Military might

Press, 7 August 1985, Page 16

Military might

Sir,—What a weak reply T. R. Loudon made (August 5) to Vernon Wilkinson’s challenge. Citing the Pentagon publication, “Soviet Military Power,” to prove a N.A.T.O. defence disadvantage is about as useful and admissible as using an I.R.A. character reference for the British Government. Mr Loudon appears to accept only what reinforces his prejudice — for surely contributors to the “Christian Science Monitor’s” advertisement — the American Secretary of Defence and top service chiefs would have superior knowledge and authority over Pentagon propaganda? History will confirm that this so-called N.A.T.O. defence gap is as false as the past Pentagon bleats about “bomber gaps” (19505) and “missile gaps” (19605). Both were later discredited as dishonest ploys to obtain even more money and resources from the American taxpayer.— Yours, etc., M. T. MOORE. August 5, 1985. Sir, — If T. R. Loudon wants to use Pentagon propaganda to compare N.A.T.O. and Warsaw Pact force levels he should include the

following (from the Pentagon’s “Soviet Military Power” (1984): 1. Western forces maintain a favourable balance of maritime power and have an important edge in anti-submarine warfare (p. 67 2. Western tactical air forces retain a qualitative advantage and have more ground attack fighters. (p 57 3. The N.A.T.O. allies have huge superiority in tactical warheads, aircraft carriers, anti-tank weapons, and armed helicopters. 4. Comparisons in terms of fire-power and cost effectiveness give N.A.T.O. divisions a supremacy of perhaps 2.2 to 1. Warsaw Pact divisions are smaller and many are at “low stages of readiness” (p. 57 N.A.T.O. has many more men in uniform. 5. Department of Defence figures show United States technology ahead at every level of offensive warfare except chemical warfare. Of course, unbiased, nonAmerican statistics would tell us even more. — Yours, etc., WARREN THOMSON, Values Party Spokesperson on Peace Issues. August 5, 1985.

Auckland was the first area declared nuclear weapon-free by its council.—Yours, etc., LARRY ROSS. August 5, 1985.