Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!ucbvax!arms-d From: ARMS-D-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA (Moderator) Newsgroups: mod.politics.arms-d Subject: Arms-Discussion Digest V6 #12.3 Message-ID: <8601072353.AA12690@ucbvax.berkeley.edu> Date: Tue, 7-Jan-86 17:50:00 EST Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8601072353.AA12690 Posted: Tue Jan 7 17:50:00 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 8-Jan-86 03:25:58 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: ARMS-D%MIT-MC.ARPA@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 187 Approved: arms-d@mit-mc.arpa Arms-Discussion Digest Tuesday, January 7, 1986 5:50PM Volume 6, Issue 12.3 Today's Topics: See #12.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 6 Jan 86 22:34:15 EST From: Herb Lin Subject: Politicians From: Jim McGrath Besides, complaints that politicians are lying do not sit well with me. Of course they are lying. WE WANT THEM TO LIE. Politicians who tell the truth get kicked out of office.... From: Herb Lin So you condone lying to the public as a tool of public policy? How would you like to acknowledge that publically in a letter to the NY Times? Don't forget to add that you support SDI, and that truth doesn't matter when you try to justify a weapon system -- never mind what it actually does. We can say that we will spend millions of dollars on AIDS research since that will save lives, and spend the money instead on nerve gas, which will also help to eliminate AIDS (by killing homosexual soldiers). You are arguing from emotion (almost hysterically), not reason, which I do not expect of you. I stated a fact: public officials must lie on many (not all) issues in order to retain office... This is one thing that everyone, no matter what their policy perspective, agrees on (this comes from several graduate seminars, and personal experience). You are evading my AIDS research analogy. Maybe you want to comment on my last msg about immortality too. These examples aren't made faceitously -- rather, they do reflect in my view valid analogies. I do expect a certain amount of misleading the public, but not at the level that is happening now. Sorry; I believe that elected leaders have a responsibility to tell the truth to the public, and to educate them away from fairy tales. I would rather see precious defense dollars go to create good anti-tank weapons; that would have some chance of improving extended deterrence. Come on now. Leaders can only lead where people are, ultimately, willing to go. Leaders have a responsibility to educate; they are paid to take the heat, and they should do so. Just look at the nuclear freeze movement. This is the level at which the public thinks of nuclear war when it is forced to think. Some of us believe the freeze was serious arms control, for which a good case could be made. I agree that many feeezeniks didn't know what they were talking about, but that doesn't reduce the utility of a freeze. Moreover, the Administration never engaged the arguments the freeze made. Finally, your last sentence shows that you missed my entire point. Congress (i.e. the people) will not budget for the necessary increases in conventional weapons (let alone the Europeans). Ultimately it does not matter what you or I like, it is what the people will accept. Nonsense. Most people also believe that the defense budget is mostly nuclear. You can't really make a persuasive case that the "people" understand why we need 15 attack carriers, to take the most expensive single example. There is no particular reason that the "people" would even notice one carrier battle group more or less. Yet that would mean $18 B more for military R&D. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Jan 86 22:34:34 EST From: Herb Lin Subject: Aversion to Nuclear War From: Jim McGrath Great. Uncertainties reduce the incentive to launch a first strike. That is exactly what we want. It is only when one side KNOWS that it is better to strike first that it rationally will do so. Yet you quoted Hawks/Doves/Owls, whose primary point is that rational action often plays little role in escalation dynamics. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Jan 86 22:41:24 EST From: Herb Lin Subject: Soviet Defense From: Jeff Miller AMSTE-TEI 4675 However, I still don't accept any description of the Soviet armed forces as being purely defensive. I don't either. My question to you is "how are they not defensive?" I notice that no one addressed my point about GRU interest in the road infrastructure of W. Europe. I'd expect them to be interested in it. Are you suggesting that Western intelligence doesn't care about the road infrastructure in E. Eurpoe? I can think of good reasons for each to have it, such as wanting to disrupt second echelons/reinforcements. ONE discussion on Soviet strength in Europe vs NATO drew a response that NATO forces' numerical inferiority was deceptive because of US efforts in C3I and logistics. I can only say that, although our systems are better, these are not anything new to the Red Army, which is not the antiquarian dinosaur many believe. This was mine, and my point said nothing about Soviet forces. Why don't we take credit for C3 and logistics if we think we will they will help? Why isn't there a comparison between our C3 and theirs in terms of increasing combat effectiveness? Another point was that we shouldn't really count such non- combat troops as construction engineers. A couple of points: Any soldier with a rifle is light infantry. Sorry; I was unclear. I didn't mean engineers, and I don't think I said that. Rather, Soviet construction troops are analagous to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, those wonderful fellows who build dams here in the US. You are right about construction engineers. Also it is quite incorrect to state that the Sovs strategy specifically omits power projection (somebody argued this- I think). Permanently "stationing" nuclear missile subs off your opponent's shores as a demonstration is a projection device we've long practiced. They, of course reciprocate. For power projection in the sense of third world intervention, I am right. For PP in the sense of strategic PP, you are right; I meant the former. The steaming of battle groups through the Carribean surely counts. Why? Against what land targets would their BG's be directed? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Jan 86 22:44:55 EST From: Herb Lin Subject: more carriers in action From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn at ucbvax.berkeley.edu Carriers are made to do more than protect themselves. Good reasons have already been mentioned, although minor arguments picked them to death. The argument are hardly minor. Their major role now is force projection, which they do almost too well (can be very threatening to see a nuke carrier off your coast). Against the Sovs, hardly. Fleet defense means more than protecting the carrier, although that is implied. It also includes all the smaller ships that can't defend themselves against large missile attacks, subs or aircraft, such as supply ships, tankers, troop carriers, etc. A shipping escort is a similar role, such as convoy protection across the Atlantic. CVBG's are not assigned to convoy escort, nor would the Navy ever allow them to be used that way. ------------------------------ End of Arms-Discussion Digest *****************************