dyer@vaxuum.DEC (Where's the falafel?) (03/22/84)
\~/ ~News Flash from Jym Dyer!~ \~/ In a previous article, where I answered the Freeze Question, I pre- sented two different explanations about Reagan's motives for proposing the "Zero Option" arms limitation: .------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | I suppose one could argue that Reagan knew that the Soviets would | never agree to this proposal; thus the proposal was made with no intention | of being carried out. Another insight is offered with Reagan's revealing | that he wasn't aware until recently that the Soviets have most of their | nuclear forces on land! `------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Today I got mail from an alert reader who pointed out that the two arguments together don't make sense; i.e., if Reagan didn't know that the Soviets' nuclear forces were primarily land-based, how did he know that the Soviets would never agree to the proposal? A good question; I guess I should answer it. First, I was just *presenting* the first argument, not arguing it. The asker of the "Freeze Question" explicitly discouraged "a diatribe against a public figure"; since people tend to vary widely in what they consider a diatribe (depending, of course, on which public figure is involved), I didn't offer much criticism at all. I'm not convinced that Reagan *knew* the Soviets wouldn't accept his proposal. And I'm not convinced that he *didn't* know. I simply don't know, and nobody outside of the Reagan Administration knows for sure, either! Remember that I contrasted the argument against the fact that Reagan was not aware of the Soviets' lesser sea-based nuclear forces. I think a better understanding of what was going on with the Zero Option proposal can be acheived by reflecting on this fact. I don't think it matters much whether or not Reagan thought the So- viets would go for his proposal; whether they did or didn't, his proposal would "look good": if they did agree with it, Reagan could then say, "See? We can only deal with them by threatening to deploy more missiles;" if they didn't agree with it, Reagan could then say, "See? They don't want to nego- tiate in good faith. We can only deal with them by deploying more missiles." Either way, the basic philosophy of dealing with the arms race with more arms prevails. <_Jym_> | Jym Dyer | DEC | Nashua, NH | ...{allegra,decvax}!decwrl!rhea!vaxuum!dyer | Thu 22-Mar-1984 09:07 Zen (not EST!) Time
keller@uicsl.UUCP (03/25/84)
#R:decwrl:-641600:uicsl:16300058:000:2361 uicsl!keller Mar 24 12:45:00 1984 If Reagan did make the zero-option proposal knowing that the Soviets would never accept it he may have been justified in doing so. I say this because the Soviets had been hoping that the Freeze-Unilateral-Surrender movements in Europe would succeed in stoping deployment of Pershing II and cruise missles thus preventing the West from answering the technological advance made with the SS-20s. Reagan and the European heads-of-state had to do something to demonstrate that they were not the agressors in Europe, but simply felt the need to defend the countries from a new threat. I don't agree with the freeze position for several reasons. Technological advances cannot be regulated in armaments, nor should they be since such regualtion would lead to sudden obsolescence when one side eventually made a big breakthrough. You must consider your enemy and whether they are interested in stability in the power balance. I don't think stability is possible in the long term relationship of nations. History shows only short term stability. The best motivation for stability is fear of the alternative. I'm afraid of the Soviets and if they are smart they will fear the USA. The peace movements are a natural outgrowth of tense situations. Fear is hard to handle, and the constant low level tension any rational person feels because of all the missles aimed at them combined with the universal faults of political leaders leads to occasional breakdowns and pitiful wailing. New weapon deployment, elections and propaganda campaigns combined to bring about the major peace demonstrations. Since the elections have passed and deployment has started the demonstrations have shrunk to near zero. I've just read some speculation about where Iraq is getting the poisons it is using against Iran. I had heard the Iraq has a factory somewhere in the country, but this latest report speculated that the yellow rain component (Iraq is using a combination of gas and microbes) came from the Soviets. As you probably know the Soviets have large stockpiles of nerve gas and probably still work on new biochemical weapons. We had demphasized such weapons while maintaining large stockpiles, but recently have begun research on new biochemical weapons. From the descriptions of WWI soldiers and the recent Iranian victims this type of weapon is only topped by THE BOMB. -Shaun