Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site tty3b.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!mgnetp!ltuxa!tty3b!mjk
From: mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: EuroMissiles and Belgium
Message-ID: <592@tty3b.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 29-Jan-85 14:28:12 EST
Article-I.D.: tty3b.592
Posted: Tue Jan 29 14:28:12 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 30-Jan-85 07:24:47 EST
References: <579@tty3b.UUCP>, <500@fisher.UUCP>
Organization: Teletype Corp., Skokie, Ill
Lines: 33

David Rubin has offered a good critique of my original posting on
Euromissiles.  Of course, I agree that not every popularly-willed
policy should be immediately implemented.  I do think, though, that
it is unfair to claim European opposition to the missiles is a
short-lived public sentiment.  It is deep and broad.  

The basic problem is the lack of a European security community.  NATO
is pretty clearly dominated by the U.S.  For various economic and 
political reasons, the Europeans have been forced to rely on it.   I
think that consensus is breaking down, and the fight over the missiles
is evidence of that.   How many NATO countries do you think would agree
to a *new* plan for installation of missiles?  Very few, I would guess.

I think there is a deeper issue here, as well.  We are told that there
must be NATO missiles in West Europe because there are Soviet missiles in
East Europe.  This ignores the British and French missiles already
in West Europe.   These new missiles are *American* missiles stationed in
Europe.  Why does *America* need missiles in Europe?   I think it has a
lot more to do with the Third World than it does with Western Europe.  The
missiles basically allow the U.S. the leeway to intervene in places of 
its own choosing (Central America has been `in' recently) while holding
the Soviets at arms length.  The missiles are sort of a guarantee that
intervention won't escalate to a conventional world war.  The British and
French missiles are intended to defend those countries, and can't handily
be brandished by an American President.  

For those interested, this thesis is presented much more cogently by
Randall Forsberg in the Winter, 1984, issue of World Policy.   Her article
is titled "The Freeze and Beyond: Confining the Military to Defense as a
Route to Disarmament."

Mike Kelly