Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hou3c.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!harpo!eagle!mhuxl!ihnp4!clyde!burl!hou3c!ka
From: ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Being Nasty To The Good Ol' SU
Message-ID: <151@hou3c.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 22-Dec-83 16:10:36 EST
Article-I.D.: hou3c.151
Posted: Thu Dec 22 16:10:36 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 23-Dec-83 04:49:55 EST
References: <1039@mit-eddie.UUCP> <282@cdi.UUCP>, <1070@mit-eddie.UUCP> <1487@rlgvax.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ
Lines: 13

The issue with yellow rain is not, "do you trust the U. S. government."
I don't think it is at all likely that the samples of "yellow rain" are
fake.  The issue is whether the samples are actually samples of chemical
waepons.  As I understand it, the identity of the samples is not at all
obvious.  As to why the Soviet Union might refrain from using chemical
weapons in Afghanistan, the Soviets have signed agreements not to use
certain chemical weapons, and it is in their interest to appear to honor
treaties made by them.  The Soviets may not be able to squelch rebellion
in Afghanistan, but it is clear that they can post their troups there
indefinitely without being driven out.  As for believing the implausable,
isn't it improbable that the Soviets could use chemical weapons in Afghan-
istan on a large scale without solid evidence of the use appearing?
				Kenneth Almquist