ARMS-D-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA (Moderator) (01/02/86)
Arms-Discussion Digest Wednesday, January 1, 1986 8:27PM
Volume 5, Issue 83
Today's Topics:
Russian involvement in WW II
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed 1 Jan 1986 19:57:39 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Russian involvement in WW II
> Russian didn't enter [WWII] until she was attacked, ...
Wrong -- Stalin and Hitler carved up Poland in 1939 (I'm not sure
when the Baltic states were absorbed).
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 85 19:05:24 est
From: Walter Hamscher <hamscher@mit-htvax>
Subject: legitimate Soviet defense needs
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 85 17:32:54 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
I assert that most U.S. aircraft carriers are superflous to meeting
meaningful U.S. defense needs. There are no circumstances that I can
imagine that the U.S. would risk the expensive carriers to attack the
Soviet Union, and no meaningful circumstances under which even if it
did, the carriers would have any significant impact on the outcome
(partly because of the Soviet subs).
Let me get this straight. Soviet subs are a legitimate defense
need because they can sink US carriers that pose a threat to
the Soviet homeland, which the carriers can't hurt, because they
are vulnerable to the subs and therefore the US carriers are
superfluous but the Soviet subs aren't.
I bet this argument works for lots of things! Let's see... SS20's
are a legitimate defense need because they can blow up NATO airbases
that pose a threat to Warsaw Pact troop concentrations, which the
aircraft at the airbases can't hurt because they are vulnerable to
getting blown up by SS20's and therefore the NATO aircraft are
superfluous but the SS20's aren't.
The argument is both circular and self-contradictory, and if fully
elaborated leads to the conclusion that the West should abandon all
its `superfluous' conventional weapons.
Incidentally, I recall a CBS interview about a year ago in which
Lehman was talking about the new USN strategy: in the event of
conventional conflict, we throw a half dozen carriers up through the
Faeroes strait against the Soviet bases on the Kola peninsula.
Lehman's imagination is clearly more active than yours :-)
Submarines didn't have strike ranges of 70 miles in WWII.
Alas, I have no hard facts, only a suspicion that sub detection
distances and aircraft strike ranges have scaled similarly. Also, the
70 mile strike range is for missiles, yes? There seems little
advantage in shooting from a sub 70 miles away vs shooting from a
plane 70 miles away-- both kinds can be shot down. I suppose it's
easier to see the plane coming.
Interdiction of supply lines is just why the Sovs need to sink the US Navy.
Oh. I thought you originally said the subs were for defending the
motherland from the nuclear threat posed by the US carriers. If the
subs are for sinking merchant shipping, then the US carrier groups
with all that ASW capability are really for protecting the shipping.
Sounds like a legitimate defense need to me.
If you look carefully, the Sov navy isn't configured for power projection.
True, there are hardly any carriers or amphibious landing craft to
speak of-- but there are missile cruisers and subs with missiles.
Whether a 70 mile range is considered `projection' depends, I suppose,
on whether one lives near a seacoast :-). I gather that SLBMs are
not considered power projection either.
*I* don't have an answer -- that's why I asked the question.
It's an interesting question, but it's not clear to me that
`legitimate defense need' is meaningful once one accepts the premise
that ANY weapon that can blow up some piece of the other guy is
`legitimate', because then you're just talking about an arms race.
One can always justify any new weapon on the basis of what the other
fellow might do with his.
(This is my last message on this subject).
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 85 15:20:07 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: legitimate Soviet defense needs
From: Walter Hamscher <hamscher at mit-htvax>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 85 17:32:54 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
I assert that most U.S. aircraft carriers are superflous to meeting
meaningful U.S. defense needs. There are no circumstances that I can
imagine that the U.S. would risk the expensive carriers to attack the
Soviet Union, and no meaningful circumstances under which even if it
did, the carriers would have any significant impact on the outcome
(partly because of the Soviet subs).
Let me get this straight. Soviet subs are a legitimate defense
need because they can sink US carriers that pose a threat to
the Soviet homeland, which the carriers can't hurt, because they
are vulnerable to the subs and therefore the US carriers are
superfluous but the Soviet subs aren't.
If the US poses a threat to the SU, and the SU develops an effective
counter to the threat, then as long as the threat is there, the
counter is a legitimate need.
Moreover, you don't take into account different perceptions of the two
sides. I said that I can't imagine that the *US* would risk the
carriers to attack the SU homeland. Can the Soviets count on this?
No, so some defense is appropriate.
Finally, many of them were built during a time in which carriers
figured much more prominently in US war plans; they don't now in any
serious way.
I think the US carriers are superflous now against the SU. I think it
is a dumb idea to build more, partly because of the sub threat. It is
a dumb idea to build weapons that can be effectively countered.
The argument is both circular and self-contradictory, and if fully
elaborated leads to the conclusion that the West should abandon all
its `superfluous' conventional weapons.
How?
Incidentally, I recall a CBS interview about a year ago in which
Lehman was talking about the new USN strategy: in the event of
conventional conflict, we throw a half dozen carriers up through the
Faeroes strait against the Soviet bases on the Kola peninsula.
That is indeed the thrust of the maritime strategy. It is dumb.
Submarines didn't have strike ranges of 70 miles in WWII.
Alas, I have no hard facts, only a suspicion that sub detection
distances and aircraft strike ranges have scaled similarly. Also, the
70 mile strike range is for missiles, yes? There seems little
advantage in shooting from a sub 70 miles away vs shooting from a
plane 70 miles away-- both kinds can be shot down. I suppose it's
easier to see the plane coming.
Sub detection has at best stayed about even since WWII, especially
given nuclear power. Moreover, you need many more assets to cover
larger areas. The ASW screen (except for SSNs) doesn't extend to the
strike range of modern anti-ship cruise missiles.
Interdiction of supply lines is just why the Sovs need to sink
the US Navy.
Oh. I thought you originally said the subs were for defending the
motherland from the nuclear threat posed by the US carriers. If the
subs are for sinking merchant shipping, then the US carrier groups
with all that ASW capability are really for protecting the shipping.
Sounds like a legitimate defense need to me.
But carrier groups aren't configured for ASW as a primary mission, as
any Navy person will tell you. Perhaps carrier groups ought to
protect shipping, but that's not what they plan to do.
Military units have both primary and secondary missions. Soviet naval
doctrine recognizes the anti-carrier mission as primary.
If you look carefully, the Sov navy isn't configured for
power projection.
True, there are hardly any carriers or amphibious landing craft to
speak of-- but there are missile cruisers and subs with missiles.
But these are anti-ship missiles.
*I* don't have an answer -- that's why I asked the question.
It's an interesting question, but it's not clear to me that
`legitimate defense need' is meaningful once one accepts the premise
that ANY weapon that can blow up some piece of the other guy is
`legitimate', because then you're just talking about an arms race.
One can always justify any new weapon on the basis of what the other
fellow might do with his.
Agreed. That's why I am trying to find out something from people who
do accept that such a premise has meaning.
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************