brad@cs.utexas.edu (01/21/89)
When I was in St. Paul for AAAI last summer, I saw a book in one of the
chain bookstores (B. Dalton, Doublday, Walden, something like that) that
was an annotated version of the Pentagon's report on the military
armarment and capabilities of the US and the USSR. The annotater was
"a noted expert on US and Soviet arms," and the annotations showed how
the US capability was consistently underestimated, and the USSR capability
was consistently overestimated (presumably for the purposes of gaining
more funding).
Can anyone give me the title and author of this book? Can anyone tell
me how credible the author is and whether his information is reliable?
Thanks very much,
brad
Brad Blumenthal uucp: {uunet, harvard}!cs.utexas.edu!brad
Taylor Hall 2.124 arpa: brad@cs.utexas.edu
Computer Science Department
University of Texas
Austin, TX 78712military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) (01/21/89)
brad@cs.utexas.edu (Brad Blumenthal) writes: >When I was in St. Paul for AAAI last summer, I saw a book in one of the >chain bookstores (B. Dalton, Doublday, Walden, something like that) that >was an annotated version of the Pentagon's report on the military >armarment and capabilities of the US and the USSR. The annotater was >"a noted expert on US and Soviet arms," and the annotations showed how >the US capability was consistently underestimated, and the USSR capability >was consistently overestimated (presumably for the purposes of gaining >more funding). > >Can anyone give me the title and author of this book? Can anyone tell >me how credible the author is and whether his information is reliable? It sounds like _Soviet Military Power*_ (*-The Pentagon's Propaganda Document, Annotated and Corrected) by Tom Gervasi (Author of _The Arsenal of Democracy_. (c)1987 by Tom Gervasi and Bob Adelman; Random House, NY, publisher. [ISBN 0-394-75715-7] The book is a reprint of the Pentagon document, on a larger format; space left at the margins is used to insert the author's commentary. The books is completely biased, no question; barely a paragraph slips by without a rebuttal by Gervasi. However, I find merit in a few of his comments (though they're difficult to find, and far between). I can't really recommend the book in a scholarly sense; it is, however, interesting to read. The major fault on Gervasi's part is his frequent reference to the numbers quoted in the Pentagon work, which he states are "Wrong", following up with his own, equally questionable numbers. One example that struck me was a reference to a new Soviet 8" SP gun, which the Pentagon claimed had a range of 30km (18 miles). Gervasi claims instead 18km (10.8 miles), commenting the the US M-110A2 8-incher has a range of 35km. Frankly, I don't buy it; 8" guns have had ranges of at least 30km since before WWII, and I see no reason why the Soviets should lag so far behind. It's interesting, but don't pay too much attention, IMHO. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Bill Thacker moderator, sci.military military@att.att.com "War is a matter of vital importance to the State; the province of life or death; the road to survival or ruin. It is mandatory that it be thoroughly studied." - Sun Tzu
sheppard@caen.engin.umich.edu (Ken Sheppardson) (01/23/89)
Bill Thacker writes: > > >When I was in St. Paul for AAAI last summer, I saw a book in one of the > >chain bookstores (B. Dalton, Doublday, Walden, something like that) that > >was an annotated version of the Pentagon's report on the military > >armarment and capabilities of the US and the USSR... > > It sounds like _Soviet Military Power*_ (*-The Pentagon's Propaganda > Document, Annotated and Corrected) by Tom Gervasi (Author of _The > Arsenal of Democracy_. (c)1987 by Tom Gervasi and Bob Adelman; Random > House, NY, publisher. [ISBN 0-394-75715-7] > > [...] > > The books is completely biased, no question; barely a paragraph slips > by without a rebuttal by Gervasi. However, I find merit in a few of his > comments (though they're difficult to find, and far between). > We used this book as a text in a Sociology course which examined how the arms race "got out of hand". I believe Gervasi intended the book as a source of counter-propoganda. Apparently Gervasi, along with many others, believes the original document was intentionally extremely biased. It gives the impression the US is about to be buried by the Soviet Union, and that we MUST build everything we possibly can to defend ourselves. Since it was being presented to and used by some as the final word on the US/Soviet military situation, Gervasi decided to present the other side of the argument. Of course it's extremely biased, and I think Gervasi himself would admit that. The point is it provides the other side of the argument, and I think it does that quite effectively. Ken Sheppardson U of Michigan College of Engin Aerospace Engin Dept [mod. note: I was unaware that counterpropoganda was the intent of this book. Certainly, I agree that the original Pentagon document was also quite biased; as an example. I agree that it is written quite effectively... had *me* fooled 8-) - Bill ]
sheppard@caen.engin.umich.edu (Ken Sheppardson) (01/24/89)
In article <3358@cbnews.ATT.COM>, I wrotes:
:
: I believe Gervasi intended the book as a source of counter-propoganda.
:
: [...]
:
: Of course it's extremely biased, and I think Gervasi himself would admit that.
:
: The point is it provides the other side of the argument, and I think
: it does that quite effectively.
:
...and Bill added:
:
: [mod. note: I was unaware that counterpropoganda was the intent of this
: book. Certainly, I agree that the original Pentagon document was also
: quite biased; as an example. I agree that it is written quite
: effectively... had *me* fooled 8-) - Bill ]
I don't think he was trying to *fool* anybody. He just didn't appreciate
the Pentagon taking a range of numbers and using the extreme which would
best suit their purpose, so he presented the other extreme.
Ken Sheppardson
U of M College of Engin
Aerospace Engin Dept