Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.10 $; site uokvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!okstate.UUCP!uokvax.UUCP!cdrigney
From: cdrigney@uokvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <5000170@uokvax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Feb-86 20:34:00 EST
Article-I.D.: uokvax.5000170
Posted: Wed Feb  5 20:34:00 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 10-Feb-86 22:06:05 EST
References: <915@whuxl.UUCP>
Lines: 24
Nf-ID: #R:whuxl.UUCP:915:uokvax.UUCP:5000170:000:1131
Nf-From: uokvax.UUCP!cdrigney    Feb  5 19:34:00 1986


>Written  7:25 pm  Feb  5, 1986 by cdrigney@uokvax.UUCP in uokvax.UUCP:net.politics
>> Written  8:41 am  Jan 28, 1986 by orb@whuts.UUCP in uokvax.UUCP:net.politics
>> Here are some important facts on the conventional arms balance in
>> Europe, from the book, Arsenal of  Democracy by Tom Gervasi:
>
>> 2)NATO holds the preponderance of naval force with 485 surface combatants
>>   on station vs the Warsaw Pact's 195

> If you don't count submarines, this figure is worthless.  And
> counting up all types of ships, without taking into account the
> type and quality of the ship IN RELATION TO THE MISSION THEY
> PERFORM is utter nonsense.  

I forgot to mention what that mission was: simplistically, NATO has
to bottle up the Soviet fleets (especially submarines) and protect
resupply convoys from the U.S. to Europe.  There are some other missions,
but those are the important ones.  Ignoring the effect of submarines
on the question of U.S. logistical support of NATO is about on a par
with discussing WW II military tactics without mentioning tanks...


		--Carl Rigney
USENET:		{ihnp4,allegra!cbosgd}!okstate!uokvax!cdrigney