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!mhuxr!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!rna!serge
From: serge@rna.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: We need the arms race
Message-ID: <34700001@rna.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 17-Jan-85 17:56:00 EST
Article-I.D.: rna.34700001
Posted: Thu Jan 17 17:56:00 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 14-Jan-85 00:58:17 EST
References: <733@loral.UUCP>
Lines: 148
Nf-ID: #R:loral:-73300:rna:34700001:000:8079
Nf-From: rna!serge    Jan 11 17:56:00 1985


>/***** rna:net.flame / loral!rfs /  8:24 pm  Jan  7, 1985*/
>Who cares about the arms race?	I was born in 1947 and we had the bomb.
>Since 1953 both the Soviets and the US have had the bomb.

The U.S. started the nuclear arms race. If we had not continued
testing and developing nuclear weapons after WWII things may have been diffrent.
Soviet military doctrine had no coherent nuclear strategy until the
mid-50's, they were merely trying to match our capabilities.
Of course now nuclear weapons are critical elements of the strategic
picture for both sides.

> No one has pushed the button yet.

That dosen't mean it will never happen.

>The Soviets will never attack us unless we attack them first.  Look
>at their history.  They're bassically cowards.  Before world war II
>they attacked small helpless countries on their borders (i.e Poland
>in 1939 (along with hitler)).  Since WW II they've attacked only
>helpless countries DIRECTLY on their borders (Hungary, Checz, Afganastan
>and threatened Poland).  If you think about it they've never gone
>beyond their borders.  The US on the other hand goes acrossed oceans
>and attacks another country.  We have guts.  Sometimes more guts than
>brains.  We should'nt worry about the Soviets as long as we don't
>bother their MOTHERLAND.

It is true that until the mid '60s the Russians did not have a truly
global military capability. We proved that in the Cuban Missle crisis.
However, today they have a true blue water navy with more ships than
ours (technologically less capable,yes, but the Soviets have opted for
greater numbers hoping to saturate the defences of our smaller fleet).
The most disturbing thing about this navy is that the USSR is a continental
power, controlling most of Asia, having all but three of it's strategic
material needs satisfied by resources within it's own borders. We, on
the other hand are a maritime power, relying heavily on our Sea Lanes
Of Comunications (SLOCs). If you look at both navies you notice that
the Soviet forces are designed to cut our SLOCs while our navy is
designed to keep them open. The Russians are ready to go for our
jugular, so don't tell me they haven't gone beyond thier borders.

As for thier conquests in Eastern Europe and Afganistan these
also have a global conquest element. The Eastern European 
slave states form a buffer between the Soviet Union and the West.
Both we and the Russians seem to believe that the major theatre
of warfare in the next hypothetical (i hope) World War shall be
europe. This is evidenced by the massive buildups of arms in Europe.
The buffer states exist because, as a huge continental power, the
the Russian military doctrine has always been to trade real estate
for time and position. Just look at their military history. 
The buffer states add more real estate to play with and delay
the enemy from actually getting within thier borders.

Afganistan was taken over because the Russians are trying to get
a naval base on the rim of the Indian Ocean, that has a direct
and unbroken line of supply to thier homeland. Soviet military
doctrine favors central control and thus favors operations
that are as directly linked to thier homeland as possible.
This also explains the Soviet emphisis on land based nuclear missles,
since these always lie within thier borders and thus afford the
highest level of security with respect to control. At any rate,
the Indian Ocean base is important because all of the current
Soviet naval bases are situated behind choke points where our
Anti-Sub and Anti-Ship Warfare forces can concentrate thier efforts.
The rim of the Indian Ocean is also attractive because of it's
proximity to our oil supply.

>The arms race is good for peace.  We make something then the Soviets
>make it too.  We have more money than they do.	If we keep this	up
>they will go BANKRUPT and we win.  Why do you think they're in Geneva
>this week for arms talk.  Their losing the arms race.  Especially
>in space.  The're running out of BUCKS.  What they want is a rest
>so they can catch up.  We were stupid once and gave them the SALT I
>treaty.  We stopped and they caught up (took ten years).

>We ought to keep up the pressure and crank out those new weapon systems.

The question of the goodness of the arms race and driving the Soviets
bankrupt is not so simple. The problem with arms agreements is thier
verifiability and enforceablity. Another problem is that the technology
changes so fast that by the time an agreement is reached it may no
longer mean very much. Still without talks the arms race is completely
out of control. At least with talks there is hope. We should not
talk ourselves into a disadvantage (very unlikely with Reagan), but
we should try diplomacy where ever possible.

Driving the Russians bankrupt is a dangerous gamble. Some say that
the next generation of Soviet leaders show a greater leaning toward
working on internal problems. If so, this would mark a period where
Russia again turns inward to deal with her problems. The current
militarism is typical of the Russian tactic of blaming foriegn
enemies for internal problems, so as to justify the sad state of
it's economy and system to it's people. If the inward trend comes
about, and we have our lines open to the Soviets then we may see
some positive results. Unfortunantly, the old guard is still in
control so that this posibility does not yet exist.

In either case, we must be careful not to back the Soviets into
a corner. If we start putting to big a technological distance
between us and them, they may get agressive while they still can.
Just think what would happen as we begin to build a ICBM shield.
As that sheild goes up, the concept of Mutal Assured Destruction
and Counter Force start to go out the window and First Strike and 
the Winnable Nuclear War become a reality (at least in theory) 
for our side. It may become a matter of use 'em or loose 'em
for the Russians, depending on the state of world tensions
at that time.

Or more likely, if thier economy starts comming apart, they may
start something to divert thier populace's attention to external
problems. They may try to heat up the world situation in some way,
which always raises the odds for an major conflict.

On the other hand, if don't do enough they will continue
thier salami tactics. Slice off a piece here, slice off a piece there.
Finlandize the rest of europe. Consolidate the third world support.
Expand the borders bit by bit. The Russians can be very patient.
The arms race can be used to keep them off balance, but it takes
finesse, not loud mouth demagougery.

What the U.S. has lacked (and the Soviets have not) is a long term,
well thought out, strategic program intergrating all aspects of
economy, military and diplomacy. We must take a good long look
at what we want for ourselves and the world and then go ahead
and work towards it. We are inherently stronger than the Soviets
because our society and economy has a fundamentally better orgainization
(a topic in itself), if only we weren't so stupid and short sighted.
All we do nowadays is support unpopular third world leaders just
because they are not socialists. We should assert our strength in
positive ways. We should police those we keep in power and make
sure that the interests of the people they rule are realised. 
We should show to the world that we are commited to justice,
freedom and economic growth. Perhaps this is to much to ask,
but the alternative is not pleasent.


>Hey the Chinese learned their lesson.  They came
>around.

The Chinese are still very much a Marxist-Leninist Totalitarian 1984-type
state. They are doing what the young Soviet state did in the '20s,
namely courting money hungry capitalists who see a market for
thier goods. Sure, they just love our technology and our weapons
systems. Sure, they are at odds with the other great Asian power,
the USSR, who also are at odds with us. But don't be fooled,
they are only doing what is thier interest and they have no
special love for the U.S. and no desire to become a Capitalist-Style
Democracy.