Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site ea.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!we13!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ea!mwm From: mwm@ea.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Unarmed forces - (nf) Message-ID: <10100023@ea.UUCP> Date: Mon, 16-Apr-84 19:44:00 EST Article-I.D.: ea.10100023 Posted: Mon Apr 16 19:44:00 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 20-Apr-84 01:49:50 EST References: <194@ames-lm.UUCP> Lines: 23 Nf-ID: #R:ames-lm:-19400:ea:10100023:000:997 Nf-From: ea!mwm Apr 16 18:44:00 1984 #R:ames-lm:-19400:ea:10100023:000:997 ea!mwm Apr 16 18:44:00 1984 Only one superpower? That doesn't sound right. Lets look at what you claimed was true of the us, and compare for the USSR. 1) The soviets couldn't mount a conventional attack on us. True, given that you want both some hope of success, and aren't willing to put up with a large conflict as preparation. But the same is true for us - we couldn't mount an attack on the soviet union that had a prayer of succeeding if we didn't start with a preparatory war. 2) We can project our power to just about anywhere, even adjacent to the USSR if we weren't worried about the soviet response. Likewise true. However, the soviets don't seem to have any problem in the power projection department themselves. Of course, they tend to do things by proxy, but that's true of us, to. The US is in better shape than the soviets as a "military superpower" But if we left the picture, the Soviets would have very little trouble dominating it, with or without their nuclear arsenal.