Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: nyu notesfiles V1.1 4/1/84; site rna.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!teddy!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!rna!serge
From: serge@rna.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: We need the arms race (well, not qui
Message-ID: <43000008@rna.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 14-Jan-85 14:34:00 EST
Article-I.D.: rna.43000008
Posted: Mon Jan 14 14:34:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 18-Jan-85 01:40:52 EST
References: <825@watdcsu.UUCP>
Lines: 60
Nf-ID: #R:watdcsu:-82500:rna:43000008:000:3125
Nf-From: rna!serge    Jan 15 14:34:00 1985

>>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. 


>>> No one has pushed the button yet.

>>That dosen't mean it will never happen.

>No, but our record is pretty damn good.  Think back and figure out
>when was the last time the world had fourty years without a major war
>(ie a confrontation of the world powers).

It will only take one nuclear war to finish us for good.
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.
Secondly, we have been lucky that as nuclear systems have
evolved they have had a stabilizing effect on the superpower
level. With the rapid evolution of technology the strategic
facts of life may change or appear to. It is conceivable that
if a theoretically reliable nuclear umbrella were to be created
the side with this advantage may then apper have the option to use it's weapons 
without reprisal. It is, however, interesting to note that the U.S. nuclear
monopoly following WWII did not deter the Soviets from effectively annexing
Eastern Europe.  But that era is one of many missed opportunities for the West,
mistakes which have given shape to the current world situation.

>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. By the same token, our relationship with Israel, Egypt and
the Saudis establish our leadership in the Middle East and keep
the Russians out. The current troubles in Central America are 
being manipulated by both sides. Each side wants it's freinds in
power. Both sides use proxies so that neither is directly involed.
Both sides have had successes and failures. It is still very much
the middle of the game.

My point concerning the Soviet navy was an attempt to illustrate
that the U.S.S.R., a continental power, operates a blue water
navy balanced for the disruption of the sea lanes that the U.S.
depends on. This navy, like the german U-boat fleets of the
last two World Wars, is there to vastly complicate our strategic
position. It is also an example of the Soviets projecting power
way beyond the borders of the Homeland.