I have a book at home that is largely a response to a Reagan administration's assessment of Soviet military power. It was extremely critical of the estimates the Reagan administration had for Soviet Military power. However, hinsight is 20/20 and ultimately the truth was actually somewhere between both extremes.
For example, the book criticizes the projected design of the "new Soviet Anti-aircraft gun system," calling it a complete fiction and largely inspired by the West German Gerphard system (which the illustration resembled). The truth was that the Tunguska system, which was designed as a replacement for the ZSU-23-4 system largely resembled the Gephard, but in fact its potential capabilities were far greater than what the Reagan administration had projected (mounting 2 more 30mm barrels, as well as an organic surface-to-air missile system). The point is that the author who wrote the response had an anti-Reagan bias, and therefore his material was untrustworthy. The same danger can occur again in this case. Don't let your bias get in the way of an analysis, because they might just be right. Damon. ===== ------------------------------------------------------------ Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: ------------------------------------------------------------ __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
