Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site whuxl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!whuxl!orb
From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Soviets to Blame as well
Message-ID: <351@whuxl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 19-Nov-84 10:49:24 EST
Article-I.D.: whuxl.351
Posted: Mon Nov 19 10:49:24 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 20-Nov-84 03:00:21 EST
References: <574@ccice5.UUCP> <3156@ucbvax.ARPA> <341@whuxl.UUCP> <654@loral.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Bell Labs
Lines: 46

> 	The Soviets love the idea of a freeze.  What they don't like is
> the "mutually verifiable" part.  They are extraordinarily cagey on just
> what sort of inspections they will permit, and so far, they are quite
> unwilling to allow inspections nearly adequate to prove compliance.
> 
> 	Reagan has said, repeatedly, that he looks forward to the total
> elimination of all nuclear weapons.  Period.  What could be dearer to
> any peace-loving person's heart than that?  Sure beats a mere freeze.
> 
> 	I have yet to hear anything similar from Moscow.  I am quite
> sure that, were the Soviets to embrace such a plan sincerely enough to
> permit the sort of inspections that really mean something, Reagan would
> embrace it wholeheartedly.
> 
> Ray Simard
 
I would like to believe Reagan's professions of peaceful intent.  However so
far I have yet to see any concrete steps in that direction.
Reagan has never proposed anything that would reduce the overall level of
nuclear weapons.  The START proposals which would have reduced some weapons
would have increased others, and wound up with 1500 more nuclear weapons 
overall.  Let us take just one VERY innocuous treaty- the Limited Test Ban
Treaty negotiated by Kennedy in 1963.  That treaty has never been violated
by either side-- it is VERY easy to verify--if atmospheric testing is done
it sends radioactive fallout into the atmosphere all over the world.
Yet Reagan opposed that treaty.  Why?
Your argument and Reagan's for "reducing nuclear arms" has severe flaws.
If Reagan cannot assure verification with a simple stop to the arms race
then how is he supposed to assure verification with reductions?  Will the
Soviets be MORE likely to agree to steps to verify reductions than they
are to agree to steps to verify a simple Freeze?  The Freeze is the FIRST STEP
towards reducing nuclear weapons.  IF both sides cannot even take this
logical first step how are they going to take steps to reductions?
The other contradiction is precisely that embodied in Reagan's START proposals.
By calling for reductions in the previous generation of nuclear weapons Reagan
allows for an allout arms race in the next and very dangerous generation of
cruise missiles.  These missiles are 18 feet long, they could fit in your
living room, they could be stolen by terrorists or other unsavory groups,
and if Reagan thinks ICBM treaty compliance is difficult then what about
cruise missile treaty compliance?  If testing, production and deployment of
cruise missiles is stopped NOW, then there is far greater chance they can
be controlled.  Once both sides have cruise missiles in large numbers how
can either side trust the other to have totally dismantled such portable
weapons? This problem will only get worse as every day more cruise missiles
are deployed.  It is one reason a Freeze on these weapons is so urgent.
tim sevener whuxl!orb