Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site randvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!randvax!rohn
From: rohn@randvax.UUCP (Laurinda Rohn)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: "Hard Questions About Arms Control"
Message-ID: <2380@randvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 2-Apr-85 12:36:41 EST
Article-I.D.: randvax.2380
Posted: Tue Apr  2 12:36:41 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 5-Apr-85 05:26:13 EST
References: <311@ssc-bee.UUCP> <555@whuxl.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica
Lines: 49

> > from Tom Hill
> > 
> > "Hard Questions About Arms Control" by Seymour Weiss is an article in
> > the March issue of Reader's Digest. 
> 
> from Tim Sevener
> I will certainly read this article, and most likely prepare a reply.
> Reader's Digest in the past has had some most informative articles
> on arms control.  For example the revelation that the Soviet deployment
> of a mobile ICBM system was a violation of SALT.  Actually such
> a system is the only kind that was allowed by SALT!

Actually, such a deployment is in fact in violation of SALT II.  SALT I
didn't deal with mobile ICBMs, but this was not with the express purpose
of allowing them.  The delegations decided to defer the issue.  However,
the US added a unilateral statement on May 20, 1972 stating:

   "In connection with the important subject of land-mobile ICBM
    launchers, in the interest of concluding the Interim Agreement
    the U.S. Delegation now withdraws its proposal that Article I
    or an agreed statement explicitly prohibit the deployment of
    mobile land-based ICBM launchers.  I have been instructed to
    inform you that, while agreeing to defer the question of limita-
    tion of operational land-mobile ICBM launchers to the subsequent
    negotiations on more complete limitations on strategic offensive
    arms, the U.S. would consider the deployment of operational land-
    mobile ICBM launchers during the period of the Interim Agreement
    as inconsistent with the objectives of that Agreement."

(This is taken from the text of the agreement as reproduced in
"International Arms Control: Issues and Agreements", 2nd ed., Stanford
Arms Control Group.  I highly recommend this book as an invaluable
reference if you're at all interested in arms control.)

SALT II, however, specifically says:
   "1. Each Party undertakes not to develop, test, or deploy:
       ....
       (d) mobile launchers of heavy ICBMs;
       ...."
in Article IX.  (From above reference).

Of course, neither statement is technically in force as the SALT I
statement was unilateral by the US and SALT II hasn't been ratified by
Congress though both sides have said that they intend to adhere to it
anyway.  But if the article in RD meant SALT II, it was correct.

				Lauri
				rohn@rand-unix
				..decvax!randvax!rohn