orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (02/19/85)
> > Daniel Schneider asks: > > > What would be the reaction (and the re-reaction ad infinitum) > > if the United States adopted a "no-nuke" policy, meaning > > stopped spending the dollars on current developement and > > deployment, slowly shrink (to zero) the active weapons, and > > (gulp!) introduce diplomacy as a tool in negotiatons? Its > > only hypothetical, so lets not argue over whether it should > > or shouldn't be done; its the reactions which I'm intersted > > in. > > > Well, I am confident of the reaction in the Kremlin: smiles a > mile wide. You can't be serious, can you? If the USA ever > adopted such a unilateral no-nuke policy, my reaction would > be 1) utter dismay, 2) overwhelming fear. I would be dismayed > that our national leadership could ever become so shortsighted > and stupid. But then I would be terrified -- terrified at the > thought of an unchecked Soviet Union. "We are a nation of wimps" The first arms control agreement negotiated between the US and Soviet Union came about through a unilateral moratorium. The Limited Test Ban Treaty that resulted from that unilateral moratorium has *never* been violated. In 1963 John F. Kennedy decided to take a risk and began a unilateral six month moratorium on the atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. He challenged the Soviets to do the same. There were dire predictions from the doom and gloom crowd that "it would never work" the US would get "behind" in the arms race, the Soviet Union would be allowed to progress unchecked while we were protecting the Earth's atmosphere from radioactive fallout from atomic tests. The results: within six months the Soviets stopped their own atmospheric testing and the Limited Test Ban Treaty was signed for *both* sides to stop all atmospheric testing. I find it a curious irony that the very people who claim to be so "macho" are really just wimps: afraid to take any risks in the interests of Peace. Such unilateral *moratoriums* CAN be effective- if they are of a duration long enough to allow the other side to respond, but with the clear intention that if the other side does *not* respond then the moratorium will be lifted. One should also note that I am supporting the use of *moratoriums* NOT disarmament. Armers Anonymous deliberately lie about the difference between arms control *limitations* and *moratoriums* vs disarmament. Reagan and others try to argue that the least slowing down of the arms race is "disarmament". tim sevener whuxl!orb