ARMS-D-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA (Moderator) (01/05/86)
Arms-Discussion Digest Saturday, January 4, 1986 4:07PM
Volume 6, Issue 7
Today's Topics:
Subject headers missing here: listed in V6#5. Sorry.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 86 12:40:12 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: "Legitimate" Soviet defense needs
From: Gary Chapman <PARC-CSLI!chapman at glacier>
In terms of conventional weapons in Europe, I think it's fairly
clear that the Soviet Union has gone far over the brink of weapons procure-
ment for self-defense.
How would you think the Soviets would respond?
The numbers there would be comical if they weren't so
alarming.
Soviet NATO
Main battle tanks 46,230 26,900
Artillery and Mortar tubes 38,800 19,900
Armored personnel carriers 94,800 53,000
Transport/support helicopters 6,000 1,960
The total military forces for the Warsaw Pact are 6,000,000 people, and for
NATO, 4,000,000 (roughly). Two million extra troops is quite a difference.
Bean counts don't tell the whole story. For example, the US has
decided to invest lots of money in C3 and logistics, which don't
appear in the bean counts. Either these expenses improve US
capability (in which case the US should claim some credit for them) or
they don't (in which case the US should not be spending money dumbly).
WP/NATO troop comparisons like those above don't take into account the
fact that Soviet "troops" are often construction people and or other
non-military functions.
I don't deny that NATO conventional forces could stand improvement.
But if people want to paint a fair picture, they should go beyond bean
counts.
Recent articles in International Security suggest a much more balanced
picture than the usual bean counts suggest.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 86 12:43:33 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Legitimate Soviet Defense Needs
From: Jeff Miller AMSTE-TEI 4675 <jmiller at apg-1>
How do you address the fact that, unlike the West, the Soviets
include among
the missions of their military establishment employment against their own
population ?
Then the forces they use for invading WP nations and Soviet states
shouldn't be counted against the West. (In fact, I believe that many
of the Soviet deployments in Eastern Europe are for that purpose.)
Are you remembering to enter into the equation the fact that the KGB (
"the equivalent to our CIA" ) maintains over 250,000 conventionally
armed troops with tank, artillery and mechanized regiments, as well as
its own air force and coastal defense fleet ?
Pls describe the mission of these KGB forces.
The Sovs and their E. European allies operate a different guage of
railroad than that of the W. European countries. So far, the vast
bulk of east to west commerce is by trucking, or transshipment to the
W. European rail system.
I think you are wrong on this one. I recall that the gauge changes at
the Russian border, not at the German border. That makes all the
difference in the world. The original rationale for the Soviet use of
a different gauge was to slow down a Western attack into the East.
Anyhow, Soviet military units in the GDR turned up in possession of a
lot of really spiffy kits which allow rapid conversion of their
rolling stock to travel on W. European rails.
Interestingly enough, none of the NATO allies have the same set-up for
going east.
The Soviet Union has traditionally depended much more on RR
transportation than on road transportation. In fact, the Soviets have
to face a very well developed road infrastructure in Western Europe
that provides relatively rew bottlenecks, enabling NATO bring forces
up to the German border very quickly. Road travel is much more
flexible than rail travel.
I do believe the report about Soviet units in the GDR with the kits,
but if I am right about where the change of gauge is, then it makes
all the sense in the world, and nothing threatening can be inferred.
If you are right, then I retract my comments about gauge; I will check
with my sources again.
I am not trying defend Soviet intentions. But you should realize the
point that the SU does have historical reasons to fear attack from the
West; I don't think we would, but that's a different question.
Do we have significant conventional *capabilities* against the SU? I
believe so, enough to pose a threat to which they must respond. Do I
think we should reduce our forces to pose less of a threat? No.
Frankly, I don't see any solution to the NATO/WP split.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 86 12:45:22 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Conflict Resolution
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Violence and war is the means of last resort to impose your will. If
playing GO were, then both sides would have GO players.
The point is you have leaders/nations unwilling to take "no" for an
answer; as long as you have that, you will have war and armed forces.
Comment by Peter Mikes: Reply to mikes@ames-nas / all disclaimers:
It is not a LAST resort. The THREAT of war is the only currently working
method for allocation of the global resources. Surely leaders/nations
must be able to say 'no' sometimes.
I said that leaders can't TAKE no; surely they can give it. If
Country A wants something from Country B, and Country B says no (after
all other measures have failed), Country A can either go to war to
take it from B, or accept the no.
------------------------------
Date: Sat 4 Jan 86 15:05:14-EST
From: " Samuel McCracken" <GZT.SAM@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: railway gauges
Jeff Miller's discussion of Soviet and western rail gauges
is wrong as to detail, if not as to import.
The Soviet gauge is 5 ft. This is shared only by Finland
and by an occasional short connecting line from near-border
cities in countries such as Hungary. With the exception of Spain
and Portugal, the majority of all other European trackage is,
like our own, 4 ft 8.25 in. The Tsars adopted the broad gauge on
the mistaken theory that it would make it harder to invade Russia
by railway. In fact, it is a trivial matter to mix a broad gauge
line by adding a new third rail between the outside ones.
Military engineers could do this very quickly. But there is no
way to widen a standard gauge line except by building a new line.
The break of gauge, if it protected anyone, protected
countries to the west of Russia.
Nowadays, in any event, there are through passenger trains
between the SU and the rest of Europe which are lifted off their
trucks at the Soviet border and dropped on to new ones of
appropriate gauge. I am not sure, but I doubt that this has
been extended to freight services. Converter trucks would be
useless to Soviet forces in the GDR, inasmuch as the trackage is
standard gauge to the Spanish border on the west and to the
Soviet border on the east.
Whether the Soviet forces have extensive capabilities to
convert troops and supply trains at the Soviet border I do not
know, but it would be comparatively simple to move troops from
broad gauge to standard gauge trains at the border. Conceivably,
they have convertible flat cars for shipping artillery, tanks and
the like, but again, it would be as fast to drive them over the
border and load in Poland. Moreover, it is not unlikely that
there is surviving standard gauge track in the part of East
Prussia that became part of the SU in 1945, already linked to the
GDR system.
Historical footnote: standard gauge descends from the first
horse-drawn mining railways in England, which used road carts
whose gauge was standardized to run in ruts on the deplorable
roads. The ruts in turn descend from the standard Roman cart.
It must be the oldest and most universal industrial
specification.
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************