Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!fred
From: fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Canadian participation in Star Wars.
Message-ID: <935@mnetor.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Jun-85 09:34:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: mnetor.935
Posted: Wed Jun  5 09:34:56 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 5-Jun-85 10:21:54 EDT
References: <893@mnetor.UUCP> <5642@utzoo.UUCP> <896@mnetor.UUCP> <5645@utzoo.UUCP> <906@mnetor.UUCP> <5661@utzoo.UUCP>
Reply-To: fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams)
Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 72
Summary: 

In article <5661@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>The Soviets don't believe in the idea of holding civilian populations
>hostage, and never have.  Not because they're sweethearts, mind you, but
>because they have a rather different philosophy of deterrence.  The US
>philosophy can be summed up as "make it clear that a nuclear war would
>totally destroy both sides, so the Soviets will be too scared to start one".
>The Soviet philosophy, by contrast, is "make it clear that the US cannot
>possibly win a nuclear war, so they will be too scared to start one".

	The so-called American view is quite realistic. In a nuclear war
of such proportions that it would cripple either side's ability to
make war, there would be no survivors! Yes I suppose this would mean
that the US did not win.

>So the Soviets point their ICBMs at military targets -- broadly defined,
>e.g. Toronto International is a military target because military aircraft
>could operate from it -- and not (except as an accidental result of the
>location of military targets) at population centers.  Again, *not* because
>they are sweethearts, but because population centers per se are not tools
>for fighting a nuclear war, so attacking them is pointless -- it won't
>affect the US's ability to fight a war.

	Let face it there are no "sweethearts" in these circles. One
military reality that is observed to some extent by both sides is the
principle that if territory cannot be occupied, it is not captured.
But lets not be decieved. So far the babies on both sides of this
planet have been playing with the same toys and the way they intend
to use them depends only on which stage of the hostilities they are at.

>
>When hundreds of bombs are involved, the difference quickly becomes
>academic, because all too many targets of military value are in or near
>population centers.  When only a couple of dozen are involved... damned
>if I know.  It's not at all obvious to me that the Soviets would think
>a couple of dozen bombs a useful deterrent.

	Would they think hundreds of bombs to be suicide?

>
>(Incidentally, learning about Soviet targeting philosophy -- on this
>fairly general level -- does not require access to anything classified.
>They are quite open about it, the same way the US is quite open about
>MAD.  All you have to do is make an effort to find out, rather than
>just blindly assuming that both sides think the same way.)

	If you believe this, I've got some land in Florida your just
going to *love*.

>I hate to tell you this, but the Soviet Union has been more committed to
>antimissile defences than the US for many years.  If they aren't planning
>the equivalent of SDI, it's a problem of capability rather than intent.

	I never said that they didn't have anti-missle defences. I am
quite sure that it is only a problem of their capability. That is
also the reason we don't have an SDI, *yet*. Like I said before,
there are no sweethearts anywhere in this game.
	The real question here is one of technology. Developing anything
of the level of the proposed SDI would result in a tremendous boost
in technology. This can be translated into dollars. What is really
happening is that the US, with a very strong ecenomy, is proposing to
boost the cost of the arms race beyond the range of the Soviets who
have a weak economy, (by compasison). SDI hits them right where it
hurts most...in the pocket book. That is why they are upset! I don't
blame them. It would be a major blow from which they may never recover.

>-- 
>				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

Cheers,		Fred Williams