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!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!wjh12!talcott!gjk
From: gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg J Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reagan's re-election
Message-ID: <130@talcott.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 25-Nov-84 20:11:56 EST
Article-I.D.: talcott.130
Posted: Sun Nov 25 20:11:56 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 27-Nov-84 03:58:58 EST
References: <6166@mcvax.UUCP> <3171@ucbvax.ARPA> <47@uwvax.UUCP> <106@talcott.UUCP> <679@erix.UUCP> <111@talcott.UUCP> <6187@mcvax.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Harvard
Lines: 19

> 
> 	>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.
> So your answer hides the reality: those missiles are placed here to give the
> USA a possibility to fight out a "limited" (?) nuclear war far from their own
> territory. That means: in Europe. And in the view of the US a "limited" nuclear
> war will not lead to a global nuclear exchange. So: Europe gone, USSR severely
> weakened, USA survives without major damage. That's US policy.....
> 
> -- 
> 	Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam
> 	...{seismo,decvax,philabs}!mcvax!piet

Yes, but why would Margaret Thatcher, Helmut Schmidt, and Helmut Kohl want
this?  Believe it or not, those missiles are for the defense of Western
Europe.  The cruise missiles can't even hit Moscow.  And it's not U.S.
policy, it's NATO policy.