Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuts.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuts!orb
From: orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Conventional Arms Balance in Europe
Message-ID: <517@whuts.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 28-Jan-86 09:41:34 EST
Article-I.D.: whuts.517
Posted: Tue Jan 28 09:41:34 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Feb-86 10:32:41 EST
References: <1245@pucc-i> <915@whuxl.UUCP> <1908@brl-tgr.ARPA> <516@whuts.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 56

Here are some important facts on the conventional arms balance in
Europe, from the book, Arsenal of  Democracy by Tom Gervasi:
 (note: these figures are not the most up-to-date but more recent
        figures would continue the same balance)
 
1)NATO spending exceeded Warsaw Pact spending each year through the 1970's
  ending in 1979 with $212 billion for NATO vs $175 billion for the Warsaw Pact
  Secretary of Defense Harold Brown estimated that during the 70's NATO
  outspent the Warsaw Pact by $318 billion
 
2)NATO holds the preponderance of naval force with 485 surface combatants
  on station vs the Warsaw Pact's 195
 
3)NATO has only 64 active divisions vs 68 Warsaw Pact active divisions:
  however NATO has a standing force of 2,800,000 vs the Pact's 2,600,000
 
4)NATO also has a preponderance of reserve strength. Adding active and
  reserve forces NATO has 5,184,500 vs 4,800,000 men

5)The above troop figures do *not* include an additional 326,800 French
  troops
 
Now to consider every militarists' favorite, the infamous "tank comparison".
As I have previously pointed out to myopically focus solely upon the
major weapon of the *last* war is to live in the past.
The tank balance is 27,200 Warsaw Pact tanks to 11,800 NATO tanks.
Tom Gervasi points out that if tanks were really so critically short in
NATO that it would be stupid for the US to have provided 1,015 M-60A3
tanks and 771 M-48A5 tanks to various countries in the Middle East and
Asia.  Similarly if the British military truly thought tanks were critically
needed in Europe they would be foolish to have planned to send 800 Chieftain
tanks to Iran before the Iranian revolution led to cancellation.
 
My previous figures for NATO antitank weapons was incorrect, the correct
figure is 193,000 antitank weapons for NATO vs 68,000 for the Warsaw Pact.
NATO's antitank weapons employ the latest in precision guided technology
and electronics including laser, optical and infrared guidance.
Dr. William Perry, under secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering,
has stated that the US has a substantial lead in precision-guided weapons
which he considers to be "the most significant application of technology
to modern warfare".  We all know that the US leads in sophisticated
electronics by a longshot so this statement should be no surprise.
Dr. Perry also stated "The technology balance is shifting in favor
of the antitank systems." and points out that NATO leads in the 
lethality of tanks, artillery, and rocket launchers as well as in
the quantity and quality of combat aircraft.
 
We have seen how deceptive mere quantitative comparisons can be in the
numerous Middle East wars.  Time after time Israel's highly advanced
weapons largely from the US, have massacred Arab Soviet-supplied weapons.
This has been true even in cases of a *quantitative* superiority for
the Arabs.

To say there is a "conventional weapons gap" in NATO is as absurd as
saying the US is behind in the nuclear arms race.
 tim sevener whuxn!orb