Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site druxy.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!vax135!ariel!hou4b!hou5f!hou5g!hou5h!hou5a!hou5d!hogpc!houxe!drutx!druxy!jhs
From: jhs@druxy.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.followup,net.politics
Subject: Re: Star Wars Defense...
Message-ID: <1238@druxy.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 31-Aug-84 12:16:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: druxy.1238
Posted: Fri Aug 31 12:16:45 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Sep-84 13:19:44 EDT
References: <302@ihu1e.UUCP>, <406@oliven.UUCP>, <740@flairvax.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver
Lines: 42

A response to the following:

>  I don't think unilateral disarmament is a good idea.  However, I 
   take exception to casual statements like:

   >> Nah, the expressed goal of the Russian government is only to 
   >> take over the world.                 (Rick Hawkins @ Olivetti ATC)

>  Can someone cite me a reference to such an expression of this goal,
>  made by the Soviet government within the last thirty years?

>  Kevin D. Kissell
>  Fairchild Research Center

Granted, the reply was in a *casual* style, but the substance was (I
believe) an accurate reflection of the Soviet dogma and intent (within
the last 30 years). 

Re the dogma: the Communist Manifesto cites world domination as a goal 
and philosophy.  Re the last thirty years: The best-known public comment
was by N.  Khruschev--"We will bury you."--in 1960 (this is probably
a solid date; if not, please correct). That Russian good-old-boy, 
N.K., as Soviet premier could reasonably be considered an official 
spokesperson for the Soviet government (which is also why Ronnie's 
recent open-make gaffe is more significant politically). 

Private statements, actions, and policies of the KGB (also reflective 
of the Soviet government's position) indicate that an active unremitting
campaign has been in progress for at least 30 years with the principal 
goal of undermining Western and Western-sympathetic governments, 
institutions, and philosophies. (yes, yes, yes, I know; we have the
sometimes suspect actions of our CIA as an albatross--all the more
reason to keep them under control and prevent them from making de facto 
policies and taking unilateral actions).

Also, lack of restatement or public repudiation for a standing 
policy/intent does not mean that the policy is no longer active. It 
just means that they are trying to keep a lower profile on the issue.

Comments, corrections, or flames, anyone?   -- Jeff Shore
					       AT&T-IS (Denver)
					       druxy!jhs