Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site fisher.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!fisher!david From: david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re: Harold Brown and the arms race Message-ID: <469@fisher.UUCP> Date: Mon, 7-Jan-85 09:19:07 EST Article-I.D.: fisher.469 Posted: Mon Jan 7 09:19:07 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 8-Jan-85 13:20:43 EST References: <1133@drusd.UUCP> <2082@randvax.UUCP> Organization: Princeton Univ. Statistics Lines: 37 [Please skip to the last paragraph if you're not interested in my opinion: there's a brief point I'd like to make.] Tony Johnson rightly points out that the USSR's leadership would likely "accept" a higher number of casualties than the US would. However, the Soviet leaders will not find the destruction of their state acceptable, and the Soviet state is far more fragile than ours. The Soviet government maintains its centralized rule over its subject nationalities by force. Even if a nuclear exchange were to kill an "acceptable" number of Soviet citizens (say only 50-100 million), the destruction of Soviet industry, centers of government, and disproportionately high casualties among the one nationality (Russian) which could be expected to show spontaneous loyalty to the regime, would severly disrupt the Soviet state. In fact, the USSR would certainly splinter if the surviving leadership did not apapt to the new state of affairs by permitting local governments tremendous autonomy. To destroy its foreign opponents at the price of losing control of its own peoples would be for the Soviet leadership to win a battle but lose a war. Yes, the Soviet leaders have different interests than we do, but if they are not restrained by Biology, they will be by Politics. (last paragraph) Proposition: If the Soviets are now capable of killing off 150-200 million Americans (which they are) AND they would only sustain "acceptable" losses themselves AND they are not constrained by humanistic considerations, then they would strike NOW. Thus at least one of the assumptions must be incorrect, and, rather argue for the goodness of Chernenko's heart, I presume they consider their likely losses "unacceptable". Soviet inaction is the greatest testimonial to the adequacy of American deterrence, and observation is more trustworthy than theory. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david