Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: The Nuclear Defense [sic]
Message-ID: <7449@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 29-Dec-86 20:23:23 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.7449
Posted: Mon Dec 29 20:23:23 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 29-Dec-86 20:23:23 EST
References: <271@van-bc.UUCP> <739@ubc-cs.UUCP>, <2596@hcrvx2.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 51

> Someone previously said something along the lines that the likelihood
> of a nuclear war would be greatly reduced if the West unilaterally
> disarmed. I agree. What this person did *not* say is that ... such a policy
> would have an extremely destabilizing effect ... with the nuclear ace in the
> hole [the Kremlin hawks] could most likely achieve all of their objectives
> with only conventional forces.  Let's see ..... the "reunification" of
> Germany might be a good place to start, eh comrade?

Quite likely.  The Soviets haven't forgotten what the Germans did to them
a few decades ago.  They fear Germany.  East Germany is the only Warsaw Pact
state that has Soviet troops stationed in it in peacetime.  The Soviets would
dearly love to have all of Germany, rather than just half of it, under firm
Soviet control to make sure it can never threaten them again.  The split down
the middle of Germany just makes the situation worse, because the Germans
deeply resent it and the Soviets realize this.  The descendants of the
National Socialist (usually abbreviated to "Nazi") party are still a major
force in West German politics, they hate the Soviets to hell and back, and
the Soviets know this too.  They have good reason to fear such forces in a
high-technology (i.e., nuclear-capable) nation.  They would undoubtedly sleep
a lot easier with a few dozen armored divisions occupying West Germany.

This also brings up an issue that the radical disarmament advocates don't
seem to consider:  what happens in the "frontline" states (e.g. W. Germany)
if their nuclear backers (e.g. the US) renounce force, or even just dissolve
the alliances that commit them to support the frontline states?  The comments
in the previous paragraph are nothing new to the Germans; they know that the
Soviets distrust and fear an independent West Germany.  What happens if West
Germany, facing huge nuclear-armed Warsaw Pact armies, feels it has lost its
own nuclear backing?  It will do the same thing that Israel did, faced with
big hostile neighbors and unreliable allies:  build its own nuclear weapons.
[The current debate about whether Israel actually has a nuclear arsenal is
pretty superficial; even if the Israelis are telling the truth about not
having nuclear bombs on hand, nobody doubts that they could assemble some
on damned short notice if they needed them badly enough.]

And then the shit would truly hit the fan.  The Soviets are edgy enough about
Germany now.  They remember how close they came to disaster in 1941, and
which nation was responsible, and are utterly determined that no repetition
will be allowed.  Bad enough that the Germans are capable of building nuclear
weapons, restrained only by treaties (the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
was practically custom-built to suit West Germany) and allies.  What do the
Soviets do when the Germans actually get nuclear weapons, or are obviously
building them?  Rephrased:  right now, those hypothetical armored divisions
occupying West Germany look nice but overly dangerous against the alternative
of coexisting with a non-nuclear Germany restrained by its allies; what do
the Soviets do when that alternative becomes an unrestrained Germany, with
a populace that generally dislikes the Soviet Union and a large faction that
hates it, armed with nuclear weapons?
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry