Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdcsu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watdcsu!dmcanzi
From: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: A position of strength
Message-ID: <979@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 18-Feb-85 17:18:18 EST
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.979
Posted: Mon Feb 18 17:18:18 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 19-Feb-85 06:09:28 EST
References: <134@rtech.UUCP> <13700005@uiucdcsp.UUCP>
Reply-To: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi)
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 17
Summary: 

"However, anyone knows that you don't bargain from weakness; you bargain
 from a position of strength."

*sigh*  Suppose that the U. S. succeeded in building sufficient offensive
and defensive weapons that everybody would agree that the U. S. had achieved
a position of strength.  What then?  The U. S. S. R. would be in a position
of weakness.  Since, as "anyone knows", "you don't bargain from a position
of weakness", one would expect the Russians to refuse to bargain.  If both
sides believe the "position of strength" argument, negotiation is impossible
forever.

The people in high-ranking positions who advance the "position of strength"
argument are probably smart enough to have seen its implications.  The
"position of strength" argument is just a cheap excuse for refusing to
bargain.
-- 
	David Canzi