arms-d@ucbvax.ARPA (05/19/85)
From: The Arms-D Moderator (Harold Ancell) <ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 3 : Issue 35
Today's Topics:
Enhanced Radiation Warthogs, Again
Realpolitik vs. Good, Truth, and Beauty
Disinformation
DEFCONs
Nuclear Disarmament and Miltary Strength, Soviet Evacuation
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 May 85 03:13:28 EDT
Subject: enhanced radiation warthogs, again
From: dm@bbn-vax.arpa
Gee, I always thought that the ``neutron bomb'' was canned because it was
expensive and ineffectual as an anti-tank weapon.
Ineffectual: As a Russian tank commander faced with an opponent armed with
enhanced radiation artillery shells, you can just change tactics slightly to
render the ERWs pretty ineffective: space your tanks farther apart (I think
about a half-mile apart is enough). Now NATO has to use one ERW per tank,
and since ERWs are so expensive, NATO probably doesn't HAVE one ERW per tank.
But really you won't have to worry about ERWs, anyway. As nuclear weapons,
the NATO field commander would have to get permission from the President of the
United States, as well as the government of the host country before using
them. By the time such permission comes, your tanks will be in the streets of
Bonn, anyway. Lucky for you NATO chose to deploy neutron bombs, rather than
spend their money on conventional artillery shells the troops on the front
could fire at you as soon as your tanks crossed the border into Germany.
Which brings us to expensive: I read in the Nation (not the most reliable of
sources) that the cost of a single ERW artillery shell would buy 9000
conventional artillery shells (this number is too high for me to really trust
my memory, I'm sure someone will provide a more reliable figure). It would
also be useful to spend some money on tanks or cannons to shoot the artillery
shells with, which expensive ERWs force one to forego.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 May 85 03:52:24 EDT
From: dm@bbn-vax.arpa
Subject: realpolitik vs. good, truth, and beauty
Maybe this discussion should move to Poli-Sci...
Do we have to hold our noses and support South Africa because of our strategic
interests? Are reform movements are inevitably taken over by Soviet
controlled factions?
Here are two countries where a repressive military government has been
overthrown and the result has NOT been a Soviet puppet: Argentina, Brazil.
While incompetence in the Falklinas was the immediate cause of the fall of the
Argentinian junta, when Alphonsin was inaugurated he invited the woman who had
been Jimmy Carter's Undersecretary of State for Human Rights to attend the
ceremony. THAT'S REALPOLITIK FOR YOU.
Here is a former Soviet puppet that is no longer: Egypt.
We tend to notice things only when they go ``wrong'' (as Nicaragua is thought
to be going ``wrong'') and overlook the things that are working okay. So we
think the only alternative to Communism is Fascism.
Guess who's buying most of leftist Angola's oil (Mobil). Where are all the
strategic minerals mined in leftist Zimbabwe shipped (not to mention strategic
coffee reserves)? Not the Soviet Union.
I don't think Realpolitik can justify continued support for the South African
regime, even at this late date.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 May 85 11:03:45 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC>
Subject: Disinformation
miller@APG-1 - Mod.]
The only thing I admire about the KGB is their ability to
accomplish their mission of serving the USSR's strategic interests
with the support of their own poulace as well as large segments of
their targets' populaces. I'm jealous. I would rather emulate an
enemy's tactics to defeat him then sit back and accomodate him,
philosophizing about how that is the "democratic thing to do."
Maybe you've been in the intelligence business too long. An old
saying (come from Russia, I think) points out that you better choose
your enemies carefully, for that is who you will become. Maybe you've
forgotten that the main difference between the US and the Soviet Union
worth fighting for is not that we are on different sides (though that
is certainly true), but that we are supposed to embody the *best* of
what mankind has to offer.
By the way, KGB penetration of the Freeze has already been
proven.
KGB penetration of the freeze has indeed been demonstrated. But the
same reports also acknowledge that the freeze is not KGB inspired. So
far you have not come up with a sensible response to the claim that
KGB assistance to a good cause is not a bad thing; your response has
been -- in essence -- that if they do it, it must be bad for the US or
else they wouldn't do it. That doesn't wash. I -- and most likely
any one of several other ARMS-D readers -- would be willing to debate
the merits of the freeze with you (though I am not an unqualified
supporter of it), but not with the suggestion that we have been
co-opted by the KGB; as you point out, they only go after big fish,
and I certainly don't qualify as that.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 May 85 11:06:57 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC>
Subject: DEFCONs
Defcon 5 is lowest; Defcon 1 is highest, but it is not war itself.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 May 85 11:34:28 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC>
Subject: nuclear disarmament and miltary strength, soviet evacuation
From: pduff%ti-eg.csnet at CSNET-RELAY
I've heard that if everyone agrees to stop replacing the plutonium
triggers, everything becomes inoperative after about seven years).
Actually, it is the tritium triggers (half-life of 12 years).
Which super-power would benefit the most initially, or be in the
best position during and after the transition years? In your opinion,
from a purely military perspective (i.e., not considering
environmental arguments against nuclear weapons), should the U.S be
"for" or "against" such a disarmament plan?
How do you want to measure military strength? Tell us this and at
least we can argue about an answer. Without a measure, we can't even
argue productively.
[What to do is Soviets being evacuating]
No other unusual military activity has been observed.
If you really mean this, then I suspect my answer is do nothing, on
the grounds that my observer in Moscow has a few screws loose. Why?
Because it is inconceivable that the Soviets would so such a thing
without generating their strategic forces (flushing their subs,
increasing alert levels of ICBMs).
If such military activity has been observed, then the question is more
interesting. My response would be to jack up the DEFCON and use the
hot line to demand explanations, and jack it up further if no
believeable answers were forthcoming.
[Does anyone want to argue that such a USSR-wide evacuation
could/would never happen?]
I think it could happen, in the same way that we could still evacuate
NYC using unworkable plans.
------------------------------
[End of ARMS-D Digest]