thill@ssc-bee.UUCP (Tom Hill) (03/26/85)
"Hard Questions About Arms Control" by Seymour Weiss is an article in the March issue of Reader's Digest. While I would hate to suggest that a few net.posters read little and only that which they agree with, I hope that a few of you take the time to find a copy and read it. Just to get you interested... "...the Soviets have used past agreements in a variety of ways: * Agreements have been designed to sow political discord between the United States and its allies... . . . * Agreements can lull the United States into believing that arms control reduces or even removes the need for military preparedness. ..." Take the time to read it, even if you don't agree with what it says maybe it will help you pinpoint where you do stand. While you are at it you might also like to read the article titled "Disillusion in Nicaragua." Someone out there might even consider giving these articles as much consideration as their own point of view. Oh, how stupid of me, that would be too much to ask. Right sevener and Kelly. Tom Hill
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/27/85)
> > "Hard Questions About Arms Control" by Seymour Weiss is an article in > the March issue of Reader's Digest. > Tom Hill I will certainly read this article, and most likely prepare a reply. Reader's Digest in the past has had some most informative articles on arms control. For example the revelation that the Soviet deployment of a mobile ICBM system was a violation of SALT. Actually such a system is the only kind that was allowed by SALT! Yep, let's do away with speed limits altogether-all they do is give an excuse for those maniac speeders to go faster by fooling the rest of us into going slower. "And it's one, two three, what are we arming for? Don't ask me, I don't give a damn Next stop is Armegeddon! And it's five, six, seven open up the pearly gates Well, there ain't no time to wonder why WHOOPEE!! We're all going to die!!..................... ............................................................. ................................................................. .................................................................. .
rohn@randvax.UUCP (Laurinda Rohn) (04/02/85)
> > from Tom Hill > > > > "Hard Questions About Arms Control" by Seymour Weiss is an article in > > the March issue of Reader's Digest. > > from Tim Sevener > I will certainly read this article, and most likely prepare a reply. > Reader's Digest in the past has had some most informative articles > on arms control. For example the revelation that the Soviet deployment > of a mobile ICBM system was a violation of SALT. Actually such > a system is the only kind that was allowed by SALT! Actually, such a deployment is in fact in violation of SALT II. SALT I didn't deal with mobile ICBMs, but this was not with the express purpose of allowing them. The delegations decided to defer the issue. However, the US added a unilateral statement on May 20, 1972 stating: "In connection with the important subject of land-mobile ICBM launchers, in the interest of concluding the Interim Agreement the U.S. Delegation now withdraws its proposal that Article I or an agreed statement explicitly prohibit the deployment of mobile land-based ICBM launchers. I have been instructed to inform you that, while agreeing to defer the question of limita- tion of operational land-mobile ICBM launchers to the subsequent negotiations on more complete limitations on strategic offensive arms, the U.S. would consider the deployment of operational land- mobile ICBM launchers during the period of the Interim Agreement as inconsistent with the objectives of that Agreement." (This is taken from the text of the agreement as reproduced in "International Arms Control: Issues and Agreements", 2nd ed., Stanford Arms Control Group. I highly recommend this book as an invaluable reference if you're at all interested in arms control.) SALT II, however, specifically says: "1. Each Party undertakes not to develop, test, or deploy: .... (d) mobile launchers of heavy ICBMs; ...." in Article IX. (From above reference). Of course, neither statement is technically in force as the SALT I statement was unilateral by the US and SALT II hasn't been ratified by Congress though both sides have said that they intend to adhere to it anyway. But if the article in RD meant SALT II, it was correct. Lauri rohn@rand-unix ..decvax!randvax!rohn