From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!npois!ucbvax!C70:arms-d Newsgroups: fa.arms-d Title: Arms-Discussion Digest V0 #106 Article-I.D.: ucb.1076 Posted: Fri May 14 20:52:40 1982 Received: Sat May 15 04:18:57 1982 >From HGA@MIT-MC Fri May 14 20:44:39 1982 Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 0 : Issue 106 Today's Topics: Nitrates in my politics, the withering of the left, Elections and arms ZRM's reply (and prophecy) Reprogramming Cruise Missles The Defense Appropriation Bill ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Friday, 14 May 1982 10:27-EDT From: Jon WebbSubject: Nitrates in my politics, the withering of the left, Please try to keep political commentary off this list. Everybody has opinions on things like what happened in El Salvador. I think its pretty stupid to claim a "clear swing to the right" when there was nobody on the left to vote for. But remember, this is ARMS-D, not POLI-SCI! Jon ------------------------------ Date: 14 May 1982 12:20-EDT From: Zigurd R. Mednieks Subject: Elections and arms Maybe it got lost in the surrounding flamage, but there a strong relationship between successfully containing guerilla wars and not mucking up the local politics. Letting the choice of the Salvadorian voters stand, even if we find their choice is not what we had in mind, will help end the violence in El Salvador. Part of a discussion on arms should be about where they are not useful alone. Particularly since firepower and victory correlated rather badly in Viet Nam, learning how *not* to escalate a conflict fits well in a discussion on arms. This argument cuts both ways: If the Salvadorians stayed home and went about aiding the guerillas, it would be a signal for us to get out and cut our losses. If the Slavadorians don't like our ideas, not even the best equipped air cavalry will change their minds. As it was, the rebels did make a showing in the election -- with a terrorist campaign intended to make people afraid to vote. The results of the election, with a shift from the center to the right and a large turnout *do*, in fact, indicate a clear swing to the right. Results that would indicate otherwise would have to have some elements of either a poor turnout or a poor showing for the rightist candidates. Neither of these happened. Nor am I expressing just my opinion on what the election results mean. These results have been analysed by more and less influential analysts and the opinions of the editors of the Economist and the Christian Science Monitor are good indicators of what actually happened. The impact of these election results on the conflict in El Salvador is what people on this list are interested in. These results indicate that we are doing well in containing an insurgency in a developing country. They also indicate that sending in the Marines is not, in this case, the right thing to do. (Nor are the lessons of El Salvador universally applicable: The Soviet Union appears ready to shoot as many Afganistanis as it takes to win.) As can be seen in the case of El Salvador, and somewhat in the case of the Falklands conflict, politics and diplomacy can be the tools of military strategy. Winning limited wars is a very apropos topic, considering the destructive power of today's weaponry. Learning of the limited usefulness of arms, and learining how to use arms with restraint and still win are very important topics. We should choose our arms to fit the conflicts we will find ourselves in and the recent events in El Salvador have much to teach us. I do apologise for trashing the Democrats on arms-d, though. Cheers, Zig ------------------------------ Date: 14 May 1982 12:30-EDT From: Zigurd R. Mednieks Subject: Re ZRM's reply (and prophecy) My temporal ruler says evil is timeless. Cheers, Zig ------------------------------ Date: 14 May 1982 13:59:22-EDT From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX Subject: Re: Re ZRM's reply (and prophecy) In response to your [ZRM's] message of Fri May 14 13:00:48 1982: Burke and de Tocqueville are evil? My, my. ------------------------------ Date: 14 May 1982 20:55-EDT From: RMS at MIT-AI I have been told that the crew of a B-52 can change the targets of their cruise missiles. If this is true, perhaps it is only from a predetermined set of targets, or within certain geographical areas. The reason I envisioned striking at silos to prevent relaunches is that I don't know that we can tell where the spare missiles are stored. If we can tell, then indeed it would be easier to destroy them directly. I wonder whether the Russians need to put the spare missiles into silos to launch them. Do the silos provide some facility for launching? The description of cold launch makes it sound as though maybe they are not needed for launching, only for protection. Does anyone know how many days after a nuclear blast it is safe for people in some sort of protective gear to spend a few hours on the scene? I seem to recall it was only a few days later that people went to the sites of the WWII blasts. Near misses on the silos may delay reloading only for a few days. ------------------------------ Date: 14 May 82 23:27:11-EDT (Fri) From: J C Pistritto Subject: Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V0 #105 The Defense Appropriation Bill The Senate, after a marathon 17 hour debate, today approved the largest military spending bill in US history, ($177 billion for new weapons), less than $5 billion less than President Reagan reqeusted. The bill now goes to the House. The vote was 49 to 45 in the Senate. Included in the bill are upgrades to virtually every segment of the US military, including the first real installment in the US Navy rearmament plan, designed to give the US 600 ships and assured naval superiority by the year 1990. Also included were funds to build the MX missile, the B-1 bomber, and continuing development of the Stealth aircraft. Among the losses for the President, procurement of additional C-5B Galaxy transport aircraft was shelved in favor of purchasing cargo 747s from the nations ailing airlines, (at bargain prices, I hear). Funds were included for construction and initial production runs from the nation's first chemical warfare manufacturing facility, (nerve agents), since the US unilaterally disbanded its chemical effort under President Nixon. The Air Force will get more F-15 and F-16 fighters than it would have previously, and more A-10 attack aircraft will be produced, as the West's best non-nuclear answer to Russian tanks. The Navy will get one its two new nuclear supercarriers of the Nimitz class, with the second coming later. The Aegis class missile cruiser program will continue, bolstered by recent evaluations of the Falklands fighting. A more detailed summary will be presented when next weeks AW&ST comes out, I got most of this from fragmentary news reports. -JCP- ------------------------------ End of Arms-D Digest ********************