Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site lasspvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!vax135!cornell!lasspvax!kevin
From: kevin@lasspvax.UUCP (Kevin Saunders)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Those crates
Message-ID: <126@lasspvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 20-Nov-84 11:55:04 EST
Article-I.D.: lasspvax.126
Posted: Tue Nov 20 11:55:04 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 22-Nov-84 06:07:33 EST
References: <20300001@hpfcla.UUCP> <331@whuxl.UUCP> <332@whuxl.UUCP> <201@ut-sally.UUCP> <342@whuxl.UUCP> <>
Reply-To: kevin@lasspvax.UUCP (Kevin Saunders)
Organization: Theory Center (Cornell University)
Lines: 59
Summary: 

In article <> (T C Wheeler) writes:
>if they were worried about invasion, they wouldn't be buying MIGs,
>they would be buying defensive aircraft like some of the French or
>Isralie planes.  You never answered that one Sevener, why?  I ask
>now, Sevener, Why is Nicuragua buying Offensive type weapons?
>Are they thinking about defending their own country?  Or, do they
>have something else in mind?  What would be your reaction if the
>Sandinistas decided to use their new found military might against
>say Honduras, or perhaps to help out the rebels in El Salvador?
>Would this be OK to you, Sevener?  From the tone of your articles,
>it would seem so.
>T. C. Wheeler

Gee, T.C., thinking about armed aggression is enough to get anybody 
irate, but I don't think it's part of T. Sevener's program, so I 
don't think it's appropriate to bait him.

As for alternatives to the MiGs, the Reagan administration will not
tolerate arms sales by friendlies to the Nicas.  The Israelis would not
dream of trying--we don't even allow them to sell Kfirs (GE propulsion
technology) to friendly dictatorships!  (Of course it probably has
*something* to do with preventing competition with Northrop's most
excellent TigerShark.)  As for MiG-21's being an "offensive" weapon, my poor
knowledge leaves me a little puzzled.  It was designed (correct me,
please, if I'm wrong) as a supersonic interceptor, to counter the SAC
bomber force.  It is not designed to function well in a ground support
role, and offers only 30-mm cannon and AA missiles as armament.
(Andrew Cockburn states in _The Threat_:  "Displaying its heritage as
an interceptor, the MiG-21 has extremely bad cockpit visibility":  this
doesn't sound like an effective ground support--i.e., offensive--
aircraft.)

So why the tiff?  Who cares if the Nicas get fast interceptors to
replace their P-51's?  There *must* be a reason . . . at first I
thought, AHA!  The threat to our carriers!  But no, it doesn't seem as
if MiG's can deliver the rather bulky Soviet liquid-fueled cruise
missiles, which are probably an order of magnitude less effective than
the Exocet anyway.  So why?

Finally I thought:  the target would most likely be the AC-47 gunships
we're shipping to El Salvador.  Fat and slow, but very effective
*offensive* ground-support weapons.  MiG's would counter this threat,
and in addition the attack helicopters could be assured of safety (from
the enemy's air arm, at least) while supporting ground units.  (I bet
even the export version AC-47's, sans Gatlings, could eat helicopters
for breakfast.)

Shucks, it looks as if we've made the Nicas nervous with our shipment
of "defensive" weapons to El Salvador.  Those who complain about their
receipt of Mi-24 Hind attack helicopters should recall that the
Nicaraguans are fighting the same kind of war the Salvadorans are
fighting, and that both parties need massive conventional superiority
over the guerillas in order to hold them to a draw.

The problem's not that there's no morality in war,
but that all sides invariably claim it,

Sincerely,
Kevin Eric Saunders