Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ames-lm.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!harpo!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!ames-lm!al From: al@ames-lm.UUCP (Al Globus) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Unarmed forces Message-ID: <194@ames-lm.UUCP> Date: Mon, 2-Apr-84 23:19:23 EST Article-I.D.: ames-lm.194 Posted: Mon Apr 2 23:19:23 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 5-Apr-84 01:16:41 EST Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA Lines: 58 Well, I lost the original. The gist was to reduce our military to a bare minimum since we could make things hot for an invader anyway. Being invaded, my friend, is a disaster of unparalleled proportions. You just don't want it to happen. Your friends and family get killed, your house gets burnt down, the economy is ruined, the land is torn to pieces. It's just not something you let happen if it can possibly be avoided. Ask the Afgani's. I have a lot of beef with DOD, but they have performed their primary mission - the U.S. has not been invaded AT ALL for a hundred years or so. I have an alternate proposal, actually two, for U.S. military posture. 1. DOD's mission is two fold, defend the U.S. and protect American 'interests' around the world. The second is a catch all for anything the Pres wants to do. Let's get rid of it and require a declaration of war to deploy U.S. armed forces outside of the U.S. and the neighboring oceans. There are two standard arguments against this approach - what about Europe and SOVIET EXPANSION. Well, Europe is quite capable of defending itself. Their economy is as big as ours and they have a long and powerful military tradition. The change over needs to be gradual (10 years?) but is quite doable. As for SOVIET EXPANSIONISM, the best place to stop expansion is in battle. That's happening in Afganistan. We should support the Afgani's in every way possible, including developing weapons specifically for their needs. If the U.S.S.R. is defeated, they'll be reasonable for a decade or two. 2. We do need an offensive arm for a variety of tasks. How about an UNARMED FORCES that the Pres can use in any way he pleases? Before you start the cat calls remember that unarmed forces freed India, got Southern Blacks the vote, have helped cripple the U.S. nuclear industry, and conducted successful missions on Soviet territory within the last year (Greenpeace). All of this with very low casualty rates. Unarmed forces must be willing to accept casualties, after all, what military force doesn't take losses? Or even get wiped out from time to time? That doesn't mean they're useless. And unarmed forces have a pretty good record in terms of missions accomplished. The worst case is when the opponent just mows you down. That happened a few times in India, but overall casualties were very low as liberations go - until the Moslems and Hindus started killing each other. I've wondered a great deal if the U.S. mission in Beruit might have been more successful with a large unarmed force rather that a couple thousand Marines. The locals treated the Marines well at first, only becoming belligerant when the ships started shelling them. An unarmed force could have been much larger without making people afraid of being taken over, and could have sustained a couple hundred casualties before doing a worse job than the Marines. What would be the effect of a few hundred thousand well trained and equiped (body armor, tv cameras linked in real-time to ships off shore, etc.) unarmed men 'attacking' Beruit? We don't have that kind of a force so we'll never know.