Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdcsu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watdcsu!haapanen
From: haapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen [DCS])
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: The arms race -- and Finlandization
Message-ID: <840@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 18-Jan-85 09:11:59 EST
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.840
Posted: Fri Jan 18 09:11:59 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 18-Jan-85 10:35:12 EST
References: <825@watdcsu.UUCP> <43000008@rna.UUCP>
Reply-To: haapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen [DCS])
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 82

In article <43000008@rna.UUCP> serge@rna.UUCP writes:
>>>The U.S. started the nuclear arms race. 

>>Yes, BUT!  The arms races have always existed.  Take a look at Europe
>in the 1930's, or at just about any time in history.  It just that now
>we've got bigger and better sling and rocks to play with.

>Nuclear weapons are very different from more traditional slings and
>rocks. With the possible execption of biological agents no other weapon
>can lay total waste to this planet. If nuclear weapons  had not been developed
>and brandished they way they were today's arms race may have been
>composed of less comprehensively destructive systems. 

I just love the way you say 'if nuclear weapons had not been developed'.
OK, let's assume the US did not build the bomb in the 40's (and still
beat up Japan).  Do you honestly believe that either the U.S. or the
Russkies wouldn't have come up with a bigger sling?  i.e., neither of
them would have been happy with conventional weapons because they
could not achieve superiority (and this is basic human nature,
especially in the people who lead nations).  *Somebody* would have
invented something worse --- take your pick from nuclear, bacterial,
chemical, climatological,making earthquakes, ....  Conventional arms
were not here to stay.

>One mistake on our record and we and our record become a moot point.
>We have been lucky that there have been no mistakes due
>to techinical, terrorist or political miscalculations.

I'll give you this point, although I wouldn't call it quite 'luck'.
Still, a mistacke *could* be made.

>>The Russians play to win.  Historically, they haven't attacked anybody
>>that wasn't supposed to be an `easy prey'.  U.S. isn't one.  Finland
>>and Afghanistan were supposed to be :-).

>Obviously the Soviets aren't going to go for the U.S. directly.
>Do we go for they Soviets directly? No. The global game at this 
>point is one of small gains, of jockeying for position. Afganistan
>is in line with certain elements of Soviet strategy. Finland and
>the Finlandization of Europe is an attempt to undermine our NATO
>alliance.

I really don't think you should speak of 'Finlandization' unless you
know exactly what Finland's position is geopolitically, economically
and militarily.  (1) Finland is not part of any military alliance.
The so-called 'YYA-pact' with the Russians specifies that if any
foreign power attempts to invade the Soviets through Finnish
territory, the Finns must defend against these invaders.  It is *not*
a military alliance.

(2) Economically, Finland is part of the West.
It has traditionally been a member of EFTA (European Free Trade
Association), is an outside member of the EEC (European Economic
Community), and has over 80% of its trade in the West.  The economic
system may have rather heavy taxation, but free enterprise still
manages to flourish, and there are no restrictions on private
ownership etc.

(3) The geopolitical position of Finland is almost as
bad as Poland's.  It has been historically run over several times,
especially by the Swedes and the Russians.  Subsequent to independence
in 1917, Finns succesfully defended the Russian invasion in the Winter
War of 1939-40, and again in 1941-44 when they were sucked into the
maelstrom of WW2.  The price in 1944, however, extracted a heavy
price, including great territorial losses and the ceding of the
second-largest Finnish city.  Having a super-power next door does sort
of force you to be careful about whose toes you step on; however, it
does not prevent you from exercising neutrality in international
politics.  Finland has never been a member of any political
organization except the United Nations and the Nordic Council, both
which are (at least in theory) unaligned.


\tom haapanen		university of waterloo	      	(519) 885-1211 x2324

allegra \
clyde \  \
decvax ---- watmath --- watdcsu --- haapanen
ihnp4 /  /
linus  /		The opinions herein are not those of my employers,
			of the University of Waterloo, and probably not of
			anybody else either.