randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) (11/11/89)
From: Randy Appleton <randy@ms.uky.edu> Wow, things they sure are happening over in Eastern Europe! Poland has a non-Communist government, East Germany is rapidly tearing down the Berlin Wall, and Hungary is introducing major reforms. If this keeps up, soon we won't recognize the place. In lesser news, the Polish Government, against a long-standing Soviet request, has disbanded 4 army divisions, and said it has no plans to re-equip it's troops with more modern weapons. Combine this with the Soviet military reductions, and ..... So what do y'all think of this? Randy randy@ms.uky.edu [mod.note: In military terms, of course. - Bill ]
denbeste@BBN.COM (Steven Den Beste) (11/15/89)
From: Steven Den Beste <denbeste@BBN.COM>
Randy Appleton asks for opinions on the changes taking place in Eastern Europe,
and our esteemed moderator has asked us to limit our responses to "military"
effects. I'll be straying just a little bit outside of that realm, because the
military effects won't make any sense otherwise.
The traditional definition is that "war is politics by other means". A
hopelessly primitive definition is: Wars take place when there are differences
between political entities which must be settled, but cannot be settled
diplomatically for whatever reason." (This only works if you include
insurgencies and terrorists as "political entities", and include insanity as
one of the "differences".)
Therefore ultimately the future of a military must be considered within the
"political ecology" (is that sciencey enough?) in which it evolved.
(All of this is straight out of "On War", of course.)
Military spending is ultimately parasitic on its parent economy. Whereas
workers manufacturing consumer goods are paid for their work (and that money
goes to buy other consumer goods and therefore the economy balances),
workers manufacturing military goods are also paid (and buy consumer goods out
of the pie) but don't contribute consumer goods to the
pie. If the money they are paid is simply simply created, there becomes too
much money in the economy for the goods available. One of two things happens:
inflation (which is what happens in the U.S.) or consumers with money in their
pockets but no goods to buy (which is what happens in the U.S.S.R.).
In order to keep things balanced, some purchasing power must be taken from
those workers creating consumer goods in order to pay those who are creating
military goods. This is usually done with taxation.
[It is certainly true that occasionally research sponsored by the military
develops a technology which has worth in the consumer economy, but this largely
irrelevant to the discussion. Most of the tax money used for the military goes
to pay for active duty personel, the supplies they consume, the weapons
they need, and the infrastructure which supports all of this.]
On an economic level this is something like donating blood. Below a certain
rate the economic results are insignificant - but above level and bad things
happen.
After WWII the U.S. economy was intact, but the economy of the USSR was in
shambles. In some ways it has never recovered. The GNP of the U.S. has been
much larger every year thereafter then that of the U.S.S.R., and this has
lead to a novel tactic: "Spend the bastards into the ground." It goes something
like this:
Begin a military buildup at a level such that it only causes minor harm to your
large economy, but which would cause major harm to your opponent's much smaller
economy - but do it in a way that he must match the buildup (by deploying most
of the military buildup on his border). Voila! "Cold War."
This is REALLY what the "Reagan Buildup" was about - and it finally seems to
have worked. The political leaders in the Eastern Bloc have finally realized
that military strength today translates into economic weakness today, which
leads to military weakness tomorrow. One can nonetheless also have military
strength tomorrow, but that means you'll have even more economic weakness
the day after, and ultimately you'll have to stop. That seems to be what has
happened now. One way or another they seem to have realized that they simply
cannot afford it any longer.
Gorbachev has finally made moves to decrease the size of the military in the
U.S.S.R., so as to rebuild their economy. This requires that the political
tension for which that military was needed must go away some other way - in
this case by diplomacy.
So, what happens after that: When their economy is rebuilt, the friendliness
could continue, or tension could return and a new military buildup could begin.
If their economy at that time finally rivals ours (and our economy has also
suffered damage from military buildup - primarily indicated now by
perpetual budget and trade deficits, which is a third way of keeping things
balanced as long as they match) then this tactic may not work for us any more.
In that case, "Cold War" could translate into "Hot War", a catastrophe.
How do we then prevent this eventuality in 30 years? I think the best way is
economic: Substantial cross-investment.
What we now think of as France and what we now think of as Germany have been
at war or almost war for most of the last 400 years. Does anyone think that the
French army will ever cross the West German border in anger again? Equally, 180
years ago the U.S. and what we know know as Great Britain were at war. Will the
U.S. and the Brits ever shoot at each other again? It doesn't seem likely.
Such wars in each case would bankrupt both nations because of the
extraordinarily large (from a historical perspective) economic ties between
them. If we can establish such economic ties between the U.S.S.R./Eastern
Europe and the West during that 30-50 years, then by the time that a buildup
becomes possible again it won't be desirable any more.
In other words, we can use the large-scale ultimate cause of war
to actually prevent it. In the movie "Blazing Saddles", the
character played by Cleavon Little holds some of his enemies at bay by holding
a gun to his own head and threatening to fire if they move. I claim that with
sufficient interdependency between two nations a war becomes much less likely
because attacking the other would be literal economic suicide.
The best news is that if we can also reduce our military, it will release
economic assets which can be used for precisely this cross-investment. The
biggest danger for us is that we won't realize this danger and opportunity.
Once the changes in Eastern Europe seem to be irreversible then we should
begin to cut our own defense spending and use the resulting resources to
create unbreakable economic bonds between ourselves and the "other side".
I think we just passed the point of no-return in Eastern Europe.
When the Prussians, for God's sake, the most disciplined and martial
cultural group in Europe, begin demonstrating against THEIR own government
then you know something dramatic just happened. That's why it took 10 years
after largescale unstoppable demonstrations in Poland to finally change the
government, but the government in East Germany fell only a week after large
scale demonstrations began. They know their own people and how hard they are to
stir up. A bear in winter is very hard to wake, but once it is moving it is
extremely dangerous.
Ultimately this discussion must be political and economic rather than dwelling
in the details of military science - because the changes are political and
economic, and military changes are a side effect. In the specifics I forsee
significant (finally!) disarmament, probably including ultimately the
withdrawing of most U.S. surface troups from West Germany.
I certainly hope this happens!
Steven C. Den Beste || denbeste@bbn.com (ARPA/CSNET)
BBN Communications Corp. || {apple, usc, husc6, csd4.milw.wisc.edu,
150 Cambridge Park Dr. || gatech, oliveb, mit-eddie,
Cambridge, MA 02140 || ulowell}!bbn.com!denbeste (USENET)cash@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Peter Cash) (11/17/89)
From: convex!uiucuxc!muse!cash@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Peter Cash) In article <11431@cbnews.ATT.COM denbeste@BBN.COM (Steven Den Beste) writes: >What we now think of as France and what we now think of as Germany have >been at war or almost war for most of the last 400 years. Does anyone think >that the French army will ever cross the West German border in anger again? >Equally, 180 years ago the U.S. and what we know know as Great Britain were >at war. Will the U.S. and the Brits ever shoot at each other again? It >doesn't seem likely. >Such wars in each case would bankrupt both nations because of the >extraordinarily large (from a historical perspective) economic ties between >them. If we can establish such economic ties between the U.S.S.R./Eastern >Europe and the West during that 30-50 years, then by the time that a >buildup becomes possible again it won't be desirable any more. > ...I claim that with sufficient >interdependency between two nations a war becomes much less likely because >attacking the other would be literal economic suicide. Ah, those who do not remember history... Steven, precisely these reasons were often cited to prove that a major war was unthinkable...just before the First World War. (See, for example, Barbara Tuchman's _The Guns of August_.) It was argued that the world was simply too interdependent, too closely knit economically, for a war to be thinkable. A major war would bankrupt its participants, and therefore would not be fought. (And besides, people were much too *civilized* for that kind of thing nowadays.) Of course,a the irony is that this reasoning was *almost* correct: the First World War *was* suicidal, it *did* bankrupt its participants, it killed off the best and brightest of an entire civilization. WW I was a social, cultural, economic and political disaster that can only be compared to historical disasters such as the Great Plague in the twelfth century. The problems is that an element of the irrational seems to enter into history: sometimes people do crazy things. Sometimes countries do crazy things. And if you think that it can't happend again... Remember the Falklands? Remember one of the more civilized nations of the Earth loosing its cool and going to war over a flock of *sheep*? The best protection against a future war is to realize that it is very likely to happen again. So keep your eyes open and your powder dry. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | The fleshe is bruckle, the Feynd is slee -- | Peter Cash | timor mortis conturbat me! | cash@convex ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
frank0@ibmpcug.co.uk (Frank Dunn) (11/20/89)
From: Frank Dunn <frank0@ibmpcug.co.uk> Malvinas/Falklands war was over sovereignty and the right to determine self government. Not disimilar to many small wars currently taking place in which most cultured Western nations take a side in. cf Cambodia. -- Automatic Disclaimer: The views expressed above are those of the author alone and may not represent the views of the IBM PC User Group.
major@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Mike Schmitt) (11/23/89)
From: ssc-vax!shuksan!major@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Mike Schmitt) In article <11499@cbnews.ATT.COM>, convex!uiucuxc!muse!cash@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Peter Cash) writes: > > > From: convex!uiucuxc!muse!cash@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Peter Cash) > > In article <11431@cbnews.ATT.COM denbeste@BBN.COM (Steven Den Beste) > writes: > > >What we now think of as France and what we now think of as Germany have > >been at war or almost war for most of the last 400 years. Does anyone think > >that the French army will ever cross the West German border in anger again? I'll insert a footnote here. Though France has 'officially' withdrawn militarily from NATO - the French still have the 3rd French Army stationed inside West Germany (Southwest West Germany). The French PX in Baden-Baden is a very interesting place to shop. They 'own' and operate a major training area in Muensingen (about 30 kilometers southeast of Stuttgart and 20 kilometers west of Ulm). At Muensingen, is the French Commando School (which I had the dubious pleasure to attend). Some of their Sergeants were 'former' French Foreign Legionnaires. (Yes, I know that there is a 'rule' that no French citizen can join the Legion - they sign up as Belgians). We (the US 1st Infantry Div (Forward)) would hold joint manuevers with their armor battalions (AMX-30 tanks). Very fine troops. Well equiped, well disciplined, well led. So, in one sense, they don't have to cross the West German border - they're already there. In anger? My first choice is that they will support NATO. major mike
usenet@PARIS.ICS.UCI.EDU (11/25/89)
From: usenet@PARIS.ICS.UCI.EDU In article <11669@cbnews.ATT.COM> ssc-vax!shuksan!major@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Mike Schmitt) writes: > > I'll insert a footnote here. Though France has 'officially' withdrawn > militarily from NATO - the French still have the 3rd French Army stationed > inside West Germany (Southwest West Germany). The French PX in Baden-Baden > is a very interesting place to shop. They 'own' and operate a major training > area in Muensingen (about 30 kilometers southeast of Stuttgart and 20 > kilometers west of Ulm). > > So, in one sense, they don't have to cross the West German border - they're > already there. In anger? My first choice is that they will support NATO. There's a reason why the French are in West Germany and especially Berlin. By having been on the right side of the war, they became one of the occupying forces of Germany, and became entitled to the status as "occupation force ally", along with the British, Americans, and Soviets. The French were the last to give up occupation of their respective section of West Germany (I believe it was around 1972). No ally has given up his occupation of Berlin, for very good political reasons, although the Berliners govern themselves for the most part. So who decides if Germany reunifies? World War II has to officially end first (a peace treaty was never signed). I leave the answer as an exercise. Hammy SGT John S. Hamilton (used to be of Ops BN/Field Station Berlin)
gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) (12/01/89)
From: gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) > At Muensingen, is the French Commando School > (which I had the dubious pleasure to attend). Some of their Sergeants were > 'former' French Foreign Legionnaires. (Yes, I know that there is a 'rule' > that no French citizen can join the Legion - they sign up as Belgians). Wonder if Major Mike would mind giving a bit more details about the French Commando School? How are US soldiers selected to attend there? What does the school teach that the US doesn't? My son mentioned something about attending said school, but he neglected to provide details. It could be that the training is classified, in which case I would like general, non-classified info. I'm interested in what happens to number one son. 8-) Gene