Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC840302); site ttds.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hao!seismo!mcvax!enea!ttds!alf From: alf@ttds.UUCP (Thomas Sj|land) Newsgroups: net.followup,net.politics Subject: Re: Star Wars Defense Plan Message-ID: <557@ttds.UUCP> Date: Fri, 7-Sep-84 18:11:36 EDT Article-I.D.: ttds.557 Posted: Fri Sep 7 18:11:36 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 14-Sep-84 05:09:03 EDT References: <570@erix.UUCP> Organization: The Royal Inst. of Techn., Stockholm Lines: 78 A few important things are missing in the discussion on nuclear arms and their possible effect on detente. Several debators talk about the indeed terrible effects that a nuclear war would have on our environment and culture, both in east and west. Nobody emphasizes the basic idea behind the buildup of a nuclear force (at least in the west): -- The nuclear force is built up, not to be used aggresively, but to show the Soviets that any aggresive military action on their part directed against the western world, be it nuclear or non-nuclear, might lead to a mutually disastrous nuclear war. The major "use" of a nuclear force is not to actually blow the world to pieces, but to have the force as a support in diplomatic discussions with representatives from the other side. So, a nuclear force is used by not being used. This view, however paranoid or hysterical it may seem, has kept us outside a World War III for almost 40 years now. The newspapers stated a few weeks ago that the Red Army would take over ALL of Western Europe (including Holland) in TWO WEEKS, if they wanted to and the west had only conventional forces to defend itself with. The whole strategy upon which the defense of free Europe is based assumes that USA would use their nuclear force, if necessary, to prevent a Russian attack on Western Europe. If we do not like this doctrine (we might think that it is too risky) but still care about the freedom of the people in Western Europe we have to answer a few questions: -- How should the free world be defended WITHOUT the use of a nuclear force ? How much extra money are we ready to spend on conventional forces to balance the Red Army forces ? -- Is it at all possible to have a defense of the free world without nuclear arms as long as the Soviets have a nuclear threat directed against us ? And if some of us think that the US has too much influence in European matters they must answer to where we should take the money to replace the American forces that are now defending our freedom (yes, even for us who live in countries that are not members of NATO). We, who live neigbors to the Soviets certainly have enough experience in the behaviour of their aggresive military forces: -- in 1952 a Swedish plane was shot down by the Russians over international waters on a mission in the baltic sea. The crew disappeared. A few days later another Swedish plane looking for their colleagues was shot down, also over international water. This crew was picked up and could tell the story of how their were attacked by Soviet planes. -- Even though some information in the matter of submarines in the Swedish archipelago have been exxagerated (Jane's article on Spetznaz-marines 150 boardings of the Swedish coast were not officially approved by the Swedish DOD) there has undoubtedly been several cases of obvious Soviet military activity on Swedish territory. -- The last week's political issue here is that a Soviet Suchoi fighter aircraft taking part in russian attack excercises near the baltic coast was tracked and unambiguosly identified by the swedish defense while it was following a civil aircraft full of tourists with its radar locked for attack on the civil aircraft for several minutes. This went on until the two arcrafts were 30 km over Swedish territory (!) over the island Gotland. When the Swedish fighters sent up to take care of the matter arrived the Russian had gone back to its base in Estonia. The whole matter was to begin with made top secret by the foreign affairs department but a leak to the media made it public. The Soviet answer to the government's demand for an explanation was simply to deny any knowledge of the incident and to counter-attack on the Swedish media which in the view of the Soviets are responsible for an "anti-soviet campaign". Just now the "board of foreign affairs" is discussing what consequences the incident shall have on future Swedish-Soviet relations. Does anyone have any GOOD ideas about how these matters should be handled ? To me it is clear that any talk about disarmament is simply utopian as long as the elderly boys brought up during WW2 are in control in the kremlin.