Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.followup
Subject: Re: Disarm. & Foreign Policy
Message-ID: <4379@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 27-Sep-84 14:30:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: utzoo.4379
Posted: Thu Sep 27 14:30:06 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 27-Sep-84 14:30:06 EDT
References: <318@ihu1e.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 54

> Now there are some heavy weight decision makers out there starting to
> think  in  terms  of  winning  a  nuclear war.  ...

Let us not forget that the notion of "winning a nuclear war" has never
been foreign to Soviet military thought, if only in the sense that the
U.S. must never be in a position to do so.  This is not a question of
the Soviets being evil, just of them having a rather different view of
WW3 and how to prevent it.

For a long time, U.S. doctrine has been (generally speaking) that a
nuclear war is an unthinkable disaster, and that the way to prevent it
is to make this absolutely clear to the Soviets.  I.e., deterring war
by convincing the Soviets that it would be an unthinkable disaster for
them too.  It is worth emphasizing that THE SOVIET VIEW IS NOT QUITE
THE SAME.  Their doctrine is that nuclear war would be a terrible
disaster that must be avoided, and that the best way to do this is to
convince the U.S. that it cannot possibly win such a war.

Please note that both sides agree that a nuclear war is undesirable
and should be avoided.  [Even the recent U.S. rumblings about winning
a nuclear war have not, to my knowledge, suggested starting one.]
But it is crucial to realize that the two sides do not agree on exactly
how it should be prevented.  The U.S. has a tendency to assume that the
Soviets think exactly the same way the U.S. does, and to build elaborate
hypothetical scenarios on this basis.  Everyone should really be aware
that the Soviets are *not* reading from the same script!

Seen in this light, certain Soviet actions can be explained without
invoking fundamental evil on the Soviet side.  The Soviet Union must
be prepared to *fight* a nuclear war, so well prepared that the U.S.
will clearly perceive the impossibility of winning.  Of course, the
Soviets prepare for such a war according to their own doctrines of
how to fight a war.  For example, they are great believers in counter-
battery fire -- knocking out the opponent's artillery -- so the
notion of a first strike to knock out the enemy's ICBMs before they
can be used is obvious and natural, not a "major change in policy".
Similarly, they do not believe in holding civilians as hostages --
note that this is the basis of U.S. deterrence policy! -- since it
is quite irrelevant to *fighting* a war.  Missiles should obviously
be aimed at military targets, not cities (unless the cities contain
targets of military importance).  And the concept of communications
and control systems that can survive an attack is clearly of first
importance, without any implication of intent to start a war.

The Soviets -- by and large -- are not evil monsters bent on the
conquest of the world out of sheer malice.  (Some small fraction of
them are bent on it because orthodox doctrine says it is right, but
this is no different from any other form of religious fanaticism.)
But they take a rather different approach to some things than the
U.S. does, and they have a different view of many issues.  It would
be nice (to put it mildly!) if this was better understood.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry