Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site abnji.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!mhuxv!abnji!nyssa From: nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: Euromissiles (reply to Kuperberg) Message-ID: <509@abnji.UUCP> Date: Fri, 5-Apr-85 08:48:31 EST Article-I.D.: abnji.509 Posted: Fri Apr 5 08:48:31 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 6-Apr-85 02:37:28 EST References: <385@talcott.UUCP> Organization: Terminus Hospital, Incorporated Lines: 115 >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.) >> >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. What is the range of the nuclear submarine's missles? With 50 nuclear submarines, (each with how many missles?) steaming around the Baltic Sea, say, 50 miles from the Lithuanian coast, how much damage to the USSR could be done? Throw in the 100 French subs, strategic bombers, and the two countries (induvidually) have enough to make life awfully difficult in Mother Russia. Combined, the two countries probably have enough to trigger the "Nuclear Winter" which would make life difficult anywhere on the planet. >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. >> 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. The only range you listed was for SRBM's (*SHORT* Range ballistic missles). What about for I (Intermediate) RBM's, startegic bombers, nuclear subs, etc? I am sure the British bomber could strike deep into the heart of Russia. London to Moscow air distance is 1565 miles, and the British were striking the Falklands from Ascencion island, over 4000 miles away! >> ...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. 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. > 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 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. The failure was when Lenin instituted his NEP in the early twenties to start to build Russia's industries, and Stalin used that as a basis for totalitarian rule. --- James C. Armstrong, Jnr. ihnp4!abnji!nyssa Your system is wrong! We sell ourselves cheaply, for nothing, to such as Sil! I see my words mean nothing, you want this system of Varos to continue. So be it.