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!clewis From: clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: Arming our Forces Message-ID: <2101@mnetor.UUCP> Date: Tue, 10-Sep-85 09:56:31 EDT Article-I.D.: mnetor.2101 Posted: Tue Sep 10 09:56:31 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 10-Sep-85 11:15:46 EDT References: <1371@utcsri.UUCP> <2043@mnetor.UUCP> <1373@utcsri.UUCP> <2053@mnetor.UUCP> <2058@mnetor.UUCP> <1377@utcsri.UUCP> Reply-To: clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) Distribution: can Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada Lines: 104 Summary: In article <1377@utcsri.UUCP> hogg@utcsri.UUCP (John hogg) writes: >This may be getting a mite repetitious to those reading this group who >couldn't care less about our military. Therefore, the first piece of mail >I receive telling me to shut up will be gladly obeyed. I will too. I'm pretty sure that I understand what you're saying, I just disagree with some of your assertions. The majority of the points are pretty unnecessary because we are basically in agreement (in terms of efficiency of specific equipment and requirements). Because of this, there isn't much point in responding unless you respond DIRECTLY to the last point (after the *****). >1) First, "peace-keeping forces" and Search And Rescue. Sometimes S&R requires some pretty heavy equipment. (eg: Time restricted and severe weather ocean rescues sometimes requires something as big as a destroyer, and, since we already got 'em, we might as well keep 'em) > Also note that we'll never be drawn into a war through peacekeeping > force participation. You have entirely forgotten Korea. Even though I've raised it several times. That was a full-scale war and we were in it in a big way. >2) Next, NATO participation. I'm sorta ambivalent w.r.t. NATO too. But there'd hardly be any point to us being there if our forces couldn't hold their own against equivalent sized forces. If they couldn't, NATO should send us home as a liability because we certainly wouldn't be an asset (we'd provide target practise for the Russians). >3) Type of defence required. Until a REALISTIC scenario is presented to me > which has us getting involved in a non-nuclear war. I have given a better scenario for one in a later posting. Also, again, you've forgotten Korea. >4) Types of equipment. If the M1 is all that bad, then by all means lets stick with the M-60. > Tigershark, John, do you remember the specs off-hand? (send 'em by mail - and I might agree with you) > diesel boats Now I get it - you meant diesel submarines (not ships)! (John'd would rather be sailing) > As they'll need to surface occasionally, "Occasionally"? You mean "very frequently" (eg: every 12 hours) - not very useful if you're trying to chase nuclear submarines under the icecap. >Again, the flashy route is to go nuclear [with subs]. I'd be the last to suggest that we get into the nuclear submarine business. Submerged listening gear and a consistent and effective air-patrol (even with something as crummy as an Argus) with only a few aircraft capable of "assault" would probably be perfectly sufficient, and a LOT cheaper than nuclear or even diesel subs. At present we lack the listening gear and any air-patrol up there more frequent than weekly. The planes would have to be big and have sophisticated electronics. (more Orions) We'd only need two or three relatively lightly armed, but large (to be able to get through the ice at all), ice-breakers. ********* >But there is no conventional threat >on the horizon (where "the horizon" is the time required to buildup to a >war footing) and there is no reason to get sophisticated weapons where >numerous cheap ones will be far more effective. This is the one thing where you seem to refuse to understand what I'm trying to say. I totally agree with you in that there are no VISIBLE or PROBABLE threats on the horizon (which is, minimum, 3 years). but, Just because we cannot see any, doesn't mean that there aren't any! We didn't know, 3 years ahead of time, that we'd be in WWII. We didn't know, 3 years ahead of time, that we'd be in Korea. Britain didn't know, 3 years ahead of time, that Argentina would invade the Falklands. And, because Britain didn't see ANY conventional threats within their horizon, they started conversion to NATO-only military requirements. And, Britain damn nearly screwed themselves! The US didn't know, 3 years ahead of time that the Shah would fall. Etc, etc, etc. People buy insurance for that very reason - because they don't know ahead of time what'll happen or what is likely to happen. Life Insurance is a bet with the Insurance company that you will die BEFORE they think you will. What are the chances on that? Less than %50. Please, John, before you reply (or followup), reread that last point. -- Chris Lewis, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321