Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rochester.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!dual!vecpyr!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!rochester!ray
From: ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Soviet Conventional Offensive Capability, an unConventional view
Message-ID: <12065@rochester.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 4-Oct-85 10:19:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: rocheste.12065
Posted: Fri Oct  4 10:19:05 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 7-Oct-85 04:49:18 EDT
References: <1173@ames.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: U. of Rochester, CS Dept.
Lines: 59

> THESIS: Soviet conventional offensive capability is very small
> 
> 
> 
> We are all familiar with the enormous physical resources of the Red Army.
> As data point 2 above indicates, this does not necessarily imply a strong
> military.  
> 
> This brings us to data point 1.  Why doesn't Russia simply
> send a couple million soldier into Afganstan and win?  Perhaps they
> are not capable of such an effort.  They must keep large forces on the
> Chinese boarder and more forces in Eastern Europe to protect against NATO.
> Please don't give me a rap about NATO never attacking.  Russia has
> suffered three major invasions from Western Europe in the last two centuries,
> Napoleon once and Germany twice.  To leave that boarder weakly defended
> would be idiotic.  
> 

Poland suffered a major invasion from Russia during WW2.  Finland suffered
through several invasions from the imperialistic Russians also during WW2.
So don't give me that rap that Russia will not attack toward the West.
Nato has never attacked towards the east.  Germany did, so did Napoleon, but 
what do they have to do with Nato?  The same governments are no longer in 
power, unlike the government of Russia which is the same government that
exhibited imperialistic tendencies during WW2.
I won't mention the harsh realities heaped on the Czech and Poles at the hands
of the Russians after WW2.  Oops I guess I did mention it.

> Data point 4 suggests that, with the Afgan invasion
> in progress, even Poland could not be subdued.  
> 

Huh?  

> Data point 3 suggests that the Soviet military is primarily defensive.
> 
One hundred thousand tanks, and over 50,000 jets is defensive, who are they
expecting to attack them, some imperialistic planet from outer space?

> Data point 5 indicates that, if push came to shove, the shiny new
> Russian Navy is mostly an expensive mass grave.
> 
That's true of all navies now days.

> This evidence and logic suggests that the USSR has about 100,000 men 
> available for offensive operations; alternately, they can only supply
> that many beyond their boarders.  Contrast this to the half million we
> supported in Vietnam.
> 
Why should they end the war quickly?  They get to try out all their newest
weapons.

> If this data and logic are correct, the bogeyman of Soviet conventional
> might DOD has used to get billions out of our pockets doesn't seem
> quite so scary.  Their ICBM fleet can, of course, kill us all.  Sweet
> dreams.

If this data and logic are correct?  Are you kidding?  What LOGIC?  What DATA?
It is correct only if you are pro-commy or are a distorter of facts or both.