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: Reflections on Memorial Day Message-ID: <683@abnji.UUCP> Date: Wed, 12-Jun-85 12:32:13 EDT Article-I.D.: abnji.683 Posted: Wed Jun 12 12:32:13 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 13-Jun-85 01:56:16 EDT References: <308@yale.ARPA> Organization: Terminus Hospital, Incorporated Lines: 106 >>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. I beleive there was a tv movie about a raid on the pipeline about 5 years ago. >>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. How about an Aeroflot flight into an airport in Canada (in the range of a one way trip) with a force meant to seize the facilities. Then start ferrying in your supplies. This may seem desparate, but if the USSR is to invade North America from a cold start, they'd have to be. >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. Seizing something like Edmonton airport gets around this. >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. Last I heard, the US has 12 fighters based on the east coast of the US to defend the continent. I don't know if this is true (I doubt it), but the logic is that out forward defence (Europe & Asia) will prevent numbers of the planes getting through. Something else to consider: The aircraft will be passing near the magnetic north pole, that certainly won't help guidance systems. >>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. An interesting thought: There is only one country that could successfully invade the US by sea, and that is the UK. They would certainly have surprise, and they are the only other country capable of maintaining a war effort over sea supply lines. Ask Argentina. >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. Quite simply, the USSR is a land power. They are hemmed in by enemies. They are not a threat to the continental US in a conventional war. Their navy is not one to sustain a war effort across an ocean, but rather to disrupt an enemy's efforts. Air forces as a means to conquer (via paratroops) was discredited in Crete and Arnhem. Air power can be a very valuable assist to ground forces, but not a replacement. Look at how many bombs we dropped on Vietnam. Who is in control there now? Has any country been bombed into submission? >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. Our large civilian air fleets can also allow very quick response to hot spots. >3) North America is huge. Conquering it would take a long time. -- James C Armstrong, Jnr. ihnp4!abnji!nyssa I have not come as your prisoner, Davros, but as your executioner.