medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) (12/09/84)
> 2)More important is the second charge: that arms control or buildups > have had no effect on Soviet behavior. You yourself argued that in > fact, the ABM treaty *had* served the useful function of cutting off > one part of the nuclear arms race. Let us look at some other important > *successes* of past arms control: > a)a total cessation of above-ground nuclear tests by both the US > and the Soviet Union due to the Limited Test Ban Treaty > b)a complete halt to further deployment of ABM systems due to the > ABM treaty > c)a halt on all nuclear tests over 150 kilotons--unfortunately the US > has not yet ratified this treaty, the Threshold Test Ban Treaty. > But both sides are observing it. > d)limitation of the Soviet Union to 818 ICBM's under SALT II. > Unfortunately, once again, the US has failed to ratify this treaty, > Reagan has observed it so far, but has announced his intention to violate > SALT II next year. > Are we better off because of these treaties? Unequivocally! > > tim sevener whuxl!orb First, I'll by that there haven't been any above ground tests since the limited testban treaty was signed, because its terribly easy to verify, and I'm sure the American people would scream bloody murder if we told them that the fallout from a Soviet test was coming down on Japan, Hawaii, etc... 2nd, a complete halt to deployment of ABM systems? What have you been smoking Tim? What about the SH-04 and SH-05 exo and endoatmosheric interceptors? What about testing them in multiple reload mode (thats a nono)? And what about that HUGE new radar they built that exceeds allowed ERP and is an a location that is not allowed by the treaty? What about that? Or does any of that count? And what is this about the Russians never testing part 150 kt? I've talked to many of the seismo people at Livermore, and there is a lot of evidence that they have passed it, sizable evidence, but we can't PROVE IT, why? Because we don't have seismo equipment onsite in the Soviet Union! Thats a matter of verification. And this limit on ICBM's. Heck I wouldn't violate a treaty that let me keep all 308 of my heavy ICBM's and didn't let the other side have any! So what if its unratified? There will be people over there in the US who will always say what a good job we do in terms of complying with SALT II, and maybe it can be resurrected. Certainly if we stay in the limits of SALT( as much as the Americans can tell), the Congress may stop MX and we'll be a lot better off. And just in case, we'll go full bore on the SS-X-24 and SS-X-25 programs so we can have a whole new generation of ICBM's online before the Americans even plant one MX wing in the ground. What's that you say? Only 100 missiles? Gee, that's not even 1 wing! We'll have to settle for 2 squadrons of 50 in a wing instead of 3 for the minutemen. Geez, isnt arms control great? Before it we had overwhelming superiority, now we are inferior in most areas. Isn't arms control great? DA!!! Milo
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Jeff Myers) (12/10/84)
> > Geez, isnt arms control great? Before it we had overwhelming superiority, > now we are inferior in most areas. Isn't arms control great? DA!!! > > Milo Inferior? Maybe to the other planets in the Federation, Scotty. Even if you're not impressed by our destructive capabilities (i.e. you like to count missles and grains of sand on the beach), remember the recent cabinet official declaration (who was it?) that, if he had a chance, he would NOT trade our arsenal for the Soviets. -- Jeff Myers The views above may or may not University of Wisconsin-Madison reflect the views of my employers. Madison Academic Computing Center ARPA: uwmacc!myers@wisc-rsch.arpa uucp: ..!{allegra,heurikon,ihnp4,seismo,uwm-evax}!uwvax!myers
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Jeff Myers) (12/17/84)
> > Inferior? Maybe to the other planets in the Federation, Scotty. > > > > Well, I wouldn't trade our arsenal for theirs either, because > the U.S. forces aren't geared for a first strike, because that's > not our policy. Now, if it were, then thats a different story > altogether, especially if the Russians didn't have a first > strike strategy. In short, whether I trade or not depends on what I > want to do. The Russian rocket forces are very capable for > doing the stuff they plan to do, and ours used to be fairly capable > at doing what we wanted to do... > > Milo What do we want to do? Crack the earth in half? Our forces are quite capable of supporting our Assured Destruction doctrine (often labeled, somewhat misleadingly, MAD). You should go back in time and campaign for JFK and tout your `missle gap' nonsense when it was more in vogue, if equally as untrue as today. -- Jeff Myers The views above may or may not University of Wisconsin-Madison reflect the views of any other Madison Academic Computing Center person or group at UW-Madison. ARPA: uwmacc!myers@wisc-rsch.arpa uucp: ..!{allegra,heurikon,ihnp4,seismo,uwm-evax}!uwvax!myers