I used to know a _lot_ about this and I am very skeptical. I never heard of these guys. The source they cite has TWO documents, or four if you count them that way.
"Plans to initiate the use of nuclear weapons, ostensibly to preempt Western first-use. (Documents Nos. 81, 83) Soviet expectations that conventional conflicts would go nuclear, and plans to fight and win such conflicts. (Documents Nos. 81, 83)"
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB154/index.htm
I used to have probably _ a thousand_ detailed documents declassified from Pentagon sources on US first use plans. I still have probable the crucial coiuple of dozen.
In the world of nuclear theology and strategic planning, two documents is toilet paper. Nothing. Worthless. You want the operation plans, the position papers, the strategic analyses, the whole bureaucratic paraphrenalia of modern war. If I had tried to make a case abouyt use first use plans with two or for documents I would have been regarded as a crank,a fraud, and an incompetent.
And on the contrary, I used to have quite of lot of Soviet docs, and by quite a lot I mean, e.g., a dozen basic military textbooks, a couple score trandlated desclassified documents, and a ton of nonideological western analyses that said that the USSR had a no-first use polict.
So, that might be a lie, but it will take more than four documents to convince me. And thsi was something I used to do. I mean, I can still tell you what CEP is and I can probably remember the CEP of the SS20. (500 yards =/-, I think).
--- Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol at jhu.edu> wrote:
> > http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/
> >
>
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_17-5-2005_pg7_41
> > Soviet Union had plans for first use of N-weapons
> in Europe
> >
> > By Khalid Hasan
> >
> > WASHINGTON: The Soviet Union had plans to attack
> Western Europe that
> > included being the first to use nuclear weapons,
> according to a new
> > book of previously secret Warsaw Pact documents
> published at the
> > weekend.
>
> Two observations:
>
> 1. It is very interesting that such "findings"
> start to emerge out of
> Washington just when the US unilateralism and
> militarism make it more likely
> for the EU and Russia to cooperate to thwart the US
> aggression. Coincidence?
> I do not think so.
>
> 2. In organizational behavior, plans doe not mean
> intention - contrary to
> what various propaganda mouthpieces want us to
> believe. Making various
> contingency plans is the raison d'etre of
> organizations - but it does not
> mean that those plans are meant to be actively
> pursued. It means that
> organizations have an action plan for every possible
> contingency, so they
> are not caught off guard. For the same reason, the
> USPS developed a
> contingency plan for mail delivery after a 'nucular'
> attack on the US.
>
> Wojtek
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
Discover Yahoo! Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html