Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site talcott.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!gjk
From: gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Euromissiles (reply to Kuperberg)
Message-ID: <397@talcott.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 6-Apr-85 23:51:04 EST
Article-I.D.: talcott.397
Posted: Sat Apr  6 23:51:04 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 9-Apr-85 00:49:33 EST
References: <385@talcott.UUCP> <509@abnji.UUCP>
Organization: Harvard
Lines: 80

> >If you find 100 American missile warheads in Europe (that is, other than
> >the Pershing II's), I'll give you a cigar.  My source, which is the New
> >State of the World Atlas (by Michael Kildron and Ronald Segal, says that
> >there aren't that many warheads deployed in Europe by the U.S.
> 
> Firstly, we are deploying over 300 cruise missles in Europe.  You forgot to 
> put an exception on them in your request! :-) (Keep the cigar, I am allergic
> to tobacco.)
> 
> However, a serious question:  What about the US nuclear submarines that are
> always patrolling near or in European waters?  Admittedly, they are 
> "strategic" nuclear weapons as opposed to "tactical" nuclear weapons,
> but they are there.  (I have seen one in Scottish waters.)
> 
> By the way, lets hope that when our cruise missles start falling on
> Soviet soil, they remember that they are "tactical" warheads, while
> millions of their citizens die, and don't use their "strategic" warheads.
> 
> (From what I've read, the Russians do not really make a difference 
> between those two.)

No cigar yet, because we have not yet deployed the cruise missiles (I
thinkk--don't flame me if I'm wrong).  In any case, the important point is
that the Soviets had several hundred SS-20's *in 1979*, before we even
thought of putting cruise missiles and Pershings in Europe.  The fact of
the matter is that in 1979 we had very few nukes that could actually reach
the Soviet Union.  Most of those that could were deployed in bombers, which
are no comparison to IRBM's.  Why do the Russians not make a difference
between tactical and strategic?  Because it's convenient; it makes our
arsenal look bigger.  They simply choose to ignore the fact that most
tactical warheads will not be used in a missile exchange.

> >And the Soviet Union?  In SS-20's alone, they had at least 200 (I'm not
> >sure on the exact figure; it may be more) in 1979, which was before the
> >Pershing plan was thought up.  Each SS-20 has three warheads, can reach any
> >point in Europe, and is deployed far behind the Soviet border.  Even the
> >Pershing II's can only reach *some* of the SS-20's deployed in Europe.  All
> >told, the Soviets had *at least* 600 missile warheads versus *at most*
> >300 French and British missile warheads before any knowledge of deployment
> >of Pershing II's and cruise missiles by NATO.
> 
> The USSR deployed 333 SS-20's for 999 warheads.  I do not know the total
> number on launchers, but it is less that 333, and I don't know the total 
> reload time.

The Soviet Union is still deploying them.  Last count according to Jim
Matthews:  over 400.  During Reagan's first four years, the US deployed 100
Pershing II's; the Soviet Union deployed 200 or 300 more warheads during
the same period.
 
> A "defensive" weapon, in my mind, is something that prevents the user from
> being killed.  A shield, for example, or armour.  Regardless of their range,
> the British and French weapons are offensive, ie. Their sole purpose (in use)
> is to kill other people.

British and French weapons are defensive in the sense that they are
absolutely useless to the two countries in almost any realistic offensive
on any other nation.  Simply by the rules of warfare, they will only be
used if Britain or France is attacked.

> >"No Marxist can deny that the interests of socialism are higher than the
> >interests of the right of nations to self-determination." -Lenin, 1918
> 
> This sounds no worse that Nixon and Chile.  Most socialists in Britain
> have little or no respect for the USSR.  I assume the same is true in
> the democratic countries.  The USSR is a capitalist state, with the sole
> capitalist being the state, the sole beneficiaries are the (higher) members
> of the Communist Party, and the exploited are still the working classes.
> ---
> James C. Armstrong, Jnr.   ihnp4!abnji!nyssa

My quote is utterly irrelevant to Nixon, Chile, Britain, and the Russian
economy.  However, it is very relevant to, among other things, the current
situation in Nicaragua.
-- 
			Greg Kuperberg
		     harvard!talcott!gjk

"The eerily accurate drawing of Goetz showed the face of the 'before'
figure in comic-book ads for body-building devices."-Time Magazine, April 8