Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site fisher.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!fisher!david
From: david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Reagan's re-election
Message-ID: <413@fisher.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 19-Nov-84 09:30:39 EST
Article-I.D.: fisher.413
Posted: Mon Nov 19 09:30:39 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 20-Nov-84 03:01:16 EST
References: <6166@mcvax.UUCP> <3171@ucbvax.ARPA> <47@uwvax.UUCP> <106@talcott.UUCP> <679@erix.UUCP> <111@talcott.UUCP>
Organization: Princeton Univ. Statistics
Lines: 23

Mike Williams is probably right. Western Europe would probably be
better off defending itself--if it could gather the will to do so.
However, it cannot, as evidenced by the REQUEST by the Europeans for
the Cruise missiles.  As Europe is unwilling to spend sufficient funds
to insure its own defense, it seeks to use US assets for its own
benefit.  Fortunately for them, we perceive it to be in our own
interests, as well as the right thing to do, to support them.

However, I digress.  My point is that the installation of intermediate
range missiles is for Europe's benefit, not America's. It is part of
the continued strategy of "linking" US and European defenses. Whether
such moves convince the Soviets that our nuclear defenses are linked
is debatable (the French have concluded that it is not convincing, and
I agree), it was the European governments which desired to press for
their deployment. 

What evidently scared the Europeans was not so much the installation
of the missiles as the saber-rattling early in the Reagan
administration. While Carter was President, there was no protest, and
I suspect had Reagan handled himself better there would have been
little protest in 1981-3.

					David Rubin