Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site harvard.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!matthews
From: matthews@harvard.ARPA (Jim Matthews)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Euromissiles (reply to Kuperberg)
Message-ID: <5@harvard.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 4-Apr-85 08:47:08 EST
Article-I.D.: harvard.5
Posted: Thu Apr  4 08:47:08 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 6-Apr-85 02:06:55 EST
References: <282@ttidcc.UUCP> <537@whuxl.UUCP>, <379@talcott.UUCP> <111@ttrdc.UUCP>
Organization: Aiken Computation Laboratory, Harvard
Lines: 21

> 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

	1) Because we have no right to negotiate with other people's weapons.
	2) Because the British and French missiles aren't in the same class
as the Soviet ones -- Britain has Polaris subs, which are close to obsolescence,
and France's weapons are similarly backward.  The Soviet SS-20 is a generation
more advanced than anything the allies have, and the Soviets are now working
on replacing them.
	3) Because the respective deployments are so lopsided.  There are some
162 British and French warheads, whereas yesterday's Wall Street Journal
reported that there are now 414 SS-20s -- that's 1242 warheads, not counting
the old SS-4 and SS-5 missiles.  Acting as if the SS-20 are a "counter" to
the British and French is to distort the situation.

Jim Matthews
matthews@harvard