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: Euromissiles in Belgium Message-ID: <511@fisher.UUCP> Date: Tue, 29-Jan-85 10:46:17 EST Article-I.D.: fisher.511 Posted: Tue Jan 29 10:46:17 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 30-Jan-85 07:21:21 EST References: <229@usl.UUCP> Organization: Princeton Univ. Statistics Lines: 158 >> = David Rubin > = Spyridon Triantafyllopoulos = David Rubin redux >> Responsable government makes its decisions based on the national >> INTEREST, not the national DESIRE. >Well, it just happens that in a real Democracy, like some found >in Europe, the national DESIRE (what the people want) is what >the national INTEREST is all about. If this is your position, how then would you answer these questions? (1) If the people change their minds, does the national interest change with it? (2) If the people desire something morally wrong, does the national interest demand immorality? (3) If the people desire something patently stupid, does the fulfillment of that desire advance the national interest? (4) (For fans of self-reference): If the people should decide to terminate their nationhood, does national interest demand its own destruction? >> that in the former two cases, the decision makers must answer for >> their decisions (which, incidentally, they exercised under a >> constitution which has popular consent for its methods) to both the >> courts and the people. Jaruzelski did not have those constraints. >Neither has Reagan. He may have to explain why he has to put the >Euromissiles in , but he never EVER explains it >to the people that are immediately affected, i.e, the PEOPLE of >the . You forget the European governments. They must face the people having made their decisions. Reagan does not have to face, say, the Spanish electorate because Gonzalez will. It is the responsability of Kohl, Thatcher, et. al. to explain the purpose of the missiles. >> it is clear that the European governments do believe the cruise >> missiles are in their best interests, and stated as much when there >> was little public pressure. >That is probably YOUR opinion. There have been more than enough >protests against NATO arms over there... it is just that NATO has the >blessed support of Thatcher and other similar people that these things >happen. The implication that it is the right wing exclusively which favors the deployment of the cruise missiles is false. The first leader to request the missiles was Helmut Schmidt; one of the strongest proponents of deployment now is Francois Mitterand. To dismiss it as a creation of Thatcher and her ilk is not borne out by fact. As far as it being my OPINION that the European governments, for the most part, feel the missile deployment is in their interest, consider this: if you are to claim that the missiles are overwhelmingly unpopular with the electorates, and you are to claim that the European governments do not believe the missiles are in their interest, why haven't the governments taken the politcally popular action which they themselves have no qualms about? Part of the premise must be false; while I presumed it was the assumption that European governments do not consider deployment in their interests, which was incorrect, the failure of the other assumption would do more damage to your argument. >> Finally, equating Soviet control over the Warsaw Pact with US >> "control" of NATO is a willful act of naivete. If the US "controlled" >> NATO, there would have been cruise missiles in Denmark and the >> Netherlands, the Belgians and especially the Dutch would deploy their >> army units committed to NATO in West Germany, the West Germans would >> abandon their doctrine of foward defense, the British would neglect >> their nuclear capabilities in order to strenghten the BAOR, the French >> and Greeks would be militarily integrated, the Turks would reconstitute >> Cyprus, the Spanish would cease deploying their forces primarily against >> Gibraltar, the Italians would raise their spending above their >> near-Japanese levels, the Norwegians would permit the basing of US or >> UK marines, etc., etc., etc. The fact is that NATO forces are >> deployed in a far from optimal pattern because of the political facts of >> life that the US must accept. >> David Rubin >The equation of NATO and the Warsaw Pact comes out of nowhere. The WP has >as purpose domination of Eastern (and probably Western) Europe. NATO >is trying to "unite" all remaining countries in an attempt to move the >place of future arms conflicts as far away from the U.S as possible. >Remember the missile accident in West Germany a while ago??? How many >complained here? How many would if it happened in Austin, TX or >some other US City? We do have missile accidents here, and we are fortunate enough (maybe even wise enough) to have them occur well-removed from major cities (remember the accident in Arkansas a few years ago?). The accident in West Germany was much less severe than the one in Arkansas (which involved an obsolete ICBM), so the implication that the US places all risk on its NATO allies is unfair. The purpose of NATO is to prevent the expansion of Soviet rule in Europe. To be quite frank, the deployment of the Euromissiles decreases the chance that the US could successfully limit a war to Europe (cf. "linkage"; if necessary, discussion could begin on this, too), which is why the European governments requested their deployment from the Carter administration. Of course, it is easy for a smaller NATO country (read Greece) to claim NATO serves exclusively American interests, secure in the knowledge that the British, Germans, and French would not be so foolish as to follow a course similar to their own and thus threatening to the small country's security. This is very much parallel to Adam Smith's light house: it is in the interests of all Western European nations to build a strong security system, but each nation has a financial and perhaps a political incentive to defect and let the others build it. The larger nations (France, West Germany, Great Britain, and Italy) cannot consider defection, as then the "light house" would not even be built if any one of them did so. However, defection is a plausible option for the smaller countries. >As about NATO's power, I have seen the results of NATO >pressure on Turkey about Cyprus. Nothing happens. Where is the political >power of NATO? These guys in Cyprus still call it a "Nation". No disagreement here. NATO is obviously ill-suited for controlling disputes among member countries. >As about Italian spending, it is much much better to build one's country >than to build or keep weapons. The Italians don't have anything to worry >about (except Albania :-)) except the falling Liretta. The destruction and occupation of the Federal Republic of Germany poses an even greater threat to the economy and politics of Italy than, say, Great Britain. Yet the British, despite the falling pound, despite an econmomy no stronger than Italy's, under both Labour and Tory governments have contributed to the general defense of Europe at levels far exceeding those of Italy. To pretend that the occupation of Northern Europe by the Warsaw Pact would not destroy Italian democracy requires incredible optimism. So would reliance upon Soviet respect for Austrian neutrality in the first place. >Having both Greek and Italian origins, I believe I have a better idea >of the subject. Anscestory does not provide automatic expertise. It does, however, automatically provide bias. Don't you see how wrong an argument such as this is? If you claim that not being Greek, or Italian, or whatever, somehow disqualifies what I have said, you have exempted every nation from external examination of its policies. It's the moral equivalent of an Afrikaaner answering an argument against aparthied by saying, "I am an Afrikaaner, and must live in South Africa, and therefore I have a better idea of the situation." >Think about it Dave, you wouldn't like that missile ruin your Oldsmobile, >would you??? >-- Spiros Both nuclear war and Soviet domination are unacceptable options. Therefore, I select the only remaining course--deterrence. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david