mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (03/28/85)
OK, I bought Reader's Digest and read the condensation of a Commentary article on arms control. Tom Hill suggested that Tim and I do so in a previous article. I found the article vague and, at points, contradictory. For example, Mr. Weiss (the author) says "If an agreement limits U.S. power to support friendly states that want to resist Soviet power, it has served an important Soviet objective." Notice that he does not reference a single treaty that actually *does* this. This is like saying, "If I make an agreement with you that let's you kill my sister, I'm not a very good negotiator." If there is such a treaty, I do not know of it. Apparently neither does Mr. Weiss. "... the Soviet Union will sign arms-control agreements with the West only if such agreements are consistent with its fundamental political objectives..." Is this supposed to be some sort of revelation? What kind of agreements would any state sign except those that are consistent with its fundamental political objectives? "The United States, by the nature of its society, can be expected to adhere to a strict interpretation of the terms. The Soviets, in contrast, have flagrantly violated agreements." I *like* America. I'm not too crazy about the USSR. But I certainly don't believe that the United States "can be expected to adhere to a strict interpretation" of any treaty it negotiates. That's what verification is for -- because neither side trusts the other. There have been both U.S. and Soviet charges of treaty violations. To imply that the violations have been one-sided and to claim the Soviets have "flagrantly" violated treaties (again, without *any* substantiation) is simply dishonest. Mr. Weiss does not mention that *every* violation brought up for mediation has been resolved to the satisfaction of the U.S. The open charges of violations are unresolved because, until recently, the Reagan Administration refused to use the channels established by treaty to deal with them. In the beginning of the article, Mr. Weiss says "the number of U.S. nuclear weapons has been declining ... [t]his has been the result of modernization designed to put safer, more effective weapons in our inventory." Later, he says "Given the massive Soviet buildup, [a good treaty] will involve large Soviet reductions, especially in missile throw-weight ... Admittedly, such Soviet concessions are not highly probable." Now why, if we have reduced throw-weight as part of modernization, should we consider the greater Soviet throw-weight a threat? Isn't it a fact that the Soviets have relied on larger, less-accurate missiles while we have modernized to smaller, more acccurate missiles? Isn't Mr. Weiss pulling a sleight-of-hand here, implying that "big is better"? There are other deceptions. Mr. Weiss cites a study showing that the Soviets have pulled ahead in a number of areas since the Cuban Missile Crisis. Is this surprising when one realizes that, in the early 60's, the U.S. held a overwhelming superiority in nuclear weapons by virtue of having been the first to develop them? Did anyone doubt that the Soviets would eventually develop their own systems, especially since the U.S. at that point refused to negotiate comprehensive limits on the basis that since we were ahead, why negotiate limitations on ourselves? In short, Mr. Weiss cites few facts, and those he does cite seem almost purposefully deceptive. He plays on jingoistic desires for "superiority" without explaining the enormous risks of pursuing such a policy. Mike Kelly
thill@ssc-bee.UUCP (Tom Hill) (03/29/85)
> OK, I bought Reader's Digest and read the condensation of a Commentary > article on arms control. Tom Hill suggested that Tim and I do so in > a previous article. > > I found the article vague and, at points, contradictory. This is how I have found your own articles. > For example, > Mr. Weiss (the author) says "If an agreement limits U.S. power to > support friendly states that want to resist Soviet power, it has served > an important Soviet objective." Notice that he does not reference a > single treaty that actually *does* this. You are also quoting him out of context and then follow with an unrelated example. He did not say that the U.S. had signed such an agreement, only only that we should avoid doing so. > > "... the Soviet Union will sign arms-control agreements with the West only if > such agreements are consistent with its fundamental political objectives..." > Is this supposed to be some sort of revelation? What kind of agreements > would any state sign except those that are consistent with its fundamental > political objectives? Once again you quote out of context. He was answering the question "Isn't arms control a practical imperative for both side?" And then states "Not for the Soviet Union." He then state why he believe this to be true and makes the statement that you quoted. I find it funny that you replaced "Consequently" with three dots so you would have to explain what he actually said. > > In short, Mr. Weiss cites few facts, and those he does cite seem almost > purposefully deceptive. He plays on jingoistic desires for "superiority" > without explaining the enormous risks of pursuing such a policy. > > Mike Kelly Simply put, you did not like the opinions stated and wrote your response as a knee jerk reaction. You both quoted and twisted what he said. Again I suggest that you read the article and maybe a bit more carefully this time. I don't care if you don't agree with what he said. Try, however, not to be "puposefully deceptive" the next time you quote an author. Tom Hill
al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus) (04/04/85)
> > "The United States, by the nature of its society, can be expected to > adhere to a strict interpretation of the terms [of a treaty]. > The American Indians would certainly be surprised to hear this. We broke practically every treaty we ever made with them, even though we usually dictated the terms in the first place. One treaty gave almost the entire western US to the Indians "in perteputity" (sp). The US also violated the 1954 Geneva accords on Vietnam in the early '60s by building up troops, rather than only replacing them as required. These violations were deliberately covered up by distributing the troops in small groups. I like living here, I like our form of government, but there is ample evidence to suggest that we cannot be trusted to keep the treaties we make if we can get away with breaking them.