Militarism of the USSR

Since 1971, the Soviet Union has been out spending the US on military expansion. Since 1972 it has out produced the US in tanks (by a ratio of 5.9:1), tactical aircraft (1.9:1) and artillery pieces (8:1). About three quarters of the Soviet armed forces are deployed in and around Europe, clearly showing that Europe is the focus of the contention between the two superpowers.

Just as the US twenty years ago piled up superior military forces and claimed they were for 'defence' (when in fact they were used to put pressure on the Soviet Union), so today with the changing strategic relationships in the world, the Soviet Union is doing the same thing in reverse and to a greater extent.

In the Northern and Central sector of the European front (Norway to Chechoslovakia) the Warsaw Pact has 31 armoured divisions against NATO's 11, 36 infantry, mechanized rifle and airborne divisions as against NATO's 18, a total of 910,000 troops to resist NATO's 635,000, and a mere 19,000 tanks to 'defend' themselves against NATO's 7,000!

Similarly, the Warsaw Pact has superiority in numbers of planes. NATO's only advantage is in the number of tactical nuclear warheads (7,000 as against the Pact's 3500); however, it is being increasingly recognised by the West that tactical nuclear warheads could become inoperable at an early stage in wartime. With the rapid advance of Soviet forces into West Germany, nuclear weapons would cause too much damage to NATO forces and territory to be used.

The facts of the Soviet armed build-up in Europe clearly refute their claim that these forces are intended only for 'defence'. The only explanation can be that the Soviet Union is preparing for a blitz-krieg style attack on Western Europe. Indeed, this is exactly what Warsaw Pact forces practice in their exercises in East Europe.

Contention between the superpowers takes place at sea just as upon the land. After the second world war, the US navy was the unchallenged mistress of the seas. It was used repeatedly to extend US military power onto other continents — during the Korean and Vietnam wars, in the Middle East and elsewhere. Today, however, the Soviet navy is challenging US hegemony. From being a coastal defence navy in the early fifties, the Soviet navy has been built up over the last twenty years to sail all the oceans of the world. The US, Western Europe and Japan all depend to a large extent on the security of their trading routes, particularly for imports of oil, whereas the Soviet union's main supply lines are within its own borders.

The extent of rivalry at sea was demonstrated by the Soviet's Okean II exercise held in 1975. This exercise involved 200 surface ships, 100 subs as well as reconnaissance aircraft. More than half these forces were concentrated on the oil route and practised attacks on merchant shipping.

The global reach of Soviet power was demonstrated by the Soviet-Cuban intervention in Angola — a country thousands of miles from the Russian mainland.

At Helsinki in August 1975, the 'Conference on Security and Co-op eration in Europe' was convened. The final declaration covered such matters as the inviolability of frontiers, the peaceful settlement of international disputes, non-intervention in internal affairs, the right of national self-determination and so on. In view of all the facts cited above, this declaration has a very hollow ring indeed.

The same pattern of rapid arms expansion coupled with deceptive agreements is repeated in the case of nuclear weapons. The Soviet Union is building up its stockpiles at a particularly rapid rate. In 1962 it had only 75 ICBMs, but by 1975 the total was up to 1618. Similarly, its SLBMs increased from 100 in 1963 to 784 in 1975. Whereas in 1970, the US had more missiles than the Soviet Union (1710 as against about 1600) the position was reversed by 1976 with the Soviets having by then over 500 more than the US.

Against this background, the superpowers came up with a treaty on the 'Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons' in 1968. This was paraded as a great contribution to the peace and safety of the world. In fact, as the figures above show, it was merely a device by which the superpowers tried to preserve their monopoly of nuclear weapons. While it restricted the access of smaller countries to nuclear weapons it did nothing to stop the superpowers proliferating nuclear weapons to all parts of the globe in subsequent years.

Another similarly two-faced treaty was the bilateral Threshold Test Ban Treaty, signed in July 1974. This treaty prohibited test explosions over 150 kilotons in strength, but it eas not due to come into force until 31 March 1976. According to Dr Frank Barnaby of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, "The 21 month delay was to allow the completion of a number of weapons developments then underway. These include new warheads for the US Minute man III missile and the Trident submarine launched ballistic missile, and warheads for a number of new Soviet missiles. The yields of all these warheads exceed the 150 km limit. Today's main interest is the development of low-yield tactical and strategic warheads, and this would not be hindered by the proposed limit."

In other words the treaty in fact legitimised arms competition. Just as the Partial Test Ban treaty was signed when it suited the convenience of the superpowers to test underground, so the Threshold Test Ban treaty was timed to come into effect when It was convenient for them to continue testing only small bombs.

What noble sacrifices in the cause of peace)