The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan

The Soviet Union reacted strongly to the [Muslim] internal rebellion [in Afghanistan] and accused the United States, Pakistan, Iran and Egypt of aiding the Muslims. In March, helicopters, tanks and APCs were brought in. Troop-carrying Mi-24 Hind helicopters were used to transport Afghan troops to attack the rebel bases, clustered in rough mountain terrain-the same tactic that the United States tried in Viet Nam.

On 14 September 1979, former Foreign Minister Amin took control of the country, and his government, too, received heavy Soviet military support-some 800 main battle tanks and 800 additional APCs were delivered, as well as mortars and artillery pieces. The Muslim rebellion was, however, not crushed, in spite of the fact that this turned out to be the most extensive Soviet military involvement in any current confl ict, surpassing that in Ethiopia in 1978 and in Viet Nam earlier in 1979. Before the end of the year, a large number of fighter aircraft, including MiG-21s, had also been delivered. The resemblance to the US presence in Viet Nam was striking to most observers, as Muslim opposition to the Soviet presence continued to grow. At the end of December, the Hafi zullah Amin government was ousted in a coup in favour of Karmal, and in early 1980 the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan with a large number of troops.

The hope voiced in 1946 that Afghanistan would no longer be used as a 'pathway to empire' by any great power has not been fulfilled. However, judging from events during the first months of 1980, the Soviet Union may find, as did the United States in Viet Nam, that in what is defined as an 'asymmetric war', sophisticated weapons alone may not be enough to subjugate the opposition.

Nuclear weapons and the risks of war

Events during 1979 in Iran, Mecca and Afghanistan brought home the political instabilities of the Persian Gulf region. The Soviet Union may become a net importer of oil in the mid-1980s and compete for Persian Gulf oil. Great power rivalry may then intensify and enhance the danger of a great power conflict in the region.

The escalation of a regional conflict to a general nuclear war may be more likely than a direct nuclear attack by the USA or the USSR, or vice versa. A future local conflict in a Third World region like the Middle East may begin as a conventional war and then escalate to a limited nuclear war. This may in turn escalate to a full-scale nuclear war involving the two great powers. Escalation may be most likely if these powers are the main suppliers of the conventional weapons used in the original conflict. This is why the international arms trade and nuclear weapon proliferation are so dangerous.

New types of nuclear weapons are emerging which by their very characteristics may increase the probability of a nuclear world war. In particular, very accurate and reliable ballistic missiles are being developed which are more suitable for fighting a nuclear war than deterring it.

Much has recently been heard about some of these weapons-Soviet SS-20 intermediate-range ballistic missiles, US cruise missiles, and US Pershing II missiles. These so-called tactical nuclear weapons are being deployed or are planned for deployment in Europe. But new strategic nuclear weapons are also being developed.

At the height of the cold war the prospect of nuclear conflict dominated the research activities of the Institute

Previous Table of Content Next