orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (04/10/85)
> From the Guardian: > > RUSSIANS ANNOUNCE NUCLEAR FREEZE > > From Martin Walker in Moscow and Hella Pick in London > > /* quoted w/o permission */ > > Mr. Mikhail Gorbachev last night announced a Soviet freeze for the next > months in the deployment of nuclear missles in Europe, as an act of goodwill to > give the Geneva negotiations a new momentum. The future of the freeze after > November would depend on Nato's response. > Mr. Gorbachev's statement makes a US-Soviet summit later this year a > near certainty. > The arms control dimension of Nr. Gorbachev's initiative was > immediately rejected by the White House as a rehash of earlier proposals which > would leave the Russians with an overwhelming superiority in medium-range > nuclear missles. > > /* a lot more, but you get the jist. */ > > Yet another potential peace initiative from Moscow. Scorn from Washington as > the present administration drives for mythical nuclear superiority. Just > what we've come to expect. > -- > James C. Armstrong, Jnr. ihnp4!abnji!nyssa I agree that Reagan's Administration made the typical "let's keep the arms race going" response. I am not sure that a nuclear freeze limited only to Europe would be totally fair. However at the very least we could respond with a moratorium on ASAT and a comprehensive nuclear test ban. Why not begin a "peace race" instead of continuing the present arms race? If a freeze in Europe is ruled out why not freeze other areas? Then negotiate over these various areas? Example: announce a "freeze" on deployment of the MX missile? Since the MX missile is a lemon anyway it would avoid further fights in Congress and make a concrete movement towards peace. The reason of course is that Ronnie and friends have no intention of stopping the arms race. Their only concern is to keep this thing going while stalling opposition as long as possible with talk about talks. Now that Gorbachev has embraced the notion of a Summit Conference, suddenly the Reagan administration is scurrying around saying: "we're not ready for a Summit....don't expect anything too soon.....people are beginning to think a Summit might achieve some *real* results and if it doesn't (which it probably wouldn't with Reagan in the helm) then they might be disappointed.. ...etc" Does this sound at all familiar? Remember these type of proclamations: "Nicaragua should embrace the Contadora proposals.....Nicaragua's belligerence is proved by their failure to embrace the Contadora proposals.....We believe the Contadora process is the major avenue to peace in Central America." Suddenly Nicaragua embraces the Contadora proposals: "We cannot accept the Contadora proposals.......these proposals are too vague..... etc, etc, etc ad nauseum" Followed by "we should remove their structure of government......we just want to make them say "Uncle"..." Can anyone believe Americans voted for these militarists? I am ashamed of my current government................ tim sevener whuxl!orb