Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military From: military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Defense cuts Message-ID: <13143@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 15 Jan 90 01:34:44 GMT References: <12854@cbnews.ATT.COM> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 59 Approved: military@att.att.com From: att!utzoo!henry >From: Randy Appleton >2) One of the 3 Marine divisions... >3) Most (if not all) of the Marine Air Force. ... I'm afraid these cuts strike me as poor ideas. If one has faith in the permanence of recent developments in Europe, then the US is much more likely to have to fight small interventions at random places than all-out wars in Europe. The Marines are the US's real Rapid Deployment Force; they are not just amphibious-invasion specialists. They are also some of the finest infantry units the US has, head and shoulders above most of the US Army. Cutting them is a mistake. So is removing their integral air support -- the US needs more surface units with well-integrated close air support, not fewer. >... If the Marines want air power, let them get it from the CV's. Where do you think most of the USMC aircraft fly from? About the only major exceptions are the Harriers, which are a unique asset and another entry in the "need more, not fewer" column. >7) Couldn't the Coast Guard be more closely integrated with the military? >Didn't they just order some new AEW aircraft? Why couldn't they use some >of the Navy or AF's stuff? ... As I understand it (not well), in the US there are serious legal problems with involving the military in law enforcement. If the Coast Guard is really supposed to interdict a large percentage of the airborne drug flow into the US, they're going to need their own AEW, and lots of it. Military experience indicates that getting more than a modest attrition of attacking aircraft takes massive resources... and fighting a war of attrition against opponents with effectively unlimited resources is futile. This comes under the heading of "you get what you pay for". I'm glad I'm not paying for it. :-) >Any Other Ideas??? Yeah. Get rid of the short-range tactical nuclear weapons. All of them. They are stupid weapons, dangerous and destabilizing, relics of the bygone days of Massive Retaliation, useful only in scenarios that NATO will never be involved in now. They make sense only for (a) a nuclear-backed surprise offensive or (b) a hair-trigger nuclear defence, with warheads flying the instant the Soviets put tanks over the border. Both of these are insane, and there is not the slightest chance of political approval for either. In reality, there would be enormous pressure to avoid any form of nuclear use, and the short-range nukes would be overrun before approval is given. The only tactical nuclear weapons that make any post-INF sense are those carried by aircraft that can be based well in the rear. This would *not* be popular, either in Europe (which still bases its NATO strategy on nuclear first use, to avoid the cost of stronger conventional forces) or in the Pentagon (for one thing, it would take the Army completely out of the nuclear business), but it would be a considerable budget savings and a positive step toward world peace. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu