Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site pucc-i
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!pucc-j!pucc-i!afb
From: afb@pucc-i (Michael Lewis)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Conventional Arms Balance in Europe
Message-ID: <1303@pucc-i>
Date: Fri, 21-Feb-86 10:17:20 EST
Article-I.D.: pucc-i.1303
Posted: Fri Feb 21 10:17:20 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 23-Feb-86 03:57:09 EST
References: <1245@pucc-i> <915@whuxl.UUCP> <1908@brl-tgr.ARPA> <516@whuts.UUCP> <263@garth.UUCP>
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Lines: 30
Keywords: Docudrama, Euro-military-industrial Complex
Summary: Is it really *that* bad of a reference?? Is it worse than no reference at all??

In article <263@garth.UUCP>, baba@garth.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) writes:
> estimates of Soviet force levels were a little high, and his projections
> of non-US NATO force levels and effectiveness were wildly optimistic.

     For the purposes of our discussion, I deemed that the projected force 
level estimates would suffice...if anything, the figures tended to err on
the side of optimism, as you pointed out.  Therefore, the arms balance is 
*at least* that bad.
> 
> 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.
> 

     I agree that the figures are best taken with a grain of salt, but they are
useful.  After all, does anyone *really* know how many troops and tanks the
Soviets have in Europe?  As you said above, the figures will tend to be a little
optimistic, which is why I bothered to dredge them up in the first place.

> 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