Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site calgary.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!ubc-vision!alberta!calgary!radford
From: radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Adverse effects of the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons...
Message-ID: <65@calgary.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 22-Jan-86 23:16:01 EST
Article-I.D.: calgary.65
Posted: Wed Jan 22 23:16:01 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 23-Jan-86 17:30:12 EST
References: <1245@pucc-i>
Organization: University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta
Lines: 36

>      The recent proposal by Mikhail Gorbachev for the abolition of nuclear
> weapons by the year 2000 is a revolutionary proposal...
>
> ...What people
> are neglecting to consider, however, is the near total dependance of the US
> on nuclear weapons to keep the Soviets out of Western Europe...
>
> ...The Warsaw Pact outnumbers NATO tremendously in every area
> of conventional weaponry, but nuclear weapons are the great equalizer...
>
> ... NATO would have to engage in by far the most massive conventional
> military buildup in peacetime history, or trust the Soviets to be good boys.
> The former choice would be extremely unpopular, as it would lead either to
> huge deficit spending by all countries involved, or massive tax increases...
>
> I hate to say it (and I really mean that), but I fear that we might be stuck
> with nuclear weapons for at least the next 50 years or so...
> 
> 	  Michael Lewis @ Purdue University

There's something strange about all this. The combined GNP of the NATO 
nations is several times greater than that of the Warsaw Pact. NATO has 
no other serious potential agressors to worry about; the USSR has China
to defend against. Why should NATO lose a conventional arms race?

Some may say that the command economy of the USSR can divert a larger 
proportion of the GNP to arms than NATO countries can (without provoking
adverse politcal reactions). Maybe, but several times more? I doubt it.

Some may say that Western Europe won't spend enough in its own defence. If
that's the case, why should we do the worrying?

I think it's more likely that there is no great conventional imbalance, or
at least needn't be by the time the nuclear weapons are gone. 

     Radford Neal