Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site tty3b.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ltuxa!tty3b!mjk
From: mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly)
Newsgroups: net.followup,net.politics
Subject: Re: Unilateral disarmament
Message-ID: <478@tty3b.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 4-Sep-84 14:04:49 EDT
Article-I.D.: tty3b.478
Posted: Tue Sep  4 14:04:49 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Sep-84 03:25:06 EDT
References: <1671@pegasus.UUCP>
Organization: Teletype Corp., Skokie, Ill
Lines: 21

The best argument I can muster against unilateralism is that it won't sell
politically in any country.  Why defend a position that's too easy to attack?
That's what the Right wants to label us as, unilateralists.  The Freeze has
succeeded precisely because it is an important first step and explicitly non-
unilateralist.

Pure unilateralism isn't needed.  The Soviets have shown, I think, a willingness
to abide by treaties that are fair.   One interesting idea that has grown out
of the Freeze campaign is the so-called "Quick Freeze".  The concept here is
a first step initiated by the U.S. that is accompanied by a challenge to the
Soviets to reciprocate.  This would bring an immediate halt to further testing,
production and deployment while negotiations proceed on a comprehensive treaty.
The argument is that the risks of such a step are small -- we could easily 
abandon it if the Soviets don't reciprocate -- but the symbolic importance is
great.

In short, why tackle the problems of unilateralism when bilateralism will work
just as well?

Mike Kelly