Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hou3c.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!ihnp4!houxm!hocda!hou3c!ka
From: ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Being Nasty To The Good Ol' SU
Message-ID: <154@hou3c.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 24-Dec-83 01:37:45 EST
Article-I.D.: hou3c.154
Posted: Sat Dec 24 01:37:45 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 26-Dec-83 01:09:27 EST
References: <1039@mit-eddie.UUCP> <282@cdi.UUCP>, <1070@mit-eddie.UUCP> <1487@rlgvax.UUCP>, <151@hou3c.UUCP> <1504@rlgvax.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ
Lines: 36

In my previous article, I claimed that there was no solid evidence
that the Soviet Union is using of has used chemical weapons in
Afghanistan.  The article I was following up tried to support the
claim that the Soviet's were using chemical weapons in Afghanistan
by arguing that it was in Andropov's interest to avoid defeat in
Afghanistan.  I should have dismissed this argument as silly.  Even
experts on the Soviet Union don't claim to predict what the Soviet
Union will do with any degree of certainty, so an analysis by some-
one who is not, as far as I know, an expert, hardly qualifies as
solid proof.

Instead, I pointed out two flaws in his reasoning.  I pointed out
that the Soviets did not need chemical weapons to avoid defeat in
Afghanistan, and I claimed that it was in the Soviet Union's inter-
est not to be caught violating treaties banning chemical weapons.
Plunkett now objects to the second half of my argument because,
"When it comes to protecting the interests of the members of the
Politburo, the very last consideration that would flicker through
their minds would be a concern for Western opinion."  It's hard
to see why the Soviet Union went to the trouble of thinking up lies
if it was unconcerned about Western opinion.  It's also hard to see
what simple things the Soviet Union could have done to appease
Western opinion.  The reason for the Soviet behavior is obvious
in hindsight.  Like any huge bureaucracy, the Soviet government
tends to err on the side of caution.  Therefore, it took the "safest"
path, which was to make no admissions that could be used by Western
propagandists to hurt the Soviet Union.  This analysis is a vast
oversimplification of real events, and it would be foolish to pre-
dict on this basis how the Soviet's will react in another situation.

In short, I don't think that it is possible to prove that the Soviets
are using chemical weapons by examining their motivations, and even
if it were, Plunkett doesn't seem to have much talent at that sort
of analysis.
				Kenneth Almquist