psuvm%rbd@psuvax.UUCP (03/11/84)
I've asked this question of a number of active Nuclear Freeze supporters
and have yet to receive a good reply. The responses I've gotten were more
fashionable rhetoric than reason. Let me say right out front that mainly
because of those kind of responses I am leaning away from supporting the
freeze. A good pragmatic argument on this and a couple other questions
could sway me either way.
************************************************************************
The question:
Why has the Freeze aroused so much public support while Reagan's "Zero
Option" went over like a lead balloon? If we all agree that nuclear
war is a clear and present danger to this planet, then isn't eliminating
the nuclear weapons in Europe better than freezing their number?
************************************************************************
I don't consider a diatribe against any particular public figure as a
reasonable answer. Nor am I interested in an assortment of nuclear horror
stories, I've heard them. Its not necessary to convince me that nuclear
war is a bad thing.
I ask this question in a spirit of open minded and constructive discussion.
How about some answers in the same spirit.
Larry Riffle
RBD@PSUVM.BITNETpeterr@utcsrgv.UUCP (Peter Rowley) (03/13/84)
Why a Freeze and not the "zero-zero" option? Defining terms: a Freeze is the freezing of the arms stockpiles of the US and USSR in their current state-- no modernization or reduction is allowed. It applies to all strategic (long and intermediate range) weapons in both arsenals and, I think, tactical (battlefield) weapons too. The Zero Option is a proposal by the Reagan admin. to withdraw all deployed cruise and Pershing missiles from Europe in return for the removal of all SS-20 missiles from Europe. There is some complication in that all of these weapons are quite mobile-- they could be moved back in times of crisis. Hence, I think the proposal is to destroy the missiles in question. The problem: the Zero Option ignores the 160 or so missiles owned by Britain and France and targetted at the USSR and other Warsaw Pact nations. They are all under the control of the individual nations-- not under the direct control of NATO-- but they are clearly aimed at the USSR. This leaves an imbalance that the USSR refuses to abide, with some justification. The Freeze is a bigger issue than the Zero Option. It would be an important symbolic step to halting the arms race. But only a step-- current weapon levels are too high, and reductions, not just a freeze, are needed. But a freeze is more easily negotiated and a very good first step. p. rowley, U. Toronto
tbray@mprvaxa.UUCP (Tim Bray) (03/15/84)
x <-- USENET insecticide Why the "zero option" died while the freeze looks good... The issue here is one of credibility. As one might have expected, the Russians denounced the zero option as an extremely unbalanced proposal, given the actual strategic nuclear balance in Europe and bearing in mind the non-US nuclear deterrent resources. That the Russians feel this way is no surprise. However, when large sections of the European political establishment started saying much the same thing people started to wonder. And when the arms-control and political-science experts started publishing stories supporting some part of this position in everything to the left of National Review, the ball started rolling. But when you get right down to it, the problem is Reagan. Nobody believes that RR believes disarmament possible or is willing to do anything meaningful towards it. I mean, would YOU really negotiate disarmament with someone you believed was the centre of "an empire of evil"? And when you listen to the foreign-policy geeks in his administration start going on about limited nuclear war, the credibility of any disarmament option put forward by these people must be seen as questionable. Tim Bray