Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!nrl-cmf!ames!lll-winken!ncis.llnl.gov!afit-ab!wbralick
From: wbralick@afit-ab.arpa (William A. Bralick)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: USSR International Computer Club (was: Information on the ICC)
Message-ID: <853@afit-ab.arpa>
Date: 25 Jan 89 18:22:21 GMT
References: <10127@well.UUCP> <1315@orion.cf.uci.edu> <810@afit-ab.arpa> <832@afit-ab.arpa> <5314@brspyr1.BRS.Com>
Reply-To: wbralick@blackbird.afit.af.mil (William A. Bralick)
Distribution: na
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology; WPAFB, OH
Lines: 27

In article <5314@brspyr1.BRS.Com> miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) writes:
)Sorry to jump into this old discussion, but I couldn't resist this...
)
)In article <832@afit-ab.arpa>, wbralick@afit-ab.arpa (William A. Bralick) writes:
)
)> US defense spending is based on the perceived (lethal) threat of hostile
)> foreign military forces.
)
)Sorry, but it seems to me that Soviet defense spending--and
)everybody else's defense spending--is based on the very same thing.

As you point out force structure does have to be taken into account.
If one's force structure is defensive in nature, and your doctrine is
based on defending territority, then you are only a hostile lethal threat
to those who would seek to acquire your territory by force.  If you have
a force structure that is offensive in nature, and your doctrine is
based on conquering territory, then you are a hostile lethal threat
to everyone around you.

Therefore, defense spending is not based on the _same_ thing.

Regards,
-- 
Will Bralick : wbralick@afit-ab.arpa  |  If we desire to defeat the enemy,
Air Force Institute of Technology,    |  we must proportion our efforts to 
                                      |  his powers of resistance.
with disclaimer;  use disclaimer;     |               - Carl von Clauswitz