Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece
From: preece@uicsl.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Who's deterring whom? - (nf)
Message-ID: <4094@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 23-Nov-83 22:31:31 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.4094
Posted: Wed Nov 23 22:31:31 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 26-Nov-83 06:31:41 EST
Lines: 38

#R:charm:-17800:uicsl:16300033:000:1820
uicsl!preece    Nov 23 10:28:00 1983

				 The USSR has plenty of troops in its
	satelite countries (as much to keep them in line as to threaten the
	west), why doesn't our un-named writer mention those ?
----------
Well, the troops in, say, East Germany are not directly a threat to ME,
so I see them as different from our troops in West Germany, which are
a direct threat to the Soviet Union and its satellites.  More
important, we have bunches of missiles over there and we're currently
putting in lots more.  How would we react if they put missiles in,
say, Cuba (what a novel idea) or Mexico?

We have insisted that in discussing nuclear arms in Europe we could
not count the independent forces of our allies.  The Soviets may
justifiably question exactly why we are entitled to put ANY of our
own missiles in Europe under those circumstances.  If the Europeans
are independent, let them take care of themselves; if they want our
umbrella, they ought to coordinate themselves with our arms control
discussions.

The natural geographic distribution of the world has arranged that we
are surrounded by friends and they are surrounded by enemies (beyond the
borders of their satellites, of course).  Why SHOULDN'T they feel paranoid?
They also know that we have more advanced missiles and guidance systems and
more powerful computers and communications facilities.  Why should they
trust us any more than we trust them?

I'm not saying there are any answers.  I think a freeze would be nice,
but not terribly meaningful, given the appalling level we'd be making
fixed.  A reduction might very well make conventional war more likely,
and a conventional war would certainly lead to building nuclear weapons
again.  But a severe reduction, adequately policed, would at least
reduce the danger of accidental cataclysm.

scott preece
ihnp4!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece