dyer@vaxuum.DEC (Where's the falafel?) (03/14/84)
> 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? < The simplest, most direct response is that the "Zero Option" propo- sal would *not* eliminate nuclear weapons in Europe. By "in Europe", I'm referring to medium-range nuclear missiles in the European theater. Why wouldn't it? Because of our submarine-based missiles. The Soviets don't have the underwater nuclear forces that we do; to expect them to remove the only available nuclear forces in the European theater (land-based missiles) without us doing likewise (sea-based missiles) is folly. 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! <_Jym_> | Jym Dyer | Nashua, New Hampshire | ...decvax!decwrl!rhea!vaxuum!dyer |