Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: notesfiles
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hp-pcd!hpfcla!hpfclo!jacob
From: jacob@hpfclo.UUCP (jacob)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <48400005@hpfclo.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 10-Aug-84 14:40:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: hpfclo.48400005
Posted: Fri Aug 10 14:40:00 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 12-Sep-84 02:45:10 EDT
References: <-45700@tty3b.UUCP>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard - Fort Collins, CO
Lines: 21
Nf-ID: #R:tty3b:-45700:hpfclo:48400005:37777777600:886
Nf-From: hpfclo!jacob    Aug 30 10:40:00 1984



A short note, in response to Mike Kelly's comparison.  Not necessarily
agreeing with his conclusions, I find his arguments pretty good -- they
even contain no namecalling!

I would like to object to one specific observation:  USA is not surrounded
by hostile borders, and USSR is.  I doubt that a complete study on this
subject has ever been published, but from my observations, the soviet border
patrol's primary job has been, for decades now, not keeping intruders out
of the USSR, but keeping (time to invent a possibly new, but cute word)
extruders in the USSR.  One certainly doesn't need nuclear weapons for that.

Even if the case was otherwise -- if there indeed was danger to the USSR from
its "hostile borders" -- do you think they aim their missiles at their own
borders?

I don't buy "hostile borders" argument in a nuclear arms discussion.

Jacob Gore
inhp4!hpfcla!jacob