Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site kontron.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!voder!kontron!cramer
From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Conventional Arms Balance in Europe
Message-ID: <502@kontron.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 30-Jan-86 12:35:23 EST
Article-I.D.: kontron.502
Posted: Thu Jan 30 12:35:23 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Feb-86 10:55:26 EST
References: <1245@pucc-i> <915@whuxl.UUCP> <1908@brl-tgr.ARPA> <516@whuts.UUCP> <517@whuts.UUCP>
Organization: Kontron Electronics, Irvine, CA
Lines: 107

> 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

However command economies (like the Warsaw Pact countries) are able to 
obtain much of what they need for military activities with artificially
low prices.  As an example, Soviet soldiers are paid substantially less
than the counterparts in the West -- even when compared to NATO countries
that rely on the draft.  This makes the Warsaw Pact spending more effective
than numbers alone.

> 2)NATO holds the preponderance of naval force with 485 surface combatants
>   on station vs the Warsaw Pact's 195
>  
NATO is also an ocean-based alliance, requiring much larger naval forces
than the Warsaw Pact, which has no oceans to cross to resupply allies.
(This also works the other way around -- the Soviets have traditionally
had a larger army than the U.S. or Britain, both of which have oceans
to discourage invasion.)

> 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
> 

Suvorov's book _Inside_The_Soviet_Army_ (a book that must be taken with a
grain of salt) provides a description of how the Soviet's organize their 
reserves such that each division can effectively split in half, with 
reserves joining established divisions.  (This had a lot to do with how 
rapidly the Soviet Army grew, with experienced officers in charge of
large numbers of reserves, when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union.)  This 
is not a criticism of the Soviet approach -- in fact, it sounds like a 
good idea.  But it does make their active divisions plus reserves somewhat 
more useful than our active divisions plus reserves.

> 5)The above troop figures do *not* include an additional 326,800 French
>   troops
>  

They probably don't include Cuban or Nicaraguan troops.  In the event of
war, I would be shocked out of my wits if the Cuban Army didn't participate
in harassing operations against the United States -- and Cuba has roughly
3x10^6 troops -- one of the five largest armies on Earth.

> 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.
>  

Tanks aren't critically short to NATO because of tactical nuclear weapons
including (supposedly) nuclear land mines along some invasion routes.  I'm
arguing that tactical nuclear weapons are a moral or effective approach, 
but that's one of the reasons the NATO countries are quite short in the
number of tanks.

> 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.
> 

Assuming, of course, that all that high technology works.  One of the
advantages the Soviets have is that low technology systems WORK!  It's true
that one F-16 can probably take on 3 MiG-25s, but at some point sheer
numbers do make a difference.

> 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

Your analysis is flawed, but not completely ridiculous.  Are you willing
to see the money spent on conventional weapons and troops if the Soviets
insist on a conventional weapons race in the year 2000?  Traditionally
democracies will not spend money on armed forces until it almost too
late.  In a sense, this a strength, because until World War II, we didn't
let the military warp our sense of priorities.  But because there are
countries like the Soviet Union which do not operate in as open a manner
as the West, democracies are in great peril because we won't spend money
on armed forces.