orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/12/84)
> > SEVENER keeps talking about stopping the arms race. Well he's telling > the wrong people. Why dont you mail a letter to the Kremlin? > Ask them to stop development of their new SS-X-24 and SS-X-25. > And ask them to please stop making so many SS-20's as well. > And while you are speaking to them, you might ask them to not > produce the new Blackjack Bomber as well. All this going on, and the > bozo's in congress are balking about B-1, MX and D-5! Its the height > of lunacy to say we wont build any MX's unless the Soviets come back > to the table! If I were a Russian General, I'd stop any talks I had > planned. Shoot, why look at a gift-horse in the mouth? Its > people who use SEVENER's type of logic that make policy like this, > and end up hurting real arms-control. > Milo The Nuclear Freeze calls on BOTH sides to stop the arms race and so do I. I have no intention of supporting one side or the other stopping the arms race while the other side, or other countries continue. GreenPeace released balloons in Moscow calling on the Soviet Union to stop all nuclear testing. Peace groups in Czechoslovakia sent a spate of letters to Rude Pravo asking the Czech gov't NOT to support the deployment of any more SS-20's or other nuclear weapons in their country. Their argument was that simply stationing more missiles in response to US cruise missiles would not be a move towards Peace or help supporters of Peace in the West. Now it is the obligation of Peace groups in the West to try to get the West to stop to help those supportive of Peace in the East. I find it hard to believe that refusing to ratify treaties that took years to negotiate and planning on violating SALT II , which is the major agreement limiting both sides are supportive of "real arms control". Wars are always justified by the fingerpointing of both sides, escalation leads to escalation and soon the conflagration begins. Meanwhile those urging Peace for both sides are always castigated for being "weak" or failing to see the obvious transgressions of the other side. Thus the best ally of the US military is the Soviet military and vice versa. I am opposed to BOTH military establishments and their arms buildups. tim sevener whuxl!orb
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (11/15/84)
> GreenPeace released balloons in Moscow calling on the Soviet Union to stop > all nuclear testing. Wow! That should convince those Commies that we mean business when it comes to arms control... Wayne
simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) (11/16/84)
In article <341@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >The Nuclear Freeze calls on BOTH sides to stop the arms race and so do I. >I have no intention of supporting one side or the other stopping the arms >race while the other side, or other countries continue. >GreenPeace released balloons in Moscow calling on the Soviet Union to stop >all nuclear testing. Peace groups in Czechoslovakia sent a spate of letters >to Rude Pravo asking the Czech gov't >NOT to support the deployment of any more >SS-20's or other nuclear weapons in their country. >tim sevener whuxl!orb The Soviets love the idea of a freeze. What they don't like is the "mutually verifiable" part. They are extraordinarily cagey on just what sort of inspections they will permit, and so far, they are quite unwilling to allow inspections nearly adequate to prove compliance. Reagan has said, repeatedly, that he looks forward to the total elimination of all nuclear weapons. Period. What could be dearer to any peace-loving person's heart than that? Sure beats a mere freeze. I have yet to hear anything similar from Moscow. I am quite sure that, were the Soviets to embrace such a plan sincerely enough to permit the sort of inspections that really mean something, Reagan would embrace it wholeheartedly. And so would I. -- [ I am not a stranger, but a friend you haven't met yet ] Ray Simard Loral Instrumentation, San Diego {ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdcc6!loral!simard ...Though we may sometimes disagree, You are still a friend to me!
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/19/84)
> > GreenPeace released balloons in Moscow calling on the Soviet Union to stop > > all nuclear testing. > > Wow! That should convince those Commies that we mean business when it comes to > arms control... > > Wayne I suppose it's about as effective as 700,000 Americans coming to New York City in 1982 in support of a bilateral Nuclear Freeze. tim sevener whuxl!orb
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/19/84)
> The Soviets love the idea of a freeze. What they don't like is > the "mutually verifiable" part. They are extraordinarily cagey on just > what sort of inspections they will permit, and so far, they are quite > unwilling to allow inspections nearly adequate to prove compliance. > > Reagan has said, repeatedly, that he looks forward to the total > elimination of all nuclear weapons. Period. What could be dearer to > any peace-loving person's heart than that? Sure beats a mere freeze. > > I have yet to hear anything similar from Moscow. I am quite > sure that, were the Soviets to embrace such a plan sincerely enough to > permit the sort of inspections that really mean something, Reagan would > embrace it wholeheartedly. > > Ray Simard I would like to believe Reagan's professions of peaceful intent. However so far I have yet to see any concrete steps in that direction. Reagan has never proposed anything that would reduce the overall level of nuclear weapons. The START proposals which would have reduced some weapons would have increased others, and wound up with 1500 more nuclear weapons overall. Let us take just one VERY innocuous treaty- the Limited Test Ban Treaty negotiated by Kennedy in 1963. That treaty has never been violated by either side-- it is VERY easy to verify--if atmospheric testing is done it sends radioactive fallout into the atmosphere all over the world. Yet Reagan opposed that treaty. Why? Your argument and Reagan's for "reducing nuclear arms" has severe flaws. If Reagan cannot assure verification with a simple stop to the arms race then how is he supposed to assure verification with reductions? Will the Soviets be MORE likely to agree to steps to verify reductions than they are to agree to steps to verify a simple Freeze? The Freeze is the FIRST STEP towards reducing nuclear weapons. IF both sides cannot even take this logical first step how are they going to take steps to reductions? The other contradiction is precisely that embodied in Reagan's START proposals. By calling for reductions in the previous generation of nuclear weapons Reagan allows for an allout arms race in the next and very dangerous generation of cruise missiles. These missiles are 18 feet long, they could fit in your living room, they could be stolen by terrorists or other unsavory groups, and if Reagan thinks ICBM treaty compliance is difficult then what about cruise missile treaty compliance? If testing, production and deployment of cruise missiles is stopped NOW, then there is far greater chance they can be controlled. Once both sides have cruise missiles in large numbers how can either side trust the other to have totally dismantled such portable weapons? This problem will only get worse as every day more cruise missiles are deployed. It is one reason a Freeze on these weapons is so urgent. tim sevener whuxl!orb
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg J Kuperberg) (11/26/84)
> Reagan has never proposed anything that would reduce the overall level of > nuclear weapons. > tim sevener whuxl!orb You forget the zero-zero option, no?