Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!eda!jim From: jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) Newsgroups: comp.misc Subject: Re: USSR International Computer Club (was: Information on the ICC) Message-ID: <478@eda.com> Date: 30 Jan 89 03:34:34 GMT References: <10127@well.UUCP> <1315@orion.cf.uci.edu> <810@afit-ab.arpa> <832@afit-ab.arpa> <5314@brspyr1.BRS.Com> <853@afit-ab.arpa> Reply-To: jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) Distribution: na Organization: EDA Systems,Inc. Santa Clara, CA Lines: 88 In article <853@afit-ab.arpa> wbralick@blackbird.afit.af.mil (William A. Bralick) writes: # 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. Say what? Sounds like a bunch of babble to me. And like many US Air Farce Publications it presents a bunch of data, then presents a conclusion. The conclusion may have nothing to do with either the original question, or the data, but by presenting question, data, and conclusion in order, the Air Force succeeds in implying that the conclusion reached is based on the data, and that the conclusion answers the question. Read the Air Force Blue Book with an open mind sometime if you don't believe the Air Force uses this technique. Oh fudge, I got distracted. The original message described our defense strategy, based on percieved external threat. The second message said that everyone's defense strategy (budget) including the Russians' was based on percieved external threat. Then Mr. Air Force responded by describing force structure basis (defense, offense). Even though all the preceeding discussion was about defense spending the conclusive statement was: "Therefore, defense spending is not based on the _same_ thing." Same thing as what? I know, the implication attempted in the red herring about force structure and doctrine was that the Soviets are offensive based and the US is defensive based. Reality, however, is that both the US and the Soviets spend significant amounts on offensive capability. Our doctrine? I don't know what it really is. I don't even know who decides what it is. Who? Richard Nixon or Henry Kissinger; Ronnie Reagan, George Schultz, or Oliver North; George Bush or ??. Gorbachov, or ??. Mr. Air Force says: "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." Ignoring that those who fear you may not believe your doctrine is based on defending territory. And having spent 4 years in the Air Defense Command (ADC), and observed the relative status of the budget for the ADC versus both the Strategic Air Command and the Tactical Air Command, I'm not sure I blame them. I believe in keeping a strong military. I believe the Soviets are our greatest *current* *threat*. But note the words I highlighted above: current: i.e. time changes all threat: i.e. not synonymous with enemy Our greatest enemy is probably Khaddafi, or Khomani, or maybe someone we don't know *hates* the US. Remember the Liberty! US ship, flying the US flag, in international waters, and fired upon repeatedly by our strong ally, Isreal. Why? It fit their interests. Isreal is allowed on USENET. jim -- Jim Budler address = uucp: ...!{decwrl,uunet}!eda!jim domain: jim@eda.com