gswan@watpix.waterloo.edu (Geo Swan) (05/16/89)
From: gswan@watpix.waterloo.edu (Geo Swan) I heard an interview with Gwynne Dwyer on the radio the other day. He spoke about the recent controversy over short range missiles in Europe. He said that the reason there was controversy was that the _intermediate_ range missiles that the US agreed to remove had a range of 450 miles, and the new _short_ range ones have a range of 400 miles. He said the new short range missiles were upgrades to replace whatever short range missiles the US had there previously. Can anyone confirm or deny these numbers?
esco@tank.uchicago.edu (ross paul weiner) (05/18/89)
From: "ross paul weiner" <esco@tank.uchicago.edu> In article <6599@cbnews.ATT.COM> you write: >From: gswan@watpix.waterloo.edu (Geo Swan) >I heard an interview with Gwynne Dwyer on the radio the other day. >He spoke about the recent controversy over short range missiles >in Europe. > >He said that the reason there was controversy was that the >_intermediate_ range missiles that the US agreed to remove had >a range of 450 miles, and the new _short_ range ones have a range of >400 miles. > >He said the new short range missiles were upgrades to replace whatever >short range missiles the US had there previously. > >Can anyone confirm or deny these numbers? DENIED, negatory no way jose, it's the BIG LIE. The INF treaty banned all ground launched weapons over 300 nm (nautical miles) in range but not of ICBM range. The U.S. Pershing IIs could almost reach Moscow from West Germany, that's what got the Russians to the negotiating table quick. The Ground Launch Cruise Missiles were even longer range. The short range missiles in Europe now for NATO are 88 Lance missiles with a range of about 66 miles. The plan is to replace them with weapons that would still have a range of less than the 300 nm limit set by the INF treaty. That way in the event of war the weapons would not have to impact on West German soil. It says something about the effectiveness of modern propaganda, a technological tool as much as anything discussed in this newsgroup (PSYOPS), that millions of Germans are demonstrating against an effort to replace very short range, old and rather more dangerous weapons with something better. -- Ross P. Weiner Dandy Dirks Discount Disclaimers esco@tank.uchicago.edu "You can't sue me, I'm broke!"
frankt@uva.UUCP (Frank Tuijnman) (05/20/89)
From: frankt@uva.UUCP (Frank Tuijnman) In article <6679@cbnews.ATT.COM> esco@tank.uchicago.edu (ross paul weiner) writes: > ..... The short >range missiles in Europe now for NATO are 88 Lance missiles with a range of ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >about 66 miles. The plan is to replace them with weapons that would still have >a range of less than the 300 nm limit set by the INF treaty. That way in the >event of war the weapons would not have to impact on West German soil. It says >something about the effectiveness of modern propaganda, a technological tool as >much as anything discussed in this newsgroup (PSYOPS), that millions of Germans >are demonstrating against an effort to replace very short range, old and rather >more dangerous weapons with something better. >-- > > Ross P. Weiner Dandy Dirks Discount Disclaimers > esco@tank.uchicago.edu "You can't sue me, I'm broke!" It also says something about the effectiveness of modern propaganda that you believe that there are only 88 Lance missiles. There about 700 Lance missiles (the 88 applies to the number of Lance missile launchers). Furthermore, the people in West Germany are not only concerned about West German territory, but also about East German and Polish territory. What they are protesting against is the idea to turn all of that in a nuclear wasteland with those new `modern' missiles. The last issue of the New York Review of Books (May 18) contains an article on this subject, which is well worth reading. The main point of the article is that the argument really is over the trategy developed by General Rogers (former supreme allied commander) to strike deep in Warsaw pact territory with tactical nuclear weapons, and that the Lance missile has become the symbol of that argument. To strike deep in Warsaw pact territory the intermediate range missiles were needed, which is why Rogers opposed the INF treaty. The new short range missiles with a range just under the INF limit are much more a compensation for the removed intermediate range missiles then a modernization of the short range missiles. This is why the Soviets think of this `modernization' as violating the spirit of the INF treaty. The West German Government believes that that such a compensation is unnecessary now that Gorbachev is willing to accept a balance in conventional forces. Frank Tuijnman (frankt@uva) Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science Univesity of Amsterdam [ mod.note: Let's try not to let the politics overwhelm this issue, folks. There's a lot of appropriate material here, but I can see the potential for flamage. - Bill ]
gmp@rayssd.RAY.COM (Gregory M. Paris) (05/20/89)
From: gmp@rayssd.RAY.COM (Gregory M. Paris) In <6679@cbnews.ATT.COM> esco@tank.uchicago.edu (ross paul weiner) writes: >range missiles in Europe now for NATO are 88 Lance missiles with a range of >about 66 miles. The plan is to replace them with weapons that would still have >a range of less than the 300 nm limit set by the INF treaty. That way in the >event of war the weapons would not have to impact on West German soil. It says >something about the effectiveness of modern propaganda, a technological tool as >much as anything discussed in this newsgroup (PSYOPS), that millions of Germans >are demonstrating against an effort to replace very short range, old and rather >more dangerous weapons with something better. Because a missile has a range of 300 miles does not mean that it will be targeted at something 300 miles away. I feel sort of silly saying that! Presumably the missiles would be aimed at invading Warsaw Pact forces that in all likelihood would be on West German soil. Still, even if NATO were to spare both Germanies (I believe that many West Germans consider both the FRG and GDR to be Germany), why would the Warsaw Pact? Once nukes are launched, I'd say that all bets are off and Germany is probably going to get hit hard. But then, am I just a victim of propaganda? -- Greg Paris <gmp@rayssd.ray.com> {decuac,necntc,spdcc,sun,uiucdcs,ukma}!rayssd!gmp