From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!npoiv!hou5f!ariel!houti!hogpc!houxq!houxb!wrongLogin
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: Re:How to Save the World
Article-I.D.: houxb.233
Posted: Tue Apr  5 17:01:46 1983
Received: Wed Apr  6 05:36:54 1983


	    The	general	problem	with Reagan's "interim solution"
       proposal	is that	it does	not recognize that the European	INF
       question	is part	of a larger political battle between the
       Soviets and the U.S. There are very few military	experts
       advancing the proposition that the Pershing missile
       deployment would	significantly alter the	military balance in
       Europe. Indeed, recall the history of the Pershing issue.
       Several years ago, our western allies complained	of a lack
       of commitment to	the defense of Europe. As a result, the	U.
       S. agreed to deploy the Pershings. Later, for one reason or
       another ( internal peace	movements, fear	of Europe's
       becoming	a battleground,	the spectre of partial German
       control of nuclear weapons ), many allies pressed for the
       so-called Zero-Zero option. When	Reagan came into office, he
       embraced	the proposal as	his own, and stuck to it so
       stubbornly that many allies feared there	would be no
       agreement at all. The result was	pressure for an	interim
       solution. Hence,	the latest Reagan proposal.

	    The	specific problems are twofold. First, the Soviets
       have already rejected the Nitze proposal. A proposal which
       was far more favorable to the Soviets than the current one.
       Indeed, there is	little incentive for the Soviets to accept
       such an agreement from either	a political or military	point of
       view.  Secondly,	by offering so unacceptable a proposal,
       Reagan allows the media to paint	the U.S. as uncommited to
       arms control.

	    By viewing the INF negotiations in a strictly military
       context,	Reagan is allowing the Soviets to further their
       goal of causing discord in NATO.