Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!ncar!gatech!uflorida!mailrus!wasatch!utah-gr!uplherc!sp7040!obie!wes
From: wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Secondary launch systems
Summary: You can't bargain away missiles you DON'T have
Message-ID: <241@obie.UUCP>
Date: 30 Oct 88 10:24:10 GMT
References: <364@asuvax.UUCP| <6332@spool.cs.wisc.edu> <818@rover.UUCP> <1988Oct24.181744.17664@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: the Well of Souls
Lines: 25

In article <1072@meccsd.MECC.MN.ORG> vin@meccsd.UUCP (Vincent E. Erickson) writes:
| If you really want to discuss the failure of a policy like the INF
| treaty, look to the fact that if the Reagon administration hadn't
| deployed these missles in the first place, they wouldn't have needed a
| treaty to remove them! ...

In article <1988Oct24.181744.17664@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) replies:
> Uh, don't forget that the Soviets are scrapping a few missiles as part
> of the INF treaty too...

One thing to keep in mind is that you cannot bargain missiles for
"almost missiles."  I.e., the Russians are not about to accept "if you
destroy 200 SS-20s, we won't build the Small ICBM."  Destroying
missiles unilaterally is not too smart either.  After WWI, most of
Europe thought they had Germany beat forever, and disarmed themselves
"to insure continued peace" or some such silly idea.  You know the
outcome of these acts of idiocy - Hitlers armies rolled right over most
of Europe without significant resisitance.  "Peace through strength" is
the only option that has ever worked, and even then peace is VERY
transitory.

-- 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

"How come he didn't put `I think' at the end of it?" - James P. Hogan