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 *****************************