notes@iuvax.UUCP (04/13/84)
#N:iuvax:2000028:000:2022 iuvax!scsg Apr 12 12:56:00 1984 Reagan has been accusing the Soviets of violating past arms treaties without revealing the supposed violations nor bringing the case before the Standing Consultative Committee which is supposed to judge such claims. Nor does he point out that many of the supposed violations are of treaties (SALT II, the Threshold Test Ban Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty,etc.) that the US has never formally ratified in large part due to Reagan's opposition. The latest issue of US News and World Report nonchalantly reported that the Reagan administration plans to openly violate SALT II with the lanuching of a seventh Trident nuclear equipped submarine in 1985. So much for cheating on past treaties! Just as Reagan has been condemned for his administrations flagrant disregard of International Law with the mining of Nicaraguan harbors,so he should be condemned for openly planning to violate past arms treaties and refusing to allow claims of violations by either the US or the Soviets to be brought before the Standing Consultative Committee for judgement. The Standing Consultative Committee is not a joke. Past presidents, both Republican and Democratic have brought claims before the SCC and in every case resolved questions of arms control violations. In several instances the USSR stopped activities that had been judged to be violations of nuclear arms agreements. If Reagan believes that the Russians are cheating then why not bring such claims to a body which will STOP such violations? The reason seems to be that Reagan and his administration have no respect for either treaties or International Law. Reagan himself said the following in a speech to the West Point cadets in 1981: The argument, if there is any, will be over which weapons, not whether we should forsake weapons for treaties and agreements. Reagan seems to be following the course suggested above by scrapping existing arms control treaties for ever more weapons. tim sevener Indiana University, Bloomington pur-ee!iuvax!scsg
renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (04/17/84)
#R:iuvax:2000028:uiucdcs:29200133:000:1783 uiucdcs!renner Apr 16 18:07:00 1984 /**** uiucdcs:net.politics / iuvax!scsg / 5:11 am Apr 13, 1984 ****/ > Reagan has been accusing the Soviets of violating past arms treaties > without revealing the supposed violations nor bringing the case before > the Standing Consultative Committee which is supposed to judge such > claims. Nor does he point out that many of the supposed violations are > of treaties (SALT II, the Threshold Test Ban Treaty, the Comprehensive > Test Ban Treaty,etc.) that the US has never formally ratified in large > part due to Reagan's opposition. The latest issue of US News and World > Report nonchalantly reported that the Reagan administration plans to > openly violate SALT II with the lanuching of a seventh Trident nuclear > equipped submarine in 1985... -- tim sevener Just a few comments here: 1. Many of the alleged Soviet "treaty violations" have been described in the press. These include: testing of more new ICBMs than allowed by treaty, encryption of missile test telemetry data, and construction of systems with ABM potential, including a large phased-array radar system in Siberial ("for the tracking of space vehicles") and a mobile surface-to-air missile system which may have ABM capabilities. 2. The SALT II treaty was negotiated during the Carter administration and rejected by the Senate well before the 1980 elections. I don't understand this insistance that everything which is bad is Reagan's fault. Reagan had very little to do with SALT II or its rejection. 3. The quoted paragraph above seems to exonerate Soviet violations of agreements which have not been ratified, yet condemns Reagan for the same thing when complaining about the seventh Trident submarine. This seems a little confused. Scott Renner {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner