Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site pucc-i
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!pucc-j!pucc-i!afb
From: afb@pucc-i (Michael Lewis)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Adverse effects of the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons...
Message-ID: <1263@pucc-i>
Date: Tue, 28-Jan-86 14:23:02 EST
Article-I.D.: pucc-i.1263
Posted: Tue Jan 28 14:23:02 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Feb-86 10:32:24 EST
References: <1245@pucc-i> <915@whuxl.UUCP> <1908@brl-tgr.ARPA> <516@whuts.UUCP>
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Lines: 41
Summary: Again, Tim, where are those figures you promised us?

In article <516@whuts.UUCP>, orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) writes:
>  
> While the Warsaw Pact has an undoubted superiority in sheer quantity of
> tanks, it is also true that NATO has 400,000 sophisticated high-technology
> anti-tank weapons.  NATO also has an air force which is vastly superior
> technologically as well as superior in terms of sheer quantity.

     Tim, you should read "World War 3: August, 1985" by former NATO commander
General Bernard Rogers (among others).  Then you wouldn't be so quick to make
quantitative statements that are blatantly wrong.  The Warsaw Pact outnumbers
NATO "in terms of sheer quantity" in every area of conventional weaponry present
in Central Europe (which is all that matters, given the nature of the Soviet
plan), but, again, "in terms of sheer quantity", the Warsaw Pact outnumbers
NATO in combat aircraft approximately 4:1.  The technological gap is closing.
>  
> As another poster pointed out, besides the likely recalcitrance of
> the Soviet's Warsaw Pact allies, one must also factor in the enormous
> productive capabilities of Western Europe.  Which of the Soviet Union's
> Warsaw Pact allies ever had enough armed forces to control colonies
> around the world?
>  

     Do you really think that the productive capacity of Western Europe will
be a factor?  I don't think it will, given that the Soviets plan on making the
Channel in 7 days!
> Again I will pose the question : if the Soviet Union is
> so bent upon territorial expansion why have they never invaded
> Yugoslavia?

     They'll wait until the time is ripe to go for ALL of Europe, first.

> Finally, Gorbachev's offer *includes* a proposal to decrease conventional
> forces as well as nuclear forces.  I have not seen the details but I
> would imagine his offer on conventional force reductions favors the
> Soviets....
> 
>     tim sevener   whuxn!orb

     Bravo!  The pragmatist at last!

     Michael Lewis @ Purdue University