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!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!gjk From: gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: Euromissiles (reply to Kuperberg) Message-ID: <385@talcott.UUCP> Date: Thu, 4-Apr-85 09:15:49 EST Article-I.D.: talcott.385 Posted: Thu Apr 4 09:15:49 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 5-Apr-85 05:25:25 EST References: <282@ttidcc.UUCP> <537@whuxl.UUCP>, <379@talcott.UUCP> <111@ttrdc.UUCP> Organization: Harvard Lines: 54 > > >From: gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) > > >the Soviet threat [in Europe] is real--- > >they put in MIRVed IRBM's to "balance" our nuclear > >shells and nuclear-capable artillery. At the moment they have 350 > >missiles, which makes over 1000 warheads which can be delivered in less > >than 20 minutes. We have put in 100 (single-warhead) Pershing II's so > >far to counter. > The Soviets claim that their missiles are in Eastern Europe to counter the > British and French strategic missiles. What the Soviets claim is bullshit (not too surprising). The United Kindom has about 40 SRBM's, 50 nuclear submarines, and 100 strategic bombers. SRBM's have a range of 200 km, which is not far enough to reach East Germany. France has 18 IRBM's, 50 SRBM's, and 50 strategic bombers, and 100 subs. France's SRBM's can barely reach East Germany. 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. > in negotiations because they are not under U.S. control. The Soviets have > offered to reduce their total to the British and French total if the U.S. > would not deploy any missiles. Reagan refused. So, of course, the Soviets > are going to increase their missiles in Eastern Europe to counter the total > of British, French and American missiles. I believe that the Soviets offered to reduce their total number of *missiles* to French and British levels, giving them a warhead superiority margin of three to one, as well as much, much longer range for the Soviet missiles. > ...French and British missiles presumably targeted on the Soviet Union. Can > anyone explain why Reagan refuses to count those missiles in the negotiations? ... > Mike Kelly Your presumptions is wrong. French and British missiles are defensive in a real sense since they can't reach the Soviet Union. Reagan refuses because he, like every other nuclear negotiator, recognizes the Soviets' claim as propaganda and nothing more. -- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "No Marxist can deny that the interests of socialism are higher than the interests of the right of nations to self-determination." -Lenin, 1918