Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site randvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!randvax!rohn
From: rohn@randvax.UUCP (Laurinda Rohn)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: poll  (nuclear disarmament verifiability)
Message-ID: <2347@randvax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 18-Mar-85 12:16:46 EST
Article-I.D.: randvax.2347
Posted: Mon Mar 18 12:16:46 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 21-Mar-85 04:22:42 EST
References: <527@decwrl.UUCP> <680@sdcsvax.UUCP> <610@tty3b.UUCP>, <609@mhuxt.UUCP> <613@tty3b.UUCP> <2324@randvax.UUCP> <631@tty3b.UUCP>
Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica
Lines: 26

>from Mike Kelly
>  >From: rohn@randvax.UUCP (Laurinda Rohn)
>  >
>  >Unfortunately, not all satellites can see through concrete buildings.
>  >Things which are small enough *can* be hidden.
>  >
>  >Both sides know [the holdings of the other side] because ICBMs are 
>  >very difficult to hide.  And said
>  >info was obtained *NOT* by on-site inspection but by recon satellites.
>  >The Soviets are quite reluctant to allow on-site inspections.
> 
> My point was that treaties which are negotiated include the means of
> verification.  Neither side is willing to negotiate a treaty that doesn't
> include whatever verification means are necessary.   If, as you claim,
> cruise missiles absolutely cannot be verified, then they will not be covered
> by an arms control treaty.

Where did I claim that?  I don't recall *ever* having said that cruise
missiles "absolutely cannot be verified."  I don't even think that's
true!  My point was that there are some issues involved with the
verification of cruise missiles which need to be considered carefully.


				Lauri
				rohn@rand-unix.ARPA
				..decvax!randvax!rohn