orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/06/86)
I wrote: > > ... Reagan is the first President in > > 20 years to achieve absolutely NO arms control agreements. > > During his 5 years the Soviets have deployed hundreds of > > new nuclear weapons - are we safer? Tom Albrecht responded: > > SALT I is still in effect and both the Soviets and the US agreed to abide > by the language of SALT II even though the thing was never ratified. So > how come the Soviets are deploying new weapons if they're the peacelovers > you make them out to be? Arms control agreements are no good if > either side has no intentions of living up to them. And apparently the > Soviets have no intention. > 1)Not only has Reagan not achieved a single arms control agreement in 5 years, he has opposed *every* arms control agreement ever negotiated by past Presidents over the last 20 years, whether they were negotiated by Republican or Democratic presidents. If Reagan had his way we would still be poisoned by strontium-90 from atmospheric nuclear tests. 2)Reagan *has* to this date complied with SALT II but very reluctantly. He's been so reluctant that even at the Geneva Summit when he had the chance to confirm SALT II compliance as some minimal "agreement" with Gorbachev he refused to do so. He has indicated that he may very will violate SALT II in the next year. Moreover the Reagan administration has also indicated that they may violate the ABM treaty as it has been interpreted by both the Soviets and the original negotiators of the ABM treaty. Gerard Smith, Nixon's (note a *Republican* President), ABM negotiator has stated that Reagan administration statements on possible testing of ABM components expressly violated the ABM treaty as he negotiated it. 3)In the summer of 1984 the Senate voted overwhelmingly to ask the Reagan administration to submit the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty and the Threshold Test Ban Treaty to the Senate for ratification. These treaties were completed long ago and merely await formal ratification. So far Reagan has refused to submit them for ratification. The House just echoed the Senate vote with a similar resolution. 4)Besides refusing to join the Soviet moratorium on nuclear testing Reagan has also refused to join the Soviet moratorium on anti-satellite weapons testing. The Congress has cutoff funds for any tests against "objects" in space, effectively joining the Soviet moratorium on antisatellite weapons testing despite Reagan's opposition. Now, however, in a classic style of deceit, the Reagan Administration has announced that the Pentagon will conduct anti-satellite weapons testing against *lightsources* in space. Since "lightsources" are not "objects" the Reagan administration has announced such tests are not a violation of the Congressional ban on funding. I will respond to your other points in another article. tim sevener whuxn!orb
gdf@mtuxn.UUCP (G.FERRAIOLO) (03/08/86)
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Mar-86 22:32:30 EST References: <155@jc3b21.UUCP> <1405@mhuxt.UUCP> <560@whuts.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany Lines: 58 > I wrote: >> > ... Reagan is the first President in >> > 20 years to achieve absolutely NO arms control agreements. >> > During his 5 years the Soviets have deployed hundreds of >> > new nuclear weapons - are we safer? > Tom Albrecht responded: >> >> SALT I is still in effect and both the Soviets and the US agreed to abide >> by the language of SALT II even though the thing was never ratified. So >> how come the Soviets are deploying new weapons if they're the peacelovers >> you make them out to be? Arms control agreements are no good if >> either side has no intentions of living up to them. And apparently the >> Soviets have no intention. >> > >1)Not only has Reagan not achieved a single arms control agreement in > 5 years, he has opposed *every* arms control agreement ever negotiated > by past Presidents over the last 20 years, whether they were negotiated > by Republican or Democratic presidents. If Reagan had his way we > would still be poisoned by strontium-90 from atmospheric nuclear tests. Gee, we should make some more agreements real soon now. If they aren't in our best interests, what's the difference? >2)Reagan *has* to this date complied with SALT II but very reluctantly. > He's been so reluctant that even at the Geneva Summit when he had > the chance to confirm SALT II compliance as some minimal "agreement" > with Gorbachev he refused to do so. He has indicated that he may very > will violate SALT II in the next year. Moreover the Reagan > administration has also indicated that they may violate the ABM > treaty as it has been interpreted by both the Soviets and the > original negotiators of the ABM treaty. Gerard Smith, Nixon's > (note a *Republican* President), ABM negotiator has stated that > Reagan administration statements on possible testing of ABM components > expressly violated the ABM treaty as he negotiated it. Factoid analysis here, Tim. Ya can't 'violate' a treaty not ratified by the Senate. The Reagan administration has explicitly said that it will continue to adhere to the 'strict' interperetation of the treaty although it reserves the right to withdraw from the treaty if in the national interest, as provided by the treaty. By the way, the fact that the ABM treaty was negotiated by Richard Nixon does not automatically make it a good one. I have my ideas about why Nixon did some of the things he did, but I think the ABM treaty is worhtless. >3)In the summer of 1984 the Senate voted overwhelmingly to ask the > Reagan administration to submit the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions > Treaty and the Threshold Test Ban Treaty to the Senate for > ratification. These treaties were completed long ago and merely > await formal ratification. So far Reagan has refused to submit > them for ratification. The House just echoed the Senate vote with > a similar resolution. It's more than 'formal' ratification. The treaties are just paper until submitted by the President and ratified by the Senate. And if Reagan doesn't want to submit them, maybe, in his judgment, submitting them is unwise. You disagree. Great, run for President. If you get elected, submit any treaty you want. Just because Reagan sees things differently doesn't make him a slime. >4)Besides refusing to join the Soviet moratorium on nuclear testing > Reagan has also refused to join the Soviet moratorium on > anti-satellite weapons testing. The Congress has cutoff funds > for any tests against "objects" in space, effectively joining > the Soviet moratorium on antisatellite weapons testing despite > Reagan's opposition. Now, however, in a classic style of deceit, > the Reagan Administration has announced that the Pentagon will > conduct anti-satellite weapons testing against *lightsources* > in space. Since "lightsources" are not "objects" the Reagan > administration has announced such tests are not a violation of > the Congressional ban on funding. Hey, maybe Reagan thinks the moratorium isn't in the best interest of the people of the US. And if Congress can't write an appropriations bill that can prevent US ASAT testing, then how can anyone write a treaty that prevents Soviet cheating? Besides, that misses the point. In some aspects the USSR is stronger, in others the US. Let's couple the ASAT treaty to a treaty banning armies raised by the draft. Then maybe it might be fair. Let's couple the other treaties you want to a treaty requiring the Soviets to respect human rights in their own country OH NO, I'd better keep my mouth shut on that one. We already did that Tim. It's called the Helsinki agreements. In return for recognizing the various land grabs the Soviets pulled before, during and after WWII, we got them to sign the so-called 'third basket'. Guess what, they ignored the provisions of the treaty. Is anyone surprised? What's the use of a treaty. They keep it when they want to and break it with impunity when they want. Please expound at length on the Helsinki agreements, Tim. > I will respond to your other points in another article. > tim sevener whuxn!orb Guy
anich@puff.UUCP (Steve Anich) (03/10/86)
In article <1022@whuxl.UUCP>, orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: > > 4)Besides refusing to join the Soviet moratorium on nuclear testing > Reagan has also refused to join the Soviet moratorium on > anti-satellite weapons testing. The Congress has cutoff funds > for any tests against "objects" in space, effectively joining > the Soviet moratorium on antisatellite weapons testing despite > Reagan's opposition. Now, however, in a classic style of deceit, > the Reagan Administration has announced that the Pentagon will > conduct anti-satellite weapons testing against *lightsources* > in space. Since "lightsources" are not "objects" the Reagan > administration has announced such tests are not a violation of > the Congressional ban on funding. > In both cases you site above (especially the nuke test moratrium) the Soviets, after carrying out there own testing program, called for a test moratorium( just before the U.S. program was to begin by chance, of course). The Soviet proposal is a simple prapoganda ploy. The time the moratorium was suposed to end, probably coincides with the next phase of any test they you have planned. No amount of wishfull thinking is going to change the fact that the Soviets are NOT inherently peace loving. Something that sounds like it will suprise some of you out there in net land. Steve Anich