Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site psuvax1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!burdvax!psuvax1!berman
From: berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Adverse effects of the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons...
Message-ID: <1985@psuvax1.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 28-Jan-86 19:54:12 EST
Article-I.D.: psuvax1.1985
Posted: Tue Jan 28 19:54:12 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Feb-86 10:40:49 EST
References: <1245@pucc-i> <915@whuxl.UUCP> <1908@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: Pennsylvania State Univ.
Lines: 95

> > By the same token if one only takes Soviet Warsaw Pact forces and compares
> > them to American NATO forces one comes out with a great discrepecancy.
> > But such a comparison fails to even count the forces of Western Europe
> > itself which would most assuredly be involved in their own defense.
> > The number of troops from West Germany, England, France and the other
> > NATO members to NATO far outweigh the meager contributions of Eastern Europe
> > to the Warsaw Pact forces.  ..............
> . . .
> > Remember that simply *one* member of NATO (admittedly now split
> > in two but the fidelity of East Germany to the Warsaw Pact is questionable)
> > namely a united Germany, sliced through Russia like a hot knife .......
> > [TIM SEVENER]
> 
> A few questions for Mr. Sevener:
> 
> 1.  When the Germans sliced through Russia (and France) in World War II,
>     how did German manpower (active and reserve) compare with Soviet
>     and French/British manpower?  Was it numerical superiority of men
>     that won battles for the Germans, or numerical (and technical)
>     superiority of weapons, mainly tanks?
> 
> 2.  Does the Soviet Union (forget its Warsaw Pact allies) have more tanks
>     in European Russia and the European socialist-bloc nations than NATO
>     has in Europe?  Does the Soviet Union have more tanks in Europe than
>     all the NATO countries, including the USA, have WORLDWIDE?........
> 
> 3.  Do you think the USA tank production base, even if undamaged in a war,
>     could do again what it did in World War II, viz., grind out enough
>     tanks to ship to Europe in time to stop the threat from the East before
>     it overran both Europe and the British Isles?
> 
> My reaction to "abolish all nuclear weapons" is:  Fine.  I don't want my
> children to die in a nuclear war.  But recognize that this means a massive
> conventional buildup in Europe.  Not massive enough to give NATO forces
> the kind of advantage the Soviets have now.  But enough to give NATO a
> 1:1 force ratio in tanks, aircraft, artillery, and the troops to man them.
> Such conventional parity is nothing that a truly peace-loving Soviet
> leadership would have to fear (and I don't blame them for fearing an
> eventual German thrust to the East).  But in order to create such a parity,
> we'd have to raise taxes, AND cut social-spending giveaways, AND reinstitute
> the draft.
> 
> Or is it better to see 350 million Western Europeans, with their industrial
> capacity, move into the "socialist camp" where their Eastern European
> brothers are?
> 					-- Matt Rosenblatt

There is an (allegedly true) anecdote about scientists who proved 
mathematically that a beetle cannot fly.  Matt have just proven that
Israel had to fail in the wars of 1967 and 1973. 

One of the issues of "Technology Review" had an assesment of Soviet
military technology.  The truth is that their weapons are in general
much less sophisticated, so they performed less tasks than comparative
Western weapons.  Thus Soviets must have many more weapons (like tanks
and airplanes) to achieve the parity with the West.  For this very
reason, they need more manpower to achieve parity.

There is yet another side of the equation: does Japan and China whish
to have Soviet dominating ALL Europe and hereby free to engage in the
Pacific zone?  No?  As a conclusion, Soviets need to keep sizable forces
in the Far East.

Now returning to 4:1 ratio in tanks.  Can tanks be stopped by mine-fields,
hand-operated rockets etc.?   Is it possible that defensive weapons,
especially the modern light-weight rockets, are cheaper prevention than
numerical parity in tanks?

Now consider air-force.  First, the numerical ratio is much better than
in tanks (and air-force matters more in the modern war).  Second,
remember that Soviet-build air-defence systems are a sizable obstacle
for Israel in dealing with Syria.  Assuming that the Soviet airplanes
are less sophisticated, and that the Western systems are more 
sophisticated,  Western air-defence should be much more of an obstacle
for Soviets.

I generally believe that rocket weapons make the life easier for
the defence than for attack.  Hitting bridges etc. with conventional
charges may create havoc for the logistics, which is more painful
for the side which has to move large masses of manpower and material
(the attacking side).  The new achievments in electronics, image
recognition etc. allow for rockets which are very accurate and 
difficult to stop.

Summarizing, Matt's claim that the succesful defence of Western
Europe requires 

> 1:1 force ratio in tanks, aircraft, artillery, and the troops to man them

does not sound well.  Why not request 1:1 force ratio in cavalry as well?

Japanese thought that superiority in the number of battleships would
give them victory in the Pacific.  We know that they miscalculated.

Piotr Berman