Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
Message-ID: <922@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 3-Jan-86 15:43:52 EST
Article-I.D.: psivax.922
Posted: Fri Jan  3 15:43:52 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 5-Jan-86 01:28:10 EST
References: <851221223119.997886@HI-MULTICS.ARPA>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 30

In article <851221223119.997886@HI-MULTICS.ARPA> Bakin@HI-MULTICS.ARPA (Jerry Bakin) writes:
>
>Henry, I think you've missed the point; however, most people do.
>
>There are two points to make:
>
>A 100% test ban is much more verifiable than any sort of limited treaty
>of any kind (either limiting test or capabilities).
>
>There is always a possibility that any side will violate any treaty, the
>question becomes how often can they expect to be able to violate it, and
>get away with it because they weren't caught.
>
	Actually, there is an even *more* important question. What do
we(or they) do if a violation is detected? We cannot really threaten
to go to war over a violation, that would be over-reacting. Could we
make any violation void the whole treaty and make it cause for the
other side to resume nuclear developement? I am not sure that is
practical. And why should we expect the US government to take any
strong positive action obout such a violation, given that we have been
simply ignoring numerous violations of existing treaties(that is
except for meaningless diplomatic hand-slapping)? In other words the
question is how is the treaty to be *enforced*?

-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa