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 #13.1 Message-ID: <8601091204.AA00987@ucbvax.berkeley.edu> Date: Wed, 8-Jan-86 00:47:00 EST Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8601091204.AA00987 Posted: Wed Jan 8 00:47:00 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 10-Jan-86 01:17:24 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: ARMS-D%MIT-MC.ARPA@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 118 Approved: arms-d@mit-mc.arpa Arms-Discussion Digest Wednesday, January 8, 1986 12:47AM Volume 6, Issue 13.1 Today's Topics: More on Soviet Defense Soviet Defense more carriers in action more carriers in action Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V6 #12.1 Deep Strike policy Re: Book Review SDI forcing a Shift of Policy Frames of Reference Nuclear vs Conventional Arms Re: Another SDI Problem Re: Another SDI Problem SDI: testing and other thoughts. SDI Testing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 7 Jan 86 20:41:30 EST From: Herb Lin Subject: More on Soviet Defense From: Jeff Miller AMSTE-TEI 4675 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... 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? You have hit the nail on the head for my purposes. What do *we* in the US consider to be legitimate *Soviet* defense needs? Never mind about their paranoia -- what do we think? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Jan 86 20:42:16 EST From: Herb Lin Subject: Soviet Defense From: Jeff Miller AMSTE-TEI 4675 > 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. Then why do we spend so much money on these things? This is a specific case of a more general proposition -- the NATO outspends the WP in defense even taking into account differences in manpower costs, has more total people under arms, and has more advanced military technology. How come the balance is so lop-sided?? ** 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. A blockade of Libya that the Soviet Navy tries to break doesn't to me count as 3rd world intervention. We would want to attack land targets in Libya; what would the Soviets want to attack? Until you can answer that, you haven't addressed my sense of interventionary PP. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Jan 86 20:42:36 EST From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn at ucbvax.berkeley.edu@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU Subject: more carriers in action My opinions were partly influenced by the game Norht Atlantic '86, which shows what kind of forces the Soviets could throw at a convoy. It looks like a large task force is the only way to get the vulnerable convoy across the Atlantic without heavy losses from submarines, surface craft and land-based aircraft. Maybe they won't admit it now, but it looks that way unless other forces can distract the Soviets in Europe. The game assumed the Soviets had control of the continent, with Britain still free. Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Jan 86 20:42:39 EST From: Herb Lin Subject: more carriers in action From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn at ucbvax.berkeley.edu My opinions were partly influenced by the game Norht Atlantic '86, which shows what kind of forces the Soviets could throw at a convoy. It looks like a large task force is the only way to get the vulnerable convoy across the Atlantic without heavy losses from submarines, surface craft and land-based aircraft. It is far more likely that the Sov forces would be directed against US battle groups trying to implement the maritime strategy. ------------------------------ End of Arms-Discussion Digest *****************************