Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttrdc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mgnetp!ltuxa!ttrdc!mjk
From: mjk@ttrdc.UUCP (Mike Kelly)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Euromissiles (reply to Kuperberg)
Message-ID: <111@ttrdc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 3-Apr-85 11:02:56 EST
Article-I.D.: ttrdc.111
Posted: Wed Apr  3 11:02:56 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 4-Apr-85 06:11:23 EST
References: <282@ttidcc.UUCP> <537@whuxl.UUCP>, <379@talcott.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Teletype Corp., Skokie, IL
Lines: 24


 >From: gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg)

 >the Soviet threat [in Europe] is real---
 >they put in MIRVed IRBM's to "balance" our nuclear
 >shells and nuclear-capable artillery.  At the moment they have 350
 >missiles, which makes over 1000 warheads which can be delivered in less
 >than 20 minutes.  We have put in 100 (single-warhead) Pershing II's so
 >far to counter.

The Soviets claim that their missiles are in Eastern Europe to counter the
British and French strategic missiles.  The U.S. refuses to include these
in negotiations because they are not under U.S. control.  The Soviets have
offered to reduce their total to the British and French total if the U.S.
would not deploy any missiles.  Reagan refused.  So, of course, the Soviets
are going to increase their missiles in Eastern Europe to counter the total
of British, French and American missiles.

If the Soviet missiles are present to counter U.S. tactical nuclear weapons,
that is only a secondary reason.  The primary reason is to counter those
French and British missiles presumably targeted on the Soviet Union.  Can
anyone explain why Reagan refuses to count those missiles in the negotiations?

Mike Kelly