Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuxl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!orb
From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Euromissiles (reply to Kuperberg)
Message-ID: <571@whuxl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 3-Apr-85 15:28:50 EST
Article-I.D.: whuxl.571
Posted: Wed Apr  3 15:28:50 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 4-Apr-85 06:35:30 EST
References: <282@ttidcc.UUCP> <537@whuxl.UUCP>, <379@talcott.UUCP> <111@ttrdc.UUCP>
Organization: /usr/exptools/lib/netnews/myorg
Lines: 64

> 
>  >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

In general I agree with Mike Kelly.  However in this case there are
several things to be considered.  First off, is that, beyond "nuclear
shells" the U.S. and NATO forces do indeed have nuclear *missiles* in
Europe and has had them there for some years.  Therefore it is false to
argue that the Soviets have so many SS-20's etc. and we are only now
deploying cruise missiles in response.  In fact, in part we are
replacing *current* missile forces with more modern cruise missiles.
 
Secondly however there are some problems with including British and
French forces.  Number one is that the arms talks so far have been
*bilateral*. Unless the British and French governments are explicitly
included in arms talks then it would be just as presumptuous of us
to mandate a reduction or freeze in another country's forces as it
is presumptuous of us to currently install cruise missiles against
the will of most of the European people.
 
This does not mean that it might not be a good idea to include
all the world in agreements to limit nuclear arms.  But that is
really another matter and also one which, while extremely
important for such things as nuclear non-proliferation, could
really bog things down.  The more parties to a negotiation the
more problem getting them all to come to an agreement generally.
 
One idea which has been suggested is establishing nuclear-free zones
beginning in Central Europe and expanding outwards. A major source
of tension for both sides is fear of another conflict in Central
Europe and particularly Germany.  Russia is paranoid about Germany
having suffered invasions from that direction from both Hitler and
Napoleon.  A nuclear-free zone in both East and West Germany would
make a good beginning for a nuclear-free Europe.
 
The "Walk in the Woods" agreement showed that Soviet negotiators
at least would be willing to come to some sort of limits on
both sides.  Unfortunately the hawks on both sides shot it down.
*IF* Reagan wanted to, he probably could achieve an agreement
which did not include British and French forces.  Whether he
wants to is questionable to say the least.
 
           tim sevener   whuxl!orb