Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ames.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!hplabs!ames!al
From: al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Soviet Conventional Offensive Capability, an unConventional view
Message-ID: <1183@ames.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 8-Oct-85 23:05:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: ames.1183
Posted: Tue Oct  8 23:05:37 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 12-Oct-85 06:19:54 EDT
References: <1173@ames.UUCP> <12065@rochester.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA
Lines: 67

> > THESIS: Soviet conventional offensive capability is very small
> > 
> > To leave that (the Russian western) 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.

Russia, of course, has been expanding for centuries.  This expansion is
accomplished by military force.  So what.  The point is that the western boarder
requires a strong defense which, in turn, saps resources that otherwise
might be available for offensive operations.

> Nato has never attacked towards the east.  Germany did, so did Napoleon, but 
> what do they have to do with Nato?  

Nato consist of France and Germany, among other countries.  Just for tidbits,
the US, France, England, and Japan invaded Russia just after WWI.  Looking
at that list you will notice most of our current major allies.  Again, the point
is that Russia cannot assume that we won't attack and must divert resources
that might otherwise be available in Afganistan or on the Chinese boarder.

> 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.

Morally important, but irrelevant to Russia's offensive capabilities.

> 
> > 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?
> 

Repeating data point 3.  According to Aviation Week and Space Technology, not
exactly a liberal rag, the bulk of Soviet military spending is for defense
of the USSR.  I'm afraid I can't give the exact issue, but it was a couple
of months ago.  Repeating data point 1, although the Red Army was much larger
by most measures than the Wermacht in WWI the Germans did very well for the
first two years.  We have seen similar effects in the wars between Israel 
and the Arabs.  Large numbers of jets and tanks do not necessary a powerful
offensive military force make.

> 
> > 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. 

I'm not a commy and all of the facts I mentioned are true, except one which
was carefully labeled as being on the shaky side.  You can verify any
of my facts in a good history book, or in one case, Aviation Week and
Space Technology.

I think you should read my posting without your ideological blinders.  The
piece made no moral point as to the quality of the Soviet system, which I
feel is quite low, but rather looked at their military capacity.  Military
capacity can only be truely measured by combat.  By that measure the
modern Soviet military machine does not appear to rate highly in the offense.

This is important since we are driving our country into bankrupcy to pay
for our own military.  If we have over-rated the Russian conventional
threat, we may be weakening ourselves economical for no good purpose.