Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxl!houxm!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uokvax!rigney
From: rigney@uokvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: An Alternative to Limited Nuclear Wa - (nf)
Message-ID: <4285@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 1-Dec-83 23:36:05 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.4285
Posted: Thu Dec  1 23:36:05 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 4-Dec-83 04:15:55 EST
Lines: 32

#R:houxu:-24800:uokvax:5000028:000:1479
uokvax!rigney    Nov 30 20:31:00 1983

/***** uokvax:net.politics / houxu!welsch /  5:25 pm  Nov 27, 1983 */

Russia has no choice, but to follow the U.S. in developing this
capability. This in turn will heighten tensions throughout the world as
well as make it more likely for terrorists to obtain nuclear weapons.
/* ---------- */

I'm afraid you've got it backwards.  Russia has been training its
troops to fight on a Nuclear-Chemical battlefied for a long time,
and the use of tactical nukes and chemical weapons is a STANDARD
part of Soviet Military Doctrine.  The U.S. is only now beginning
to think about fighting in such an environment, as it should be.
There's far less incentive to use such weapons if the other side
is both prepared for it and ready to respond in a similar matter.
The ONLY reason the Germans didn't use poison gas during the
Normandy Invasion is that they were afraid the U.S. (excuse me,
I meant Allies) would respond similarly, and the Germans were 
not prepared to be on the receiving end of a gas attack (much
of their transport was horse-drawn, and they couldn't make an
effective gas mask for horses.)
The Terrorism issue is a red herring, I suspect.  Getting a
bomb from a military stockpile is much more difficult than 
getting the raw materials and making it yourself.  Besides,
what does training to fight in a nuclear environment have to
do with increased numbers of nukes?  It's not like they use
live ammo in their nuclear training, you know!-)

	Carl
	..!ctvax!uokvax!rigney