Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site yale.ARPA Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!yale!marr From: marr@yale.ARPA (Leon T. Marr) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Reflections on Memorial Day Message-ID: <308@yale.ARPA> Date: Fri, 7-Jun-85 13:02:36 EDT Article-I.D.: yale.308 Posted: Fri Jun 7 13:02:36 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 12-Jun-85 02:03:02 EDT References: <2339@decwrl.UUCP> <243@ihdev.UUCP> Reply-To: marr@yale-comix.UUCP (Leon T. Marr) Organization: Yale University CS Dept., New Haven CT Lines: 157 Keywords: Invasion: America Summary: Expires: Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: >>=<2339@decwrl.UUCP> black@pundit.DEC (Don Black DTN 261-2739 MS: NIO/N9 Loc: Pole B6) > =<243@ihdev.UUCP> rastaman@ihdev.UUCP (Ridin' those switchin' modules into the sunset) writes: =me (marr@yale-comix.UUCP) >> What's to stop the >> Soviets from catching us in a four-way pincer movement? Airborne >> assault from Siberia into Alaska, from the USSR across the Arctic Ocean >> into southern Canada and the central US, by land into California, >> Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, amphibious assault and air (helicopter) >> assault from Cuba into Florida and the Gulf states--it's a cinch, >> particularly if we happen to be engaged in some little Brush-Fire >> war across the pond someplace. > >Anybody up for net.strategy? I`d be up for it. But I think fa.arms or something already exists. Rastaman`s overall analysis is sound. This whole question makes an interesting thought exercise. > >Airborne assault into Alaska. Ok, they'd still have a long way to go. >What about the lengths of the supply lines? What about the time it >would take to penetrate to the contiguous 48 states? > Yeah. Hopeless. It`ll take weeks just to get to Anchorage. Supply? Gosh. > >Ditto for an over-the-pole route. > Two additional problems with going over the pole: 1) The only Soviet military transports with the range to reach even northern Canada are Il-76`s and An-22`s. Nothing else reaches from the available bases, unless it`s on a one-way trip. With these (about 200 aircraft; 10,000 tons), they can move about four battalions. This brings us to our second problem: 2) You are in command of the 102nd Guards Parachute division, and have just managed to drop four battalions of your force into the Northwest Territory. Everything has gone perfectly, and there is no opposition. Now all you have to do is to march 1500 km across permafrost to reach your first objective, Winnipeg, MB. And you have to get there ahead of the defenders, who, since they are riding the trains from Canadian Forces Bases in Ontario, will be there in less than a week. Think you can march 1500 km in a week? Dubious. Remember also that all your supplies are being carted over the pole by those same 200 aircraft, shuttling back and forth. This is all assuming our air defence is non-existent. I personally would hate to try and get all those transports in against any fighter opposition. The fighters don`t even have to shoot any down (although that wouldn`t be difficult), all they have to do is disrupt the drop. Then the paratroopers can spend an entertaining few days trying to reorganize and find out where the heavy equipment and supplies landed. > >Amphibious assault into the South. I could almost buy this but >the ease of reaching the States also makes it easy for us to hit >the Cubans. One plane is all it takes to obliterate Habana. > 1) The Soviet Navy just hasn`t got the amphibious capability. The whole Soviet marine force is five brigades (12,000 men -- these are small brigades). By contrast, the USMC contains 3 (oversized) divisions and 3 air wings for a total strength of around 180,000 men. 2) The Gulf of Mexico is currently an American lake. Assault transports and landing craft are almost as vulnerable to attack as transport aircraft. "Sitting ducks" is, I think, the appropriate term. > >Mexico turning Communist. Interesting idea that. I think if the >country were really wobbling, we'd have troops there pretty >quickly. > Yeah. That would be a security threat. I think there`d also be an American response if the Soviets suddenly shipped its entire marine force to Cuba. As far as the problem of a brush-fire war is concerned, it has been Pentagon policy that we have to be able to fight at least one and a half wars at the same time. During Vietnam, this meant that Vietnam, a brush-fire war, was the half-war, which was one strictly military reason why we didn`t go all out. Key problems for an invader are: 1) The Atlantic and the Pacific make wonderful moats, so long as you control the seas. Luckily, the USN has this job in hand. 2) The extensive rail-net which exists in North America (most of it currently freight-only) is invaluble for movement of reserves and supplies to threatened points. 3) North America is huge. Conquering it would take a long time. > >On the other hand, suppose we invaded Siberia from the east, invited >our new found Chinese friends to invade from the south, bottled up >the Soviet Atlantic and Black Sea fleets, blockaded and bombed Cuba, >and invaded Poland (where the populace would presumably be less than >pro-Warsaw Pact). > Yow! Kremlin nightmare scenario! One of the things the Soviets get really worried about is what might happen if all the Warsaw Treaty Organization members (not including the USSR, and probably not Bulgaria) tried a rebellion at the same time. Messy. Especially if NATO tried to intervene. (This latter is dubious, given the record of '56, '68, and '80, but you never know...) > >Makes you wonder if the Soviet general staff lies awake at night >worrying about us... > They do. It`s their job. On to other parts of the posting: >> >> No, this time we brought the >> combatants home with us. The Immigration and Naturalization Service >> estimates that over 50% of the Viet Namese emigres are Communist Viet >> Cong sympathizers. And we willingly let these people onto our shores. >> This figure I want corroborated. I really doubt INS is that incompetent. If they were incompetent enough to allow infiltrators in, I`m fairly sure they`re not so stupid as to release the information. >> >> Every war the United States has been involved in since the turn >> of the century has had only one reason: to further the causes of the >> One-World-Government, Internationalist Slave-Traders. >> But this time the Rockefeller/Rothschild Internationalist clique >> has made one fatal mistake. Those of us who survived the Viet Nam era >> have learned the lessons of warmaking all too well, lessons we will not >> easily forget. We will be more than happy to use our skills one more >> time to keep our Nation and People free. >> We remember, Mr. Rockefeller. We remember, Mr. Rothschild. We >> remember, you Trilateralists, Bilderbergers, et alia. And we say to >> you, "NEVER AGAIN!" >> >> --Don Black I`m not sure if he`s serious. Me, I think the Postal Service, and its implacable minions of blue-uniformed letter carriers, is out to rule the world. Go ahead, laugh! Just wait till the Universal Postal Union takes control of USENET. Then it`ll take weeks to get a message through, IF it gets through. (What? That`s already true? INFILTRATORS!!!) Amazed that USENET managed to hold up a letter from cit-vax to yale for over 6 months (true story), Leon Marr decvax!yale!marr Incomplete list of references: Collins, John M. U.S. - Soviet Military Balance 1960-1980. McGraw-Hill. Dunnigan, James F. 1982. How to Make War: A Comprehensive Guide to Modern Warfare. New York: Wm. Morrow & Co. Inc. Gabriel, Richard A. ed. 1983. Fighting Armies: NATO and the Warsaw Pact A Combat Assessment. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. Keegan, John. 1980. World Armies. Kosnett, Phil. 1975. "Invasion: America", Strategy & Tactics No. 57, pp. 25-35. New York: Simulations Pub. Inc.