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.