ARMS-D-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA (Moderator) (01/09/86)
Arms-Discussion Digest Thursday, January 9, 1986 2:46PM Volume 6, Issue 15.2 Today's Topics: See 15.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 9 Jan 86 9:42:21 EST From: Bruce Nevin <bnevin@bbncch.ARPA> Subject: self-fulfilling > Date: Wed 8 Jan 86 21:02:06-EST > From: "Jim McGrath" <MCGRATH%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU> > Subject: International Enforcement Agencies > While I agree on the need for an international enforcement system, I > rate the chances of it peacefully evolving as very low. It is just > impossible to roll the status quo peacefully into a new international > order. An old quote from Henry Ford goes something like this: If you say you can, or if you say you can't, you are right. If you say you can't, you are definitely right. There is a comfort in bing certain of something. But is the comfort of being certain that fulfilling, in this case? In the Iliad (or was it the Aenead?) the leader of the Greeks had their ships burned on the beach near Troy. He addressed the assembled troops: See that smoke? The only way to get home is to win. We win or we die. That is somewhat the situation we find ourselves in today, collectively. We are in process of getting that message across to ourselves and to one another--`we figure out how to do it, or we die'. Saying `it is impossible' is not a satisfactory response, under the circumstances. Bruce Nevin bn@bbncch.arpa BBN Communications 33 Moulton Street Cambridge, MA 02238 (617) 497-3992 [Disclaimer: my opinions may reflect those of many, but no one else need take responsibility for them, including my employer.] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Jan 86 11:04:08 EST From: Jeff Miller AMSTE-TEI 4675 <jmiller@apg-1> Subject: Soviet Defense - I don't pretend to understand how the distribution works between MC and APG, but I noticed today that my Vol 6, 14.1 message preceeds your Vol 6, 13.1 message it responds to...... - I need you to clarify a point/question of yours to decide whether or not we are in disagreement. < With regard to c3i and logistics > Then why do we spend so much money on these things? > What makes you think the Soviets don't spend as much or more in the same areas? 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. ....are you claiming that Soviet C3 and logistics are comparable to NATO? In terms of technical sophistication, no. But: a. The gap is not that wide in sophistication, and b. The WP is in an advantageous position in terms of ; 1. c3 - The rigidity of their fighting doctrine causes them to be less concerned with the level of c3 we tend to be obsessed with, 2. log - the WP has no where near the plethora of different systems of national manufacture, from underwear to tanks, that NATO has. Of more importance, the WP has the great advantage of interior lines, making their LOC/LOS shorter and more easily manageable. This is a specific case of a more general proposition -- the NATO outspends the WP in defense even taking in to account differences in manpower costs, has more total people under arms, and has more advanced military technology. How come the the balance is so lop-sided? - In terms of finances, I have no doubt that the West spends more total dollars on defense. I suspect that, given a breakout, you would find that the Soviet Bloc spends more on the basics - the lower-tech conventional war weapons (tanks, hand grenades, bayonets..), the weapons which will ultimately decide real wars, than we. My personal opinion is that ( and this is not meant to defame scientists or engineers ) western military leaders have been lulled into a false sense of security under the blanket of the Hi-tech panacea. I think back to Vietnam and the ultimate efficacy of our military technology. Chasing rats in a cornfield with a bulldozer- you could keep it up all day long (at great expense,) do an admirable job of destroying the cornfield.....and never catch a single rat. - 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. I find comparisons of how much of each particular nations' own wealth is expended to be more interesting. Unfortunately, on short notice, I could not scrape up the information on all of the countries involved, just the chart below. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Top 15 Defense Spenders In Terms of GDP -------------------------------------------------------------------------- COUNTRY %GDP ----------- ------------ Israel 31.4 UAE 30.4 Angola 30.3 Syria 28.6 Oman 28.6 Iraq 21.7 Mongolia 20.3 Vietnam 20.0 Yemen, N. 18.8 Jordan 17.9 Lebanon 16.5 Yemen, S. 15.9 USSR 14.8 Iran 14.7 Saudi Arabia 14.4 ( We spend 7.5%, or half as much % of our national treasure as the Sovs.) - In response to your comment on more people under arms; ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conventional Force Comparisons Ground and Ground-Based Forces ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- NATO (US) WP (SOV) ------------------------------------------------------ Total Manpower : 5.024mil 2.136mil 6.169mil 5.115mil Reserves : 5.424mil 1.440mil 7.119mil 5.300mil Total Ground Forces : 2.893mil .977mil 2.657mil 1.840mil Ground Forces Reserves : 3.313mil .974mil 4.963mil 3.500mil Total Ground Forces, Europe : 1.767mil .217mil 1.960mil 1.143mil ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ * Based on open-source 1985 figures ------------------------------ End of Arms-Discussion Digest *****************************