arms-d@ucbvax.ARPA (05/16/85)
From: The Arms-D Moderator (Harold Ancell) <ARMS-D@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 3 : Issue 32
Today's Topics:
Desirability of Neutron Weapons
South Africa, et. al.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 May 85 22:13:42 cdt
From: Scott Renner <renner@UIUC.ARPA>
Subject: desirability of neutron weapons
> ... If a Soviet attack receives a spattering of neutron weapons, some
> of the tank crews will be within the huge-dose area and will die
> immediately. Many more will be within the lethal-dose area; these
> crews will die within a day or two but will *not* be incapacitated
> immediately... The Soviet armored forces are ominous enough, without
> turning them en masse into kamikazes.
> -- Henry Spencer (henry@utzoo)
I've heard this argument before; it was called the zombies-make-good-tankers
argument against the neutron bomb. Its validity depends on a number of
things:
1. The Soviet soldiers must know and believe that they have received a
probably-fatal radiation dose.
2. This knowledge must make them want to continue to fight, presumably
with greater intensity and without concern for self-preservation.
3. The lack of desire to survive must be an advantage to Soviet armored
forces.
How will the soldiers know? I can think of two ways: either their
officers tell them, or they each wear film badges. The first system is
more likely to produce mutiny than kamikazes. The second system might work,
but it would require a lot of indoctrination to convince a soldier that
once the film turns black, he is dead. This sort of training is bad for
morale. Would the Soviets provide it?
What will they do once they find out? Well, some of them might go
kamikaze. Some will just quit; war is unpleasant apart from the risk of
getting killed, so why continue? What can they do to you? A few will
decide to "get even" and charge off to shoot the political officer, or
whatever. Polish units might even change sides. All of this is going to
raise hell with the ability to fight as a unit.
Would a kamikaze armored unit be especially effective? Good question.
Anyone got an answer?
Scott Renner
renner@uiuc.ARPA
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 May 85 07:10:04 EDT
From: dm@bbn-vax.arpa
Subject: South Africa, et. al.
``If you make reform impossible, you make revolution inevitable.''
-- John F. Kennedy
Reagan was so fond of quoting Kennedy during the election campaign, it's too
bad he doesn't use this one.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 May 85 10:08:20 EDT
From: Jeff Miller AMSTE-TOI 4675 <jmiller@apg-1>
Subject: South Africa
To all who responded to my South Africa message:
Dear hearts and gentle people;
I was obviously correct that my questions would arouse emotion as well as
comment.
I am not "in favor" of the white regime or its policies.
My point was, can we discuss an issue that divides between Realpolitik
and moral issues - without waving the ideological absolutism of either?
I was genuinely educated by several comments concerning the strategic
minerals, and tend to agree that perhaps that would not be grounds for
supporting a government we're not comfortable with.
I was not surprised, however that some chose to attack the whole on the
basis of one part. No one commented on the critical position of SA on the oil
shipping lanes. As aware as I am of US determination to expend blood and
treasure to keep the Arabian Gulf open, I would tend to view the "who needs
it?" argument as sophomoric.
As for reasonable arguments against my contention that a majority
regime would be anti- West, I'm still waiting. My basis is history.
Regardless of how nice the masses are, in the major liberation
conflicts of recent years it has been the prime political-military
organization that has kept power away from the masses-
Rhodesia/Zimbabwe: ZANU(after out-maneuvering their weaker partner)
Nicaragua: FSLN, Angola: MPLA. In each case promises of democratic
rule fell to the ambition to rule held by the power elite. In South
Africa the prime political-military organization is the ANC, which is
overtly Marxist, patterned after MPLA style revolutionary/military
convention. As for pie in the sky notions that it is "not too late..."
to overthrow the current regime in SA and replace it with one that
likes us, I believe it is too late. Our relationship to the Pretoria
regime, right or wrong, has sealed our fate in terms of the hearts and
minds of the ANC membership. Whether or not the same is true of the
overall black population is moot, history tells us that their opinions
and aspirations will count for as little under ANC rule as now.
** Back to the emotional issue, there was one responsible
citizen who couldn't resist implying that I might have been pro-
Nazi Germany on the basis of Realpolitik alone. If that person
had a grasp of history, they would know that were I an absolute
Realpolitiker, I would have judged that regime a major potential
threat to US by simple fact of expansionism and militarism.
Somehow, no matter how militarist they are, nor how ambitious
they become, I don't feel particularly threatened by the current
SA regime. **
J. MILLER
------------------------------
Date: 15 May 85 10:39:49 EDT
From: Hank.Walker@CMU-CS-UNH
Subject: Dealing with Nasty Governments
Perhaps this belongs on Poli-Sci, but why can't the US use its real power,
its economic power, when dealing with nasty people like the South African
government. Why can't the US just buy South Africa? How much can it cost?
$50 billion? If we buy the South African 500, we can have all these
companies follow the Sullivan Principles, and simultaneous defy laws on
segregated housing, etc. It would be real easy to buy Nicaragua, but
probably won't solve any problems there.
[Moderator: In 1978, the GNP of South Africa was 45.9 billion dollars.
I will let the reader supply a price multiple sufficient to pry away a
land whose rulers think is their God given mandate to inhabit.]
------------------------------
[End of ARMS-D Digest]