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 #12.4 Message-ID: <8601080238.AA02179@ucbvax.berkeley.edu> Date: Tue, 7-Jan-86 17:50:00 EST Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8601080238.AA02179 Posted: Tue Jan 7 17:50:00 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 8-Jan-86 03:28:21 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: ARMS-D%MIT-MC.ARPA@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 203 Approved: arms-d@mit-mc.arpa Arms-Discussion Digest Tuesday, January 7, 1986 5:50PM Volume 6, Issue 12.4 Today's Topics: See #12.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 6 Jan 86 21:11:10 PST From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: international law Clifford Johnson comments: > ...My LOWC suit > alleges that a BINDING U.N. Charter provision is violated, namely > the obligation to settle peacetime disputes "in such a manner that > international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered" > (Article 2, Part 3). Article 51 provides the only exception - after > armed attack on territory has occurred... And then comments, roughly, that nobody seems to take international law very seriously any more except when it raises national constitutional issues. Jerry Pournelle has suggested that this is not an accident, and that the content of the above quote accounts for a lot of it. When the *only* cause for armed action is invasion -- when a country's citizens can be slaughtered, their property and possessions pillaged, embassies burned, ships sunk, laws and constitution mocked by crime and terrorism sponsored from outside, and so forth, and this is *not* a valid cause for military action under international law -- is it any wonder that nobody takes international law seriously any more? It was not always so. I'm not sure I agree with Pournelle 100% (and let us *not* get off into the matter of Pournelle's other opinions, please!), but it's thought-provoking. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Jan 86 13:25:52 EST From: Jeff Miller AMSTE-TEI 4675 Subject: More on Soviet Defense KGB military forces - one reason the KGB is so powerful in the Soviet triad. The Chief Border Guards Directorate contains conservatively 250,000-300,000 men. Their chief function is the defense of the frontiers, enabling regular forces to be commited elsewhere. Their role is not 100% defensive, units operate in Afghanistan providing military muscle to internal security operations. They have their own armored, artillery, AD, tacair and rotorwing assets. They also are responsible for coastal defense. Needless to say their defense functions are significantly overlapped by their internal security functions- more people get shot trying to leave than trying to sneak in. When you see guards of honor, ceremonial guards etc. in Moscow around the Party leadership, they are KGB troops wearing the Red Army uniform. When you see the May Day and October Revolution parades, all those impressive guys marching and riding by have empty weapons- they are real Red Army soldiers. If you look carefully along the parade route youll see more guys in Army uniforms- they're KGB and they have bullets. Its all a question of political reliability. ( Similarly, the KGB likes to present people dressed up as "Prof. So-and-so-sky of The Academy of Peaceloving Scientists" to tell us in the West how peaceful they are.) I would raise again the question of defining defense. The USSR admittedly gears its policies in terms of defense, defense of its basic imperialist encroachment, which is in its turn a defensive reaction. I know the world is now inured to associating the term "imperialistic" with the US, ( and the term "peace-loving" with the USSR) but the fact of the matter is that only one of the great empires survives the 20th century. That is Russia. It has not granted independence top any of the territories or nationalities acquired under the Czars; it has in fact added onto them. The cange in nature of regime in 1917 has not changed the imperialistic policies. What difference does it make that the Soviet leadership considers its military outlays purely defensive if their defensiveness is based on a paranoia that requires them to look upon the world from behind militarized borders and bands of buffer states which never seem to totally satisfy? No informed person believes that they have held the East Europeans in thralldom as part of their "world-wide ideological conspiracy" It is their buffer zone against the West in general and against Germany in particular, the specter of whose re- unification strikes more fear into the Russian soul than six Ronald Reagans. J.Miller ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Jan 86 8:44:06 EST From: Jeff Miller AMSTE-TEI 4675 Subject: Soviet Defense > My point was that our techniques of command and control and of logistics, which, like numerous other factors, increase combat potential, are probably not so great that they would significantly offset the Soviets capabilities in the same areas, which would, of course, bring us back to square one in the bean counting. * 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. > I disagree as to your rigtness. At the present time we can see an example. Our government threatens possible military retaliation against Libya. The Soviets say they will use their Mediterranean fleet to break any type of blockade. That is extreme hard cheese and definitely impacts on development of options. That is power projection. Nothing of the sort was possible in the heyday of Ike or JFK, when we could intervene at will in the third world. The Soviets, with their long range ships and increased bases (like Cienfuegos) could very well do the same thing to stymy similar US actions against Nicar- agua, which reminds me; * The steaming of battle groups through the Carribean surely counts. ** Why? Against what land targets would their BG's be directed? > For third world intervention, Nicaragua as stated above. Demonstrations against our presence in Honduras and El Salvador is possible, and to generally screen any adventures carried out by the Cubans. For strategic PP, the mere fact that they can freely operate there is power projection. In most cases, PP is a matter of demonstration. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Jan 86 9:17:13 EST From: Bruce Nevin Subject: request for hostile reviewer ----BEGINNING OF FORWARDED MESSAGES---- Received: from SU-SUSHI.ARPA by BBNCCH ; 4 Jan 86 23:24:19 EST Received: from EPIC by Sushi with Pup; Sat 4 Jan 86 20:18:12-PST Date: Sat 4 Jan 86 20:22:05-PST From: Jim McGrath Subject: Your offer of a hostile reviewer (in Arms-d, issue 3) To: "bnevin@bbncch"@Sushi cc: "mcgrath%oz@mc"@Sushi Reply-to: mcgrath%mit-oz@mit-mc.arpa Message-ID: <12172704350.7.J.JPM@Epic> Sure, I'll take you up. Jim ------- ----END OF FORWARDED MESSAGES---- I didn't make the request, I only seconded it. Haven't scanned recent issues for the right name--will the person who made the offer (foy@aero?) please follow through? Thanks. And thank you, Jim. We'll look forward to your reportage and commentary. Bruce ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Jan 86 22:52:48 pst From: ucdavis!lll-crg!amdcad!cae780!weitek!mmm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Mark Thorson) Subject: Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V6 #10.2 Here's an idea for a Soviet response to almost any advanced U.S. weapon like SDI: 1. Dig bomb shelters for all their people. 2. Put food, water, and air filters for three weeks in each one. 3. Put a ton of silver in each missile warhead. 4. When the time comes, launch the missiles. They'll be too heavy to make it into space, where the SDI would get them anyway. 5. Detonate them in the upper atmosphere. 6. The short-lived radio-isotopes of silver kill everybody who doesn't have a well-stocked hole in the ground. So why wouldn't it work? Silver might not be the best choice, its radio-isotopes are awfully short- lived -- what would be the element of choice? It sure would be a cheap way to deal with a "perfect" defense system. Mark Thorson (...!cae780!weitek!mmm) ------------------------------ End of Arms-Discussion Digest *****************************