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: <923@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 3-Jan-86 15:57:46 EST
Article-I.D.: psivax.923
Posted: Fri Jan  3 15:57:46 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 5-Jan-86 01:28:32 EST
References: <8512020718.AA15110@s1-b.arpa> <6219@utzoo.UUCP> <759@petrus.UUCP> <483@ucdavis.UUCP> <1309@ames.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 62

In article <1309@ames.UUCP> al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus) writes:
>
>The only violation that I am aware of that has not been resolved by the
>board specifically set up to resolve such issues is the phased array
>radar being constructed.  Although this may be a violation, it should
>be noted that Reagan has NOT submitted the issue to the board.  Perhaps
>he's more interested in propoganda than resolution?

	But why did they submit to the arbitration? Did they do it
because the treaty is *currently* in thier best interests? Or does the
board have some sort of powers beyond saying "naughty, naughty, you
shouldn't do that"? What will happen if we ever get into a real
conflict with them, or they get into a real conflict with Red China?
Will the board be able to achieve compliance when they feel they need
these weapon systems? If so how?
>
>They shouldn't and won't.  However there are several issues, such as ASAT's and
>nuclear testing where the Soviet's feel a treaty is in their best interest,
>and I feel are in our best interest.  It should be noted that the Soviets
>have implemented UNILATERAL bans on nuclear and ASAT tesing.  Also, the 
>Soviets have a new leader from a different generation.  They have also made
>indications that they might accept on site verification and even withdraw
>from Afganistan.  Hmmmmm.

	Alright, but what happens when keeping the treaty is no longer
in thier best interests? Or alternatively, how do we ensure that
keeping the treaty is *always* in thier best interests?
	Certainly, on-site verification and withdrawal from
Afghanistan are worthy goals, and we should certainly be engaged in
dialog with them, but I do feel we must be *very* careful no to sell
ourselves down the river. (Actually, I suspect the withdrawal from
Afghanistan is a political ploy - they want out, but they do not want
to look like they have been defeated by the Afghans, thus making it a
treaty concession gives them a good excuse for getting out).
>
>> I do not think that treaties of any kind
>> with the Soviet Union can be a cure.
>
>No.  But they could help.  And they are cheap financially.
>
	As long as we have  some sort of "back-up" capability in case
they decide to violate the treaty and ignore our diplomatic scolding.

>During one portion of it's history, Japan SUCCESSFULLY banned guns completely.
	Yeah, because they could really get tough with the violators,
a government is *far* more powerful than a individual. US and Russia
are very close in power, there is little we can do to Russia to enforce
compliance if they don't want to.(That is short of declaring war, and
that would have to be very *early* in the game or they would simply
nuke us to oblivion).
>
>Perhaps if we submitted the issue to the board that has resolved these
>things in the past something would get done.

	Again, what enforcement powers does this board have?

-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

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