From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!npoiv!npois!houxm!5941ux!machaids!hocda!spanky!ka
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: Re: How to Save the World
Article-I.D.: spanky.271
Posted: Mon Apr  4 15:33:22 1983
Received: Tue Apr  5 04:13:31 1983
References: <180@uofm-cv.UUCP>

First of all, a factual correction:  two nuclear weapons *have* been used,
both in Japan at the end of WW2.

I agree that unilateral disarmament is a risky strategy, and that the best
approach is a bilateral reduction, or at least a freeze.  I have problems
with the attempt to blame for what happened in Vietnam on the peace pro-
testers.  If nobody had protested against the war, we might still be fight-
ing there.  Place the blame for any negative effects the protests my have
had on the negotiations not on the protesters, but on the politicians for
failing to us get out of Vietnam until the protesters forced them to.

Similarly for the peace movement.  Ford and Carter didn't have to contend
with a nuclear freeze movement; the anti-nuclear movement has become a sig-
nificant force in this society *because* of Reagan's insensitivity to the
concerns about nuclear war.  Now Reagan is dealing with the issue, but
judging by how long it took him to get this far, I doubt that he will go
any farther than he is forced to; thus the reason for applying continued
pressure.  As an aside, if the Soviets want to wait out Reagan, they don't
have to guess about the vagaries of the 1984 election--they *know* he won't
run in 1988.

The nuclear protest movement has not limited itself to putting pressure
on Reagan.  The Soviet Union is sensitive to world opinion and has at
least paid lip service to the nuclear freeze movement.  (Admittedly, it
is not clear that its actions, as opposed to its words, can be influenced.)

In spite of the points above, Jan's proposal (section 4 of her article)
makes sense.  When I was at the disarmament rally in New York last June
I was somewhat disturbed by the predominately liberal and anti-Reagan
views of the organizers, not because I disagreed with these views but
because I felt that the issue of nuclear war transcends them.  Reading
Jan's article has made me reconsider that reaction.  I don't think that
Reagan has much personal commitment to arms control, so that he should
be periodicly reminded that the issue is important.  But since he is now
taking some positive steps in that direction, why not praise him for the
things he does right?  I am not saying that he should not be attacked
for his failures, but that praise can be as effective as criticism.
				Kenneth Almquist