Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 11/03/84 (WLS Mods); 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: Euromissiles in Belgium (once more)
Message-ID: <537@fisher.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 20-Feb-85 11:01:52 EST
Article-I.D.: fisher.537
Posted: Wed Feb 20 11:01:52 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 22-Feb-85 21:49:02 EST
References: <292@usl.UUCP>
Organization: Princeton University Department of Statistics
Lines: 85

" " = Dave Rubin, >> = Spiros Triantafyllopoulos, >>>> = DR redux

Ivan is not likely to turn the other cheek if US intermediate range
missiles were to begin landing in European portions of the Soviet
Union.  Were there only French and/or British missiles so landing,
Uncle Sam could realistically expect Ivan not to retaliate against
North America.  Thus, the deployment of US intermediate range missiles
in Europe decreases the chance of a nuclear war being "limited" 

>> But there is no reason French and/or British missiles (I mean
>> missiles belonging to the COUNTRY's armed forces and NOT to NATO
>> armed forces) should land on Soviet (Oh stargate forgive me!) land.
>> unless an Afganistan-like story occurs. (Soviets attack first). 
>> Then Uncle Sam would throw in its candies since its pals were hit, 
>> and "this is the end, my only friend". 

>>>> You have a greater confidence in American willingness for
>>>> self-sacrifice than that possessed by the most blithe NATO
>>>> supporter.

I don't claim equal knowledge of Greek and Italian attitudes.
However, I assert that discussion of Greek and Italian interests does
not require such detailed knowledge, and to assert otherwise is to beg
the issues of what does constitute their national interests.  

>> That is what we are talkin about, Dave. My national interests concerning
>> the missiles. And probably the 8+ millions of Greeks and 40+ millions
>> of Italians, that also have their OWN, more often than not, interests.

>>>> Though you may find it difficult to believe, it was my contention
>>>> that it was European interests that compelled the deployment of
>>>> the missiles.  Greek and Italian interests in European security
>>>> are similar, though it is important to note that the difference
>>>> the two countries behavior springs from the fact that, as a major
>>>> NATO member, Italy cannot defect from common European interests
>>>> without damaging national ones, while Greece, as a smaller power,
>>>> can entertain such a possibility.  Greece's apparent failure to
>>>> defect (as threatened) is probably due to it desired standing in
>>>> Western Europe, and must be ascribed to a new-found willingness
>>>> to share Continental problems (perhaps motivated by implicit
>>>> political and economic pressures from Europe) rather than strong
>>>> pressure from the US.

My objection was to having my carefully reasoned arguments
dismissed, not by analysis or evidence, but by an argument which ran
something like "Greeks know what is best for Greece, you are not
Greek, therefore you cannot know what is best for Greece."  

>> This is also an argument. Should I, without thorough knowledge of
>> US politics, provoke a discussion of US affairs?? Or support a 
>> discussion based on news media information only?? Think about it,      
>> and you will see that it is an argument. I accept your view since
>> it is parallel with US-based decisions on the missiles. However, 
>> I can understand the effects of these decisions on the parties 
>> affected better even than the people who MADE the decisions...
>> After all, they do not consider our national interest, do they?

>>>> The answer is yes, you should feel free to discuss US affairs without
>>>> being an expert on US politics.  Archane electoral dispute among
>>>> politicians often has very little to do with national interest or
>>>> enlightened behavior.  As for the information used in such a
>>>> discussion, we ought not be deterred by the fact that we cannot
>>>> know everything.  We'll just have to pool our information and do
>>>> the best we can with what we have.  If you get something wrong, I
>>>> will not hesitate to rush to your aid (:-)).

The missiles (probably) will be installed pretty much in the numbers
planned.  However, the pressure from both the US and the USSR, from
the electorate and the defense establishments, would have mattered
little had not the interests of Western Europe demanded some strengthening
of the linkage of US and European defenses in response to the Soviets'
build-up.

>> Talking about something is important, agreement comes later.
>> I am pleased we get in agreement. (In Greece, flame and politics have
>> the same properties :-)). But, the question, still open to other
>> people as well, remains as "why europe??". If only United Europe
>> was a reality and not a dream broken by the stupid nationalists...

>>>> Amen.  Nothing would go further toward providing security for the West
>>>> and easing the burdens now placed on the US.  However, ESOK is very
>>>> much part of the problem....nationalism is its political currency.

					David Rubin
			{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david