Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84 chuqui version 1.7 9/23/84; site nsc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!nsc!srm
From: srm@nsc.UUCP (Richard Mateosian)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: MX missile vote
Message-ID: <2504@nsc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 21-Mar-85 04:54:23 EST
Article-I.D.: nsc.2504
Posted: Thu Mar 21 04:54:23 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 22-Mar-85 02:06:49 EST
Organization: National Semiconductor, Sunnyvale
Lines: 43
Summary: Reagan has skillfully confused too many of us about what the REAL

bargaining chip is.
Expires: 
References: <326@abnji.UUCP> <831@ames.UUCP> <talcott.317> <1438@dciem.UUCP> <514@whuxl.UUCP> <570@rlgvax.UUCP> <522@whuxl.UUCP>
Sender: 
Reply-To: srm@nsc.UUCP (Richard Mateosian)
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: National Semiconductor, Sunnyvale
Keywords: 

There's been a lot of talk about the MX as a bargaining chip at the Geneva
talks with the Russians.  That's backwards, just as Reagan intended us to
see it.

Reagan was never too interested in disarmament talks, but he's always been
in favor of the MX.  Cleverly, he has managed to raise the hopes of all of
us who want to believe that the human race has a future.  He did this by
agreeing to arms talks with the Russians, and he has carefully timed the
start of these talks to coincide with critical votes on the MX.

The MX is what Reagan is negotiating with Congress and the nation about, and
his "bargaining chip" is the continuation of the arms talks--talks that he
has no intention of pursuing in good faith.  He has already prepared us for
long hard talks, and I'm sure that they will serve again and again as a
bargaining chip for his long-range military buildup plans.

As a final corroboration of my point, assume that he really does want the
MX as a bargaining chip. (This is how reductio ad absurdum proofs begin.)

	(1) He wouldn't be so blatant about an important negotiating
	    strategy.

	(2) The Russians have an easy counter-strategy, obvious to
	    anyone: they can let us keep the MX and insist that we
	    give up something substantive.  After all, everyone agrees
	    that the MX is no good ("but it doesn't matter, since it's
	    only a bargaining chip").

I could say more, but the point is clear enough, even if all the details
are wrong.
-- 
Richard Mateosian
{allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!srm    nsc!srm@decwrl.ARPA