Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site garth.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!qantel!vlsvax1!garth!baba
From: baba@garth.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Conventional Arms Balance in Europe
Message-ID: <263@garth.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 16-Feb-86 21:30:18 EST
Article-I.D.: garth.263
Posted: Sun Feb 16 21:30:18 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 22-Feb-86 09:07:13 EST
References: <1245@pucc-i> <915@whuxl.UUCP> <1908@brl-tgr.ARPA> <516@whuts.UUCP> <257@garth.UUCP> <1288@pucc-i>
Reply-To: baba@garth.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS)
Organization: The Institute of Impure Science
Lines: 34
Keywords: Docudrama, Euro-military-industrial Complex

Michael Lewis writes:
>     What else would a book called "WW 3: August, 1985" that was written in 
>1979 be?  General Sir John Hackett is hardly Rosemary Rogers.  If you look at
>the force levels he projected for 1985, I think that they jibe very well with
>the current levels.

But your primary source for current force levels seems to be Hackett's
novel.  If you have non-fiction figures available, why haven't you used
them?  I gave my copy away years ago, but my recollection is that his
estimates of Soviet force levels were a little high, and his projections
of non-US NATO force levels and effectiveness were wildly optimistic.

>                     This is easy to do, because all of the relevant data is
>presented in *tabular* form (rather strange for a novel).  He wrote this 
>"novel" with the purpose of shaking the West out of its malaise, therefore it
>was written with as much care and accuracy as possible.  It is a *novel* 
>because General Hackett wanted to convey his message as widely as possible,
>and deemed that a work of fiction would be the most effective way.

Or, to put it another way, it was written as a piece of propaganda.  When I
read it, back in '80, I was appalled by Hackett's heavy-handed plumping for 
the European defense consortia.  The pivotal roles given to such Euro-weapons
as the Tornado MRCA and the re-armed British Polaris fleet were decidedly
unrealistic.  The theme that, fortunately, wise NATO military leaders in 
the early eighties were given the controversial and expensive weapons systems
they wanted was flogged mercilessly.  His "projected" force tables must be
viewed with a certain amount of skepticism.

As a novel, Hackett's book is awful.  As propaganda, it's pretty good.
It provides, if nothing else, an interesting insider's look at the NATO
command structure, but as a reference for anything approaching serious
debate on the balance of power in Europe, it is at best questionable.

						Baba