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!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!bellcore!allegra!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!orb From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: The arms race: Both sides are guilty: Reply to Matthews Message-ID: <592@whuxl.UUCP> Date: Wed, 17-Apr-85 13:46:50 EST Article-I.D.: whuxl.592 Posted: Wed Apr 17 13:46:50 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 21-Apr-85 02:12:52 EST References: <123@ttrdc.UUCP> <550@abnji.UUCP> <40@harvard.ARPA> Organization: /usr/exptools/lib/netnews/myorg Lines: 54 > > Funny thing is, this is at least the second Soviet nuclear freeze > > in Europe since 20 Jan, 1981. The first past without response > > from 1600 Penn Ave, I guess this one will as well. > > -- > > Nyssa of Traken, now employed at Terminus Hospital, Inc. > > ihnp4!abnji!nyssa > > How about the U.S. nuclear freeze? We haven't built a strategic > land-based system since 1971. We haven't built a strategic bomber > since 1962. In fact, in both those areas we have destroyed weapons, > such as Titan IIs and older B-52s. These "freezes" didn't pass without > response, however -- they were greeted with the SS-18, the SS-19, and > the Blackjack. > > Jim Matthews > matthews@harvard The fact is that neither side has engaged in any kind of comprehensive "freeze" or meaningful stop to the arms race. The Soviets did have a freeze on deployment of SS-20's some time ago. Of course by that point they had already deployed hundreds of them. I definitely think that the Soviet freeze on SS-20's called for more of a response than simply saying "We are deploying full speed ahead no matter what you do." However the Soviets could have made a stronger gesture by actually reducing SS-20's or engaging in a unilateral comprehensive freeze. It is sheer nonsense to talk of a "U.S. nuclear freeze" during the 70's. This is merely a variation of the same blatant untruth that Reagan has repeated so many times many Americans have come to believe it: the U.S. "disarmed" during the 70's. Yes, the U.S. dismantled some major weapons systems during the 70's. The reason: to replace those weapons with more up to date weapons systems with more accuracy. This is exactly the process now going on in Europe which Greg and Jim want to ignore. As is logical the Pershing *II* *did* have a predecessor: the Pershing *I* which was in fact deployed in Europe for some years before being replaced by more modern and longer range Pershing II's. To say that without the Pershing II's that the U.S. would have no nuclear missiles in Europe is simply untrue. In terms of *strategic* nuclear weapons (those capable of hitting the Soviets) here are the numbers: 1970: 4,000 1980: 10,000 There were *numerous* programs to update or create new nuclear weapons during the 70's. It is well past time for *both* sides to take the fate of all humans on this planet seriously and STOP producing more nuclear weapons. tim sevener whuxl!orb "War is Peace" "Freedom is Slavery" "More Arms are Less Arms"