ARMS-D-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA (Moderator) (01/02/86)
Arms-Discussion Digest Wednesday, January 1, 1986 8:20PM
Volume 5, Issue 82
Today's Topics:
Digest #81 doesn't exist
Choosing Sides
legitimate Soviet defense needs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 86 19:19:31 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Choosing Sides
From: foy at aero
After awhile
the men in the trenches became almost friends with the men across no mans
land. They realized that they had more in common than they had with the
Generals. So they would do their shelling and their shooting in a manner
that was well calculated to inflict minimum casualties on the other side
while at the same time being sufficiently convincing to the Generals that
they were fighting.
I'd actually like to see a reference on this one; that sounds
plausible to me, but just barely.
Even if it is true, it is for those reasons (among others) that
generals believe it is *good* for war to happen at a distance.
Dehumanizing your enemy is a technique that goes way back, and is
rather effective.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 85 17:32:54 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Re: legitimate Soviet defense needs
From: Walter Hamscher <hamscher at mit-htvax>
I'm arguing that your original challenge is meaningless:
heads you win, tails you win. There would be no way to
convince you that any weapon exceeds legitimate defense
needs, since your premise appears to be that any weapon
that's capable of doing harm to one's enemy is a
`legitimate' defense need. Show me there's a way to win
this game: give me some examples of ways that US
armaments exceed what the US needs for its legitimate
defense needs.
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).
As regards the Soviet Navy (by which I mean primarily
the subs), if its sole purpose is to neutralize US
aircraft carrier attacks on its territory, why bother?
Land-based fighters and SAMs would seem to be much more
effective both at shooting down incoming aircraft and
sinking the carriers. This was true in the Pacific in
WWII, I conjecture that it's no less true today.
Submarines didn't have strike ranges of 70 miles in WWII. Also,
Soviet naval doctrine asserts that the best attack is a combined arms
operation, in which aircraft and subs attack together.
SAMs and interceptors are essentially ineffective compared to
destroying a carrier.
You seem to imply that the purpose of the Soviet Navy is
purely defensive-- to sink the US Navy (so if we had no
Navy, the Soviets wouldn't either) (?).
Sinking the U.S. navy isn't necessarily a defensive mission, you know.
the Soviet
Navy has an offensive role, just like our Navy: to
interdict supply lines and project firepower worldwide.
Interdiction of supply lines is just why the Sovs need to sink the US
Navy. If you look carefully, the Sov navy isn't configured for power
projection.
Are these still `legitimate defense needs'? If so, then
it would seem to me that just about any weapon is
legitimate.
My challenge is to people who believe there exists such a concept,
because it is these people whom I have heard say that Soviet weaponry
exceeds their legitimate defense needs. I would like to hear what
some other people regard as the legitimate defense needs of the SU.
*I* don't have an answer -- that's why I asked the question.
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************