Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: <None>
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 4 Sep 92 14:13:49 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <3SEP199216122752@reg.triumf.ca>, orwell@reg.triumf.ca (BALDEN, RON) writes:
...
> As for the quotation I gave, I had in mind the following: One of the
> fundamental premises (only for the last 45 years or so, John, so
> perhaps you went out for a coffee break and missed it) of  what is
> laughably called the U.S. "Defense" Department was that the
> monolithic/totalitarian Communist Warsaw Pact (their armies manned by
> heavily indoctrinated suicidal human robots) might decide at any
> moment to roll over Western Europe. Among other things, short-range
> nuclear weapons were supposed to be an absolute necessity for U.S.
> NATO forces (as late as 1988) because of the alleged enormous
> numerical superiority of the Warsaw Pact forces. Various criticisms

	Ron uses "alleged" because he knows that the Warsaw Pact did, indeed
have numerical superiority.  His use of that term is meant to imply that the
Warsaw Pact forces were not numerically superior.

> (grounded in elementary rationality) of this thesis were summarily
> dismissed by the U.S. powers-that-be  --- e.g. such criticisms as that
> it was **extremely** unlikely (to say the least) that troops from
> Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, etc. would fight enthusiastically
> beside Soviet troops (themselves mostly unenthusiastic young

	Yeah, just like Prague, 1968, eh?

> conscripts who were drunk when they could get the alcohol --
> see, e.g. Andrew Cockburn's "The Threat: Inside the Soviet Military
> Machine", circa 1983) to "occupy" Western Europe --- and to what
> purpose? 

	Occupy Eastern Europe after WWII?  To what purpose?

> In the period 1990-91 we saw the complete collapse, in a
> total of about 40 weeks, of the Communist governments of the whole
> Warsaw Pact, and we see, beyond any doubt, that (just as people like
> Tom Gervasi and his predecessors claimed all along, but quite contrary
> to U.S. D.o.D. propaganda) there was not the slightest possibility
> that troops of the Warsaw Pact would participate in an invasion of
> Western Europe. 

	Au contraire.  1979 was their best shot, but they chose Afghanistan
instead.  Possibly as a test case to judge US determination.

	One does not need 10-1 and 5-1 superiority in tanks and planes to
defend.  That kind of superiority is only needed for attack.

> But now, without the blinking of an eye, the U.S. military-industrial
> complex has already developed a complete new rationale.  Now it
> turns out that without the "stability" provided by the Cold War
> the world is actually a more dangerous place, and if anything,
> they need more resources.

	Its only doing what every bureaucracy has done since the dawn of time. 
Trying to perpetuate itself.

...
> As for the Korean War, read Phillip Knightley's account
> (a chapter) in his "The First Casualty" (1975, updated edition circa 1986)

	Apparently Ron is going to believe the South started the war (by
retreating all the way to Pusan?!?) until the N. Korean equivalent of Yelstin
and Gorby step forth and admit that they started it.

	Or was South Korea slant-drilling into the North?
:)

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d