Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site hou4b.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!ariel!hou4b!mat From: mat@hou4b.UUCP (Mark Terribile) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: poll Message-ID: <1353@hou4b.UUCP> Date: Mon, 11-Mar-85 01:13:14 EST Article-I.D.: hou4b.1353 Posted: Mon Mar 11 01:13:14 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 12-Mar-85 21:57:20 EST References: <527@decwrl.UUCP> <680@sdcsvax.UUCP>, <830@ames.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Holmdel, NJ Lines: 102 >> More and more countries would adopt stances hostile to the U.S. (and pro- >> Soviet, since they have a far superior conventional military presence that >> can pressure little governments out of the way) > >I believe the Soviet conventional superiority ploy to be a myth. Military >power cannot be measured simply by counting weapons, a number of other >factors are CRUCIAL. ... Russia has thousands of miles of hostile boarders, >while the U.S. doesn't ... The Russian fleet must plow through narrow bottle- >necks to get to the open ocean and is divided into four widely separated >groups. Soviet 'allies' in Eastern Europe have repeatedly revolted and could >not be trusted in a major war. In a long, protracted war, the USSR's size and available natural resources (petroleum, almost every metal needed for production of almost every kind of machinery, etc) would work in her favor. In a short war, massive stockpiles of weapons, properly used, can win the day. And the population of the USSR can be formed into armies in a few months. Given a large stockpile of war supplies and an essentially expendable army, the USSR could see herself in a very favorable position. This could lead to a willingness to use or threaten force. As to alliances coming apart, I seriously doubt that the USSR ever plans on relying on any ``ally'' that she does not control. When the British passed Stalin information (gleaned from Enigma decrypts -- see The ULTRA SECRET by FW Wintherbottom) about the forthcoming attack upon the USSR, Stalin did not believe them. After all, what did the British have to gain by genuinely warning him? > ... when Hitler invaded the USSR on June 22, 1941 the Red Army outnumbered >the Wermacht in tanks, men, planes, and almost everything else. In some cases >by margins of 2 and 3 to one. Yet the Germans went through the Russians like >a hot knife through butter - almost reaching Moscow in a few months. >When Japan attacked Russia in 1905, Russia's fleet heavily outnumbered >that of the Japaneese. By the end of the war most of the Russian fleet >was on the bottom while the Japanese lost only a few ships. Yes, due to superior tactics employed by the German armies. Given the number of ``brushfire'' wars and the technology employed in them, it seems unlikely that either side will have the revolutionary abilities to use new weaponry that Rommel, Yammamoto, Patton, or Nimitz demonstrated. New technologies and tactics have been exercised in Viet Nam, in or around Isreal, at the Falklands, and in many other places as well. >Only recently has the Russian fleet recovered, but the cause of the defeat >still remains - an inescapable geographic distribution of the fleet into small >parts that can support each other only with great difficulty. This is how Japan was turned back at Midway -- a failure to concentrate. Remember, however, that our fleet -- and all of NATO's -- has global commitments. Remember that a modern Navy is an air force at sea. No surface fleet can survive, much less operate, under hostile air control. Remember that the USSRs air force outnumbers all of NATO's by about 2 to 1. Consider that the USSR is not likely to make the mistakes that have cost her so dearly in the past ... and that we would be ill-advised to make it clear to the world that we count on those mistakes. Remember also the effectiveness of Soviet disinformation. They learned it from the British after WWII and have become the undisputed master of it. It's simple: make preposterous statements about your own good intentions and the other guy's bad intentions often enough and people will believe them in spite of clear evidence. Penetrate the other guy's intelligence service and you will know everything that he knows ... and more. Discredit those who speak against you, using both open deprecation and clandestine character assasination and soon there will be no credible speakers against you. (Read INTREPID'S LAST CASE) >Also, never forget that Russia is essentially a land power while the >US is primarily a naval power. This is important in any analysis of >relative military strength. Much of that land is hostile to invading forces. Look at what happened to Napoleon's army ... or Hitler's. Both were defeated as much by the Russian winter as by any military operation. Yes, the factors are complex. But can we afford to rely on complex factors that no one can agree upon to overcome clear numerical superiority? As for qualitative superiority, the only hope I have is massivly decreased MTBF and maintenance requirements that newer weapons are supposed to have. In the Battle of Britian, where the 700+ strong RAF fighter command faced daily attack by an enemy with an air force 30 000 strong, reliability and a massive effort at emergency repair were vital to holding the thin line of resistance. At Midway, the herculean effort that put Yorktown back to sea in less than 72 hours was vital. So were the damage control and repair efforts that put her back in the fight less than seven hours after she was hit -- by about the same destructive force that the Akagi took before she had to be scuttled. But how long will it take before all of our ``40 maintenance hours per flight hour'' aircraft are replaced? Before all of the original model Sidewinders and Sparrows that were only marginally effective are replaced by later models or by ASRAAM/AMRAAM series weapons? And will these even work? The USSR has had six or seven new fighters in the last decade or so. We've had three, going on four. Other NATO and allied nations and consortiums have had a few more, but how many of these can they afford to build? And how many will they build with socialists influential in government? Remember that when the USSR was Germany's ally in WWII, ``central committees'' of labor federations urged their members NOT to do any war-related work, but to strike and abandon any production or shipping that could be used to endanger Axis efforts. -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) hou4b!mat ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.