: 24 Jan 86 15:47:35 EST (Fri)
From: wesm@mitre-bedford.ARPA
Stalin didn't send additional troops to Poland after its fall mainly
because his army was in no shape to hold off an attack by Germany, as history
confirms, and he didn't want to antagonize Hitler. He was basically playing
for time to build up to the point where he could effectively defend his
country besides providing a buffer zone. Stalin was a realist (certainly
more so than Chaimberland) in that he assumed that war with Germany was
inevitable. He did what he could to delay it for as long as possible.
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************