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!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ucbvax!arms-d From: ARMS-D-Request@MIT-XX.ARPA (Moderator) Newsgroups: mod.politics.arms-d Subject: Arms-Discussion Digest V6 #28 Message-ID: <8601230009.AA15106@ucbvax.berkeley.edu> Date: Wed, 22-Jan-86 18:49:00 EST Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8601230009.AA15106 Posted: Wed Jan 22 18:49:00 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 23-Jan-86 21:51:47 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: ARMS-D@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 200 Approved: arms-d@mit-mc.arpa Arms-Discussion Digest Monday, January 20, 1986 7:54PM Volume 6, Issue 28 Part I Today's Topics: Special Digest: U.S. Security and Arms Control Policy as argued between "neo-conservative" and "arms controller" perspectives. The quotation marks indicate approximate congruence to the quoted school, but no spokesperson claims to represent the quoted school's theology exactly. The discussion is presented with the permission of the parties involved. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Msg#:26299 *Politics* 12/08/85 14:38:59 (Read 2 Times) From: SAM MCCRACKEN To: WAYNE MCGUIRE (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 26282 (REAGAN'S RELATIVE RIGHT-WINGISM) ... Let's see whether there just might be a base for neo-con skepticism over the benefits of arms control as now practiced. I suggest a few opening questions--these are sort of elementary for any serious discussion of the topic. . 1. What is the relative power and accuracy of the SS-18 compared to the most modern U.S. missile, the Titan-III? . 2. What is behind the continued and massive deployment by the Soviets of SS-20s in Europe, targeted on western european cities? . 3. Why are the Soviets building a massive phased-array radar in the central USSR, near missile bases, in defiance of the ABM treaty? . 4. Why are the Soviets, in contravention of the Salt II treaty, continuing to encrypt missile telemetry? . 5. The Soviets claim that the four series of missiles they have under development are _all_ merely upgrades of existing missiles, and thus permitted under Salt II. In the face of their admamant refusal to permit on-site inspection, should we believe them? . 6. In the 1920s and 1930s, the arms-control movement scored once sucess after another. Yet the war came. Is there any lesson here? . I will pass over, therefore, your bizarre view that attitude on arms control is some sort of touchstone for liberalism/conservatism. You appear to be ignorant of the fact that as recently as the 1950s, it was the conservatives who opposed spending on armaments, and the liberals who supported it. You are not, apparently, aware that John Kennedy spent a _much_ greater proportion of the federal budget on arms than Ronald Reagan even proposes to. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 86 19:38:19 EST From: Herb Lin @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU Subject: Neocon Stuff Think you could persuade Sam to allow this on the digest? Maybe anonymously if desired. Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 26282 (REAGAN'S RELATIVE RIGHT-WINGISM) ... Let's see whether there just might be a base for neo-con skepticism over the benefits of arms control as now practiced. I suggest a few opening questions--these are sort of elementary for any serious discussion of the topic. . 1. What is the relative power and accuracy of the SS-18 compared to the most modern U.S. missile, the Titan-III? There is no Titan III. . 2. What is behind the continued and massive deployment by the Soviets of SS-20s in Europe, targeted on western european cities? Intimidation of Western Europe; what else? Why would they want to do that? That's a different question. What is the purpose of the U.S. strategic modernization? Intimidation of the Soviet Union -- to make them more receptive to U.S. proposals on arms control... . 3. Why are the Soviets building a massive phased-array radar in the central USSR, near missile bases, in defiance of the ABM treaty? The ABM treaty does NOT prohibit large phased array radars. . 4. Why are the Soviets, in contravention of the Salt II treaty, continuing to encrypt missile telemetry? SALT II does not prohibit encryption of telemetry. . 5. The Soviets claim that the four series of missiles they have under development are _all_ merely upgrades of existing missiles, and thus permitted under Salt II. In the face of their admamant refusal to permit on-site inspection, should we believe them? I'm less certain of this one, but the only one I know that they have claimed is an upgrade is the SS-25, claimed to be an upgraded SS-13. At one point, Weinberger acknowledged that the U.S. could not reliably state that the ss-25 was a violation of SALT. Moreover, the debate over the SS-13/SS-25 arises not from disagreement over the SS-25, but over the characteristics of the SS-13. . 6. In the 1920s and 1930s, the arms-control movement scored once sucess after another. Yet the war came. Is there any lesson here? And in 1910 or so, the nations of western Europe rearmed to the hilt, yet that war came; is there a lesson there? . I will pass over, therefore, your bizarre view that attitude on arms control is some sort of touchstone for liberalism/conservatism. Here is the first sensible thing I have seen -- many liberals also dump on arms control as merely codifying the arms race, without touching on genuine problems. No, the only people squarely behind arms control are not the liberals or the conservatives, but rather the moderates. You are not, apparently, aware that John Kennedy spent a _much_ greater proportion of the federal budget on arms than Ronald Reagan even proposes to. Neither liberals nor conservatives admit that the defense budget in proportion to the federal budget is IRRELEVANT to national security needs. What matters -- if any input matters -- is the absolute level -- what capabilties does it buy you. I find the comments to which I have briefly responded astoundingly ignorant of basic facts about the nuclear balance and the state of U.S. Soviet military relations. When a writer doesn't even know what the treaty *says*, it's hard to carry out a meaningful discussion. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 86 19:38:22 EST From: "Wayne C. Gramlich" @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU> Subject: McCracken's Reply Following is Sam McCracken's reply to your comments on his anti-arms control message. You are referred to as ''X'' therein, since even though this exchange is occurring on a small, intimate local board, I thought you might want to preserve your anonymity unless you specifically indicated otherwise. I'm trying to talk Sam into pursuing the discussion on Arms-D, since it seems a trifle silly to go about it in this roundabout way: Msg#:27114 *Politics* 12/18/85 04:18:44 (Read 9 Times) From: SAM MCCRACKEN To: WAYNE MCGUIRE (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 27108 (ARMS CONTROL REPLIES #1) There is one advantage in debating you here rather than debating Helen Caldicott on the platform: when one hears things being said at you that you are sure are not so, you can go back and verify your belief. I will respond here to some of "X"'s points, and be back shortly on the rest. . 1. Yes, there is no Titan-III. That was a _lapsus calami_ on my part, which you and "X" are free to make of all you want. Let me restate the question without the slip: what are "X"'s views on the relative capabilities of the SS-18 and the Minuteman-III? . 2. And indeed, the ABM treaty does not, _tout court_, forbid large phased-array radars. It makes exceptions for such radars _on the periphery_ of the national territory. Surely "X," if he is the sort of expert you claim, must know that. Moreover, he must know that the radar in question--in the center of the USSR--is a matter of dispute between the US and the USSR. It would have been susbtantially more impressive of him--not to say more honest--to have dealt with this issue squarely rather than to have engaged in this equivocation. . 3. On the question of what the SS-20s are for, "X"'s guess is as good as mine. But he raises an interesting question: why the do the Soviets wish to intimidate the Western Europeans? Does "X" believe that the Soviets fear an attack, either conventional or nuclear, by the Western Europeans? . 4. On the arms race that allegedly led to WWI, we are now in an area where my professional expertise is perhaps barely comparable to that of X. That "race" was about as bogus as the one we are now said to be in. It was, if a race at all, highly asymmetrical. The most serious competition was in battleships and battlecruisers, an area in which the British were determined to get and in fact did get an overwhelming superiority over the Germans. In the event, the surface naval war was trivial. The Grand Fleet ventured out of the Baltic only once, for the inconclusive battle of Jutland. Aside from the skirmishes at Dogger Bank and two hard fought small-squadron actions in the South Pacific and South Atlantic--Coromel and the Falklands--the vaunted navies were never engaged except at Jutland. However--the British never built up their army to match that of Germany--the tiny expeditionary force sent to France in 1914 was a fraction of the German force. The British did not have a peace-time draft. By and large, one nation was racing--Germany. I would still like to have someone's views--yours, "X"'s or even "Y"'s--on the effectiveness of arms control in the 20s and 30s. Finally, you did indeed make arms control a touchstone. In your failed attempt to show that Reagan is the most right-wing president of the century, you relied almost entirely on the arms control views of his advisers. ------------------------------ End of Arms-Discussion Digest *****************************