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 replied: > > 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. > Whoever said that the Soviets are "peacelovers"? I never have made such a claim. I *will* claim that the Soviets are *semi-rational* and wish to avoid annihilation. For this reason they have as much of an interest as we do, and every person on this planet in trying to control nuclear weapons. It is for this reason that the Soviets have negotiated numerous arms control agreements since 1959, and that they have complied with these agreements for the most part. For the same reason past American presidents, whether Republican or Democratic, have also negotiated these arms control agreements. The first major arms control agreement was the Limited Test Ban treaty banning atmospheric nuclear tests in 1963. The Soviets have *never* conducted an atmospheric nuclear test since this treaty was negotiated. According to the Reagan administration the Soviets have "violated" this treaty because some radioactive materials have leaked from some Soviet underground tests. This is the typical "cheating" charge which has been used by Reagan to justify the arms race by saying the Soviets "cheat". In fact such a charge can be laid to the US as well - there have been leaks detected from American underground nuclear tests as well. But does this mean tests have been conducted in the atmosphere? Certainly not. Moreover if Reagan joined the Soviet moratorium on *all* nuclear testing there would be no leaks whatsoever. SALT II did *not* stop all arms increases. It called for overall limits of 2500 on certain categories of Soviet nuclear weapons and 818 on Soviet ICBM's. It did not limit cruise missiles and other weapons categories whatsoever. Once again the Reagan administration has been caught in a strange contradiction of their claimed "facts". An administration report accused the Soviets of exceeding the 2500 limit in SALT II, while the very next day the Joint Chiefs of Staff official report on Soviet weapons reported that the Soviets were under the 2500 limit. The bulk of the evidence indicates that the Soviets indeed greatly desire nuclear arms agreements for several reasons: 1)they do not wish to be annihilated 2)currently they have a rough parity, but the threats of newly developed American first-strike weapons such as the MX missile and the Trident D-5 missile coupled with Star Wars threaten that parity 3)they cannot afford to waste billions on arms when their people are dissatisfied with the current Soviet economy These reasons hardly mean the Soviets are "peaceloving" or pacifists. It simply indicates they have rational interests in stopping the arms race. tim sevener whuxn!orb