Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site tty3b.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!bellcore!allegra!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!mgnetp!ltuxa!tty3b!mjk
From: mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: A Review of "Hard Questions About Arms Control"
Message-ID: <659@tty3b.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 28-Mar-85 11:14:08 EST
Article-I.D.: tty3b.659
Posted: Thu Mar 28 11:14:08 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 5-Apr-85 07:24:39 EST
Organization: Teletype Corp., Skokie, Ill
Lines: 62

OK, I bought Reader's Digest and read the condensation of a Commentary
article on arms control.  Tom Hill suggested that Tim and I do so in
a previous article.  

I found the article vague and, at points, contradictory.  For example,
Mr. Weiss (the author) says "If an agreement limits U.S. power to
support friendly states that want to resist Soviet power, it has served
an important Soviet objective."  Notice that he does not reference a
single treaty that actually *does* this.  This is like saying, "If I
make an agreement with you that let's you kill my sister, I'm not a
very good negotiator."    If there is such a treaty, I do not
know of it.   Apparently neither does Mr. Weiss.

"... the Soviet Union will sign arms-control agreements with the West only if
such agreements are consistent with its fundamental political objectives..."
Is this supposed to be some sort of revelation?  What kind of agreements 
would any state sign except those that are consistent with its fundamental
political objectives?

"The United States, by the nature of its society, can be expected to
adhere to a strict interpretation of the terms.  The Soviets, in contrast,
have flagrantly violated agreements."  I *like* America.  I'm not too crazy
about the USSR.  But I certainly don't believe that the United
States "can be expected to adhere to a strict interpretation" of any treaty
it negotiates.  That's what verification is for  -- because neither side
trusts the other.  There have been both U.S. and Soviet charges of treaty
violations.  To imply that the violations have been
one-sided and to claim the Soviets have "flagrantly" violated treaties
(again, without *any* substantiation) is simply dishonest.  Mr. Weiss does
not mention that *every* violation brought up for mediation has been
resolved to the satisfaction of the U.S.  The open charges of violations 
are unresolved because, until recently, the Reagan Administration refused
to use the channels established by treaty to deal with them.

In the beginning of the article, Mr. Weiss says "the number of U.S.
nuclear weapons has been declining ... [t]his has been the result
of modernization designed to put safer, more effective weapons in our
inventory."  Later, he says "Given the massive Soviet buildup, [a good
treaty] will involve large Soviet reductions, especially in missile
throw-weight ... Admittedly, such Soviet concessions are not highly
probable."  Now why, if we have reduced throw-weight as part of
modernization, should we consider the greater Soviet throw-weight a
threat?  Isn't it a fact that the Soviets have relied on larger, less-accurate
missiles while we have modernized to smaller, more acccurate missiles?  
Isn't Mr. Weiss pulling a sleight-of-hand here, implying that "big is 
better"?  

There are other deceptions.  Mr. Weiss cites a study showing that the
Soviets have pulled ahead in a number of areas since the Cuban Missile
Crisis.  Is this surprising when one realizes that, in the early 60's,
the U.S. held a overwhelming superiority in nuclear weapons by virtue of
having been the first to develop them?  Did anyone doubt that the Soviets
would eventually develop their own systems, especially since the U.S.
at that point refused to negotiate comprehensive limits on the basis that
since we were ahead, why negotiate limitations on ourselves?

In short, Mr. Weiss cites few facts, and those he does cite seem almost
purposefully deceptive.  He plays on jingoistic desires for "superiority"
without explaining the enormous risks of pursuing such a policy.  

Mike Kelly