Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site talcott.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!decvax!genrad!wjh12!talcott!gjk From: gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg J Kuperberg) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: Re: Reagan's re-election Message-ID: <111@talcott.UUCP> Date: Sat, 17-Nov-84 15:20:13 EST Article-I.D.: talcott.111 Posted: Sat Nov 17 15:20:13 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 19-Nov-84 07:42:43 EST References: <6166@mcvax.UUCP> <3171@ucbvax.ARPA> <47@uwvax.UUCP> <106@talcott.UUCP> <679@erix.UUCP> Organization: Harvard Lines: 45 > Sorry, I don't think that the placement of US nuclear weapons in Europe is > being done to defend Western Europe. I believe that whereas these weapons > might possibly be regarded as a part of the US defence, their presence in > Western Europe is a threat to us over here. > > We would be better off defending ourselves from the Eastern Block (which I > detest) by ourselves without any so called "help" from the other side of the > Atlantic. Please keep your missiles where they belong - over there. > > Mike Williams > Stockholm, Sweden. That is precisely what the missiles are there for. Granted that we can already demolish the Russian cities with the missiles on our continent, the cruise missiles are there to hit Russian missile silos. In turn, these Russian missile silos are pointed at Western Europe and are in fact too far away to hit the U.S. You may ask at this point, "If the U.S. can hit the U.S.S.R from North America, why do they have missiles in Europe?" The answer is detectability. Cruise missiles are designed to get by the radar, and they are not long range. On the other hand, since Pershings are detectable, they have to be able to strike quickly, which again means that they need to be close to the Soviet border. May I remind you of the politics of just a year or two ago? The Soviets offered the zero option, which meant that the U.S. would have zero missiles in Europe while the Soviets would not. The Reagan Administration then countered with the zero-zero option, whereby both the U.S. and the Soviet Union would have zero missiles in Europe. The Soviet reply was: "If we aren't allowed any missiles in Europe, then not only the U.S., but also France and England should not be allowed any missiles either." NATO forces disagreed, and that was the end of it. Hardly a matter of U.S. defense. Now you may argue that this is a stupid way to defend Western Europe, that conventional forces are a lot safer, and so on. You may well be right (although I'm not completely sure). The point is that at least the U.S.'s goal in the this affair (which is to be able to defend Western Europe if necessary) should be more palatable than the Soviet goal (which is to be able to destroy Western Europe if necessary). Yet as a rule, peace demonstrations in the West are very anti-American, and are anti-Soviet to a much lesser degree. Finally, may I commend you for detesting the governments of the Eastern Bloc. Not everyone on this side of the Iron Curtain shares your views.