wmartin@STL-06SIMA.ARMY.MIL (Will Martin) (09/22/89)
From: Will Martin <wmartin@STL-06SIMA.ARMY.MIL> I've only recently regained access to the "military" list, due to the long mailing-list hiatus. I've received a lot of the back issues and will be going thru them shortly. I wanted to post this right away, though, since it is fresh in my mind. Did many of you see the "60 Minutes" coverage this Sunday of Admiral Crowe (the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) visiting the USSR and touring their military bases (& other places -- having a dinner with dancing girls in Kazakh, I believe... :-) with a group of other high-ranking US officers? This was a return visit in response to the recent touring of US facilities by a Soviet marshal. There were some rather incredible statements made during this program. Soviet military leaders said things like, "We have never considered the United States to be our enemy" and "We were allies during WW II, and should be allies now" and the like. It appears that glasnost has pretty thoroughly imbued the upper levels of the Soviet military, at least in their "for public display" personae! Mike Wallace was talking with Admiral Crowe on the flight back, and asked him about the relationship between the US and the USSR, from a military point of view, based on his recent experiences. He was obviously torn as just how to respond, and ended up admitting that the situation would have to be "reevaluated". Well, I've been working for the Army for over 20 years now, and have been fairly much of a hawk all this time, but I think that I, too, am starting to do some "reevaluating". All this change in the USSR may be temporary, and it may be a great propaganda disinformation campaign, but the degree of openness seems to be too great for that to be the case. The Soviets opened up highly secret installations to this visit, and appeared to hold back nothing. It was obvious that the US officers on theis tour were gleaning vast amounts of intelligence data -- I expect they spent weeks in debriefing afterwards! Too much was revealed for this to be just a "for show" imitation of an attitude change on the Soviet side. What if it all is for real? What if there is a fundamental alteration in the USSR's government and attitude, and this persists beyond Gorbachev's period in power? What if things really do change for the better? We won't really need a military establishment any more. We won't have anybody to defend against. The only enemies we will have left will be the occasional weird-dictator-led crazy realm, like Libya, or religious fanatics like Iran, and they can be handled by a military with a strength somewhat equivalent to Norway's, coupled with a reserve program that would allow a rapid buildup in the face of an unforeseen threat. The only other possible enemies end up being the Martians or the visitors from Antares that may pop up next week or next century... Just last night I see senators debating on McNeil-Lehrer about the catastrophic health protection program for the elderly, and the costs of providing expanded long-term care coverage that some want -- they were talking about the latter costing $60 billion, and how it would be hard to pay for it. I'm getting old enough to start thinking about that myself now.... Couple all this stuff together, and I can see an enormous upheaval ahead. We could reduce taxes by about 80% [The military cost isn't anywhere near 80% of the budget; its well under half --CDR] and STILL have enough income to pay for all the health-care expenses, if the need to support the military goes away, or is cut down to 10% or less of what it is now. There won't have to be any expensive new weapons programs, because the stuff we have now will be plenty to just mothball and use over the next decades for the reduced fraction of the military we have left. But we would also have a depression that would make the 1930's look like a picnic -- a vast number of people now in the military or in the DoD civilian workforce (including me) would be out of work (with luck, I have enough years in to retire in that case :-)); all the military-industrial complex would fall apart, with all of those companies going out of business and their workforces becoming unemployed. The stock market would fall to a tiny fraction of where it is now, which would probably wipe out the retirement savings for a large percentage of the people who would otherwise be able to live on those resources (so the "luck" I mentioned isn't all good :-(). If the Soviets continue to project this "good guy" image for much longer, it doesn't seem likely that continued high military spending will be defensible in the Congress. So some sort of change is inevitable. Will welfare for the military and the contractors be perceived as being vital enough that taxes will be kept at their current level, and the money be rechannelled into the space program or some other high-tech area so that the military can run it and the contractors be kept on to support it? Or will the artificial supports be pulled out from under this part of the economy and it be allowed to tumble as described above? Is this really what is going to happen in the next ten years or so? If it DOES happen, would the repressed hardline factions in the USSR use this opportunity to have a resurgence, rise up and remilitarize and then take over the remains of a chaotic and disorganized West? Or would they not be able to revive the "old" pre-Gorby Soviet attitudes after the "new" USSR has a good long taste of peristroika? Should we all be getting cabins in the woods and learning subsistence farming? Japan went through all this is the 40's, but they had it easy... :-) They were bombed into dust and forced to remake their whole economy and lifestyle by outside forces. We are going to have to do it ourselves and that's MUCH harder! [ An interesting book, if you can find it, is _Winding Down_, which discusses improving US National Security AND vastly reducing defense expenditures by orienting more strongly towards the tasks the US Military will actually need to perform. --CDR] Bemusedly, Will Martin
military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (09/24/89)
From: military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) In article <27406@amdcad.AMD.COM> wmartin@STL-06SIMA.ARMY.MIL (Will Martin) writes: >What if it all is for real? What if there is a fundamental alteration in >the USSR's government and attitude, and this persists beyond Gorbachev's >period in power? What if things really do change for the better? > >The only other >possible enemies end up being the Martians or the visitors from Antares >that may pop up next week or next century... I'd say that you can bet that nuclear arms will be kept for just such a contingency; also, to guard against a rapid change in the political situation, and third-world activities. >. The stock market would fall to a tiny >fraction of where it is now, which would probably wipe out the retirement >savings for a large percentage of the people who would otherwise be able >to live on those resources (so the "luck" I mentioned isn't all good :-(). I think this is an overestimate. Consider that the force reduction will no doubt be gradual, over a period of at least 5-10 years; a build-down, if you will. Neither the US nor the USSR will wish to remain undefended, and so will develop a last gasp of new weapons; weapons requiring less maintenance and manpower, designed for the utmost in performance per unit. Too, it would be likely that these would be upgraded for many years. I doubt the DoD budget would ever drop below 25% of its current level, even once all the retirees on the budget had passed on. Further, that money won't simply disappear; it will be re-invested in the economy. Taxes may drop, or benefits increase; either way, people will be spending more cash on consumer goods. General Dynamics might start making VCR's and mopeds, but there will still be work to be done. Finally, I would suspect that the US and USSR would cooperate in space, and a large portion of the ex-Defense budget tagged for that venture. Many employees at Rockwell and Lockheed might never notice the change. There are those who claim that money spent on the military is actually less efficient than that spent in consumer areas; we could even see an *upsurge* in the economy. As a sidelight, science fiction writer Jerry Pournelle's future universe is based on a US/Soviet "Co-dominium", where those two nations dominate the world. It is rather martial in nature, and very conservative in politics, like all Pournelle's stuff, but you might find it interesting. -- Bill Thacker Moderator, sci.military military-request@att.att.com (614) 860-5294 Send submissions to military@att.att.com
cperlebe@encad.Wichita.NCR.COM (Chris Perleberg) (09/24/89)
From: cperlebe@encad.Wichita.NCR.COM (Chris Perleberg) Most of the comments I would like to make on this subject don't belong in sci.military. I try and stick to hard facts. [Thank you. Anyone who wants to discuss the political side of this should take it to talk.politics.soviet, please. --CDR] In article <27406@amdcad.AMD.COM> wmartin@STL-06SIMA.ARMY.MIL (Will Martin) writes: >There were some rather incredible statements made during this program. ^^^^^^^^^^ a good word! >Soviet military leaders said things like, "We have never considered the >United States to be our enemy" and "We were allies during WW II, and should ^^^^^ well, there was the Berlin blockade, the Cuban Missile crisis, the Korean war, the Arab-Israeli go-rounds, Vietnam, etc. Where have these generals been? >be allies now" and the like. ^^^^^^ Let's remember that, as allies, we were only a second choice. The Soviets were Hitler's ally first. >It appears that glasnost has pretty thoroughly >imbued the upper levels of the Soviet military, at least in their "for >public display" personae! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ A key distinction. The basis of disinformation is not to say what you're thinking, but to say what you want the other side to think you're thinking. >What if it all is for real? What if there is a fundamental alteration in >the USSR's government and attitude, and this persists beyond Gorbachev's >period in power? What if things really do change for the better? To my knowledge, the Soviets have not pulled a single soldier out of the Central Front. A top Soviet general admitted to Congress recently that the Soviets built "only" 1000 tanks (presumably T-80s) last year -- that's 5 or 6 divisions worth. Soviet defense spending went up at least 3% last year (I think the figure is higher, but I haven't got it handy). If they really want to help their economy, they can cut their military spending -- like most of the West has. >If the Soviets continue to project this "good guy" image for much longer, >it doesn't seem likely that continued high military spending will be >defensible in the Congress. So some sort of change is inevitable. Will ^^^^^^^^^^ That's certainly true, and is the point of the whole campaign. Gorby has promised to reduce forces in Europe by (I think) 1996, but people are already acting as if he has already done so. Until he does, until he stops producing tanks, until he reduces his defense budget, we should be very, very, skeptical about what he says. NOTHING HAS CHANGED ON THE MILITARY FRONT DESPITE GLASNOST! [And that's the bottom line from a Military point of view. In analyzing threats one MUST consider capability, not intention. To base national security on a single man's percieved friendliness, weighed against centuries of history, seems more than a little wishful. --CDR] Chris Perleberg cperlebe@encad.wichita.ncr.com
richard@wrath.cs.cornell.edu (Richard Alan Platek) (09/26/89)
From: oravax!richard@wrath.cs.cornell.edu (Richard Alan Platek) I find discussions about the withering away of military establishments quite frightening. It reminds me of pre World War I predictions that a European war would be impossible because international trade bound the nations closely together. Periods of heightened awareness of just how close war really is are just the periods in which wars don't start; it's complacency and self-satisfaction which cause one to sleep- walk. Soviet society seems to be changing. The economic situation, on the other hand, is worsening to a degree that most Westerners can not comprehend. Where that leads who can say. Communism can easily be replaced by Great Russian chauvanism. The bottom line is that Russia dominates the Eurasian land mass, is a superpower, and has shown a greater competance in military affairs than in commercial affairs. That's the threat; not Marxist ideology. It's also sobering to recall that China's nuclear capability is third largest in the world and that the Chinese leadership have shown their criteria for violent response is not quite ours. As others have pointed out there does not appear to be any reduction in Soviet military productivity despite announced deployment reductions. While there might be conscious plan to deceive the West it is more likely that there are many factors at work in the Soviet politico-military sector some of which further Perestroika and some of which hedge their bets. In any case, as long as there are Soviet nuclear ICBMs pointed at my home town I prefer to work on SDI.
bralick@cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) (09/26/89)
From: bralick@cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) In article <27406@amdcad.AMD.COM> wmartin@STL-06SIMA.ARMY.MIL (Will Martin) writes: >What if it all is for real? What if there is a fundamental alteration in >the USSR's government and attitude, and this persists beyond Gorbachev's >period in power? What if things really do change for the better? Posit: The US declares victory (OK, call it peace) in Europe and the voters unambiguously tell their representatives that they want the US to become a continent-sized Switzerland. I.e. diplomatic and trade relations with (just about) everyone, but no "foreign entanglements" for the US military. Question: What force structure would best defend the US, its territories, and possessions? Regards, -- Will Bralick | ... when princes think more of bralick@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu | luxury than of arms, they lose bralick@gondor.cs.psu.edu | their state. with disclaimer; use disclaimer; | - Niccolo Machiavelli
baldwin@cad.usna.mil (J.D. Baldwin) (09/26/89)
From: "J.D. Baldwin" <baldwin@cad.usna.mil>
Recently there have been a few postings regarding "The Future of the
Military," sparked by some of Adm. William Crowe's (chairman of JCS,
until Friday) comments after visiting the USSR. The original poster
seemed somewhat disturbed by Adm. Crowe's apparent credulity in accepting
glasnostroika as a justification for relaxation of our national security
posture--a perfectly reasonable apprehension, given the nature of
some of the quotes attributed to him immediately after his visit.
The Admiral's recent statements have been more sober, however. In
a recent MacNeil-Lehrer interview, Adm. Crowe derided as naive the idea
that the West should base its security policies on the directions that
glasnostroika will take the USSR, when in fact the USSR has no idea in what
direction it is headed!
Expansions on *that* theme are kindly invited to talk.politics.soviet (which
I unfortunately do not receive). I would be the last person to try to
introduce politics into a discussion here, but I do feel that the ramifi-
cations of the modern military man-as-politician are germane to the topic
"The Future of the Military". (If I am wrong, I am sure our moderator
will correct me.) I refer all interested readers to the
excellent article by Bob Woodward (and I am no fan of Mr. Woodward's),
"The Admiral of Washington," in today's Washington Post magazine. Just
a few quotes from and about this extraordinary man about the topic at hand:
Crowe [on qualifications for Chief of Naval Operations]:
"We shouldn't get a guy out of the Navy chain and make him CNO. We
should go to New York City and get the best lawyer we can get because
what he has to do is go around the tank [where the Joint Chiefs meet]
and persuade people and go over to Congress and persuade people . . ."
[when another senior officer objected: "Not a naval officer?!"] "We'll
put a hat on the guy and give him a coat with a lot of stripes on
it."
A general officer who worked closely with Adm. Crowe, on his approach to
the use of US armed force: "Crowe always asks the objective. What
do you want to do? Is it destroy a building? A show of force?
Punish the terrorist? The chiefs want to know if the American
people are behind it. They want to know how we will know when it is
over. When there are answers, he will explain the risk in terms of
the objective."
Not germane to the subject, but irresistible to me as a USNA alumnus and
faculty member--I had to include this one:
[on his days at Annapolis] "I was not a happy midshipman. I did not take
well to discipline. [Yet I] never considered quitting, because I was
enough of a conformist and found a great thrill in thrashing or beating
the system and trying to work around it. I accumulated an alarming number
of demerits and came away with a built-in suspicion of arbitrary rules."
Adm. Crowe will be relieved Friday (here at USNA) by General Colin Powell,
USA. The succession of one politico-military master by another as astute
as Gen. Powell gives hope that the Lessons of Vietnam (tm) have been
learned: namely that the Art of War now includes the Art of
Politics--international *and* domestic. And that the haphazard use of
military force without a clear objective and mission will surely result
in disaster by military and political standards.
--
>From the catapult of: |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
_, J. D. Baldwin, Comp Sci Dept |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
__||____..}-> US Naval Academy |+| retract it, but also to deny under
\ / baldwin@cad.usna.navy.mil |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. LehrerGA.CJJ@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU (Clifford Johnson) (09/29/89)
From: "Clifford Johnson" <GA.CJJ@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU> [ This is NOT arms-d, but in the interest of fairness I'm posting this response. Further discussion along this branch should be conducted by e-mail, please. --CDR] In article <27498@amdcad.AMD.COM>, oravax!richard@wrath.cs.cornell.edu (Richard Alan Platek) writes: >In any case, as long as there are >Soviet nuclear ICBMs pointed at my home town I prefer to work on SDI. I agree that this is the obvious number one US/USSR military confrontation problem. It was touched on in Crowe's retirement interview for the Seattle Times on Sept. 2, 1989. Crowe stated that the biggest military change in his lifetime was the switch in rules of engagement that now meant the U.S. would fire first, even at risk to others. He said (in the naval context) missiles had brought this change about, due to the risk of being bust by a single shot. Accordingly, it seems to me that virtually nothing has happened to offset the threat of superpower confrontation until the ICBM launch crews are off their present two-minute launch readiness alerts. I think the danger of this situation is worsened by its being overlooked in the euphoria of glasnost, especially as eliminating the hair-trigger is not even on the strategic arms limitation agenda. Moreover, present plans are to reduce ICBM launch response to under a minute, as the Rapid Execution And Combat Targeting system is being designed to computerize the launch code authentication presently performed by the crews.
gwh%sandstorm.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) (10/03/89)
From: amdcad!gwh%sandstorm.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) In article <27499@amdcad.AMD.COM> bralick@cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) writes: >Posit: The US declares victory (OK, call it peace) in Europe and >the voters unambiguously tell their representatives that they want >the US to become a continent-sized Switzerland. I.e. diplomatic >and trade relations with (just about) everyone, but no "foreign >entanglements" for the US military. > >Question: What force structure would best defend the US, its >territories, and possessions? Sounds like an interesting idea. One concept I've been playing with is a variant of the Swiss system which is heavily enough modified that it really needs a new name. I call it the Technomilitia. The basic concept is that you can't invade a modern technological nation with an extensive militia. Given that one fifth of the population will be able to bear arms, and assuming a restructuring towards more handheld antivehicle and antiaricraft weapons, with static heavy defenses where required, there is no way to effectively fight this. Nobody on earth has a large enough standing army to successfully accomplish an invasion, nor could they get one. Of course, the problem assumed that we have to protect our posessions too, and so we'll still need conventional military. **************************************** George William Herbert UCB Naval Architecture Dpt. (my god, even on schedule!) maniac@garnet.berkeley.edu gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu ----------------------------------------
demon@thor.wright.edu (Brett Kottman) (10/10/89)
From: demon@thor.wright.edu (Brett Kottman) >From article <9881@cbnews.ATT.COM>, by amdcad!gwh%sandstorm.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert): > > Of course, the problem assumed that we have to protect our posessions too, and > so we'll still need conventional military. > This seems to be the major thrust of our military. Except for our strategic forces (bomber/missile), the majority of our forces are outside the country. (Can anyone provide stats?) Brett Kottmann