Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site wucs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mgnetp!we53!busch!wucs!esk
From: esk@wucs.UUCP (Eric Kaylor)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: poll  (nuclear disarmament verifiability)
Message-ID: <850@wucs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 22-Mar-85 20:46:29 EST
Article-I.D.: wucs.850
Posted: Fri Mar 22 20:46:29 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 24-Mar-85 03:55:24 EST
References: <5202@ucbvax.ARPA> <386@abnji.UUCP> <5544@ucbvax.ARPA> <634@tty3b.UUCP> <5650@ucbvax.ARPA>
Reply-To: pvt1047@wucec1.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Organization: Washington U. in St. Louis, CS Dept.
Lines: 28
Summary: Yes folks, treaties are enforceable

In article <5650@ucbvax.ARPA> medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) writes:
>Well, the fact that noone can enforce treaties is the inherent
>downfall of arms control agreements. 

The enforcement mechanism is simple:  if the other side stops adhering
to the treaty, so do you.

As for verifiability and the potential for arms control treaties to 
create incentives for destabilizing things like MIRVs, that is something
that needs to be addressed during negotiations.  One simply does not
accept a destabilizing treaty.  Does that limit the number of acceptable
treaties down to zero?  I think not.

I read an interesting article the other day in the library.  I was paging
through an old issue of *Current* (1980?) and I saw an arms control
expert discussing the MX.  He said (not an exact quote):  "I think the
mobile feature will eventually be found to be unworkable.  Of course,
that should kill the idea right there, since the mobile feature is what
makes it a good second-strike weapon, and was the whole idea behind it.
But the inertia of the military procurement process will keep it going,
and they'll wind up putting it right into the Minuteman[-type] silos
where it will be just as vulnerable and a more attractive target ..."

Sound familiar?  Ah, the irony of it...
--
The developing iconoclast,
				Paul V. Torek, wucs!wucec1!pvt1047