Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site tty3b.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!hogpc!drux3!ihnp4!we13!tty3b!mjk
From: mjk@tty3b.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: PWhat if They Threw a War... - (nf)
Message-ID: <250@tty3b.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 17-Nov-83 16:10:32 EST
Article-I.D.: tty3b.250
Posted: Thu Nov 17 16:10:32 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 19-Nov-83 01:39:01 EST
References: <3890@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Organization: Teletype Corp., Skokie, Ill
Lines: 27

Susan Odom (or, if she prefers, susan odom) asks why the U.S.
doesn't just disarm unilaterally.  I think the reasons are
primarily U.S. domestic politics: they've scared people so
much that they can't admit it was all for nothing.  But there
is an idea within unilateralism that could play well.

This is the idea of unilateral STEPS.  That is, what grave
danger would come to our national security if we were to
announce, "We are stopping all testing, deployment and manufacture
of nuclear weapons, effective January 1, for a period of one year.
All countries are welcome to send delegations to monitor our own
voluntary compliance with this edict.  If the Soviets join us in
this action, we will continue it as long as they do."

This cuts through all the B.S. about arms talks (which are really
just an extension of the arms race -- neither side is interested
in real reductions, simply reductions which hurt the other side).
It challenges them to put up or shut up.  If they don't follow,
we resume production and all.  If they join us, we make the next
move.

We're supposed to be so much more enlightened and caring than the
Soviets.  So let's show it.  Let's take a small chance.  Let's
put up or shut up.

Mike Kelly
..!ihnp4!tty3b!mjk