Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!renner
From: renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (renner )
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Arms Freeze and the Polls - (nf)
Message-ID: <5426@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 6-Feb-84 22:30:39 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.5426
Posted: Mon Feb  6 22:30:39 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 9-Feb-84 13:54:33 EST
Lines: 21

#N:uiucdcs:29200080:000:973
uiucdcs!renner    Feb  6 18:52:00 1984

Recent articles have questioned the accuracy of polls which determine
public support for a nuclear arms freeze.  The issue is not only the
phrasing of the pollster's question.  For me, the entire question
hinges on the definition of "verifiable."  I will support a mutual
nuclear arms freeze, so long as the verification procedures specify
on-site inspections by American military officers on demand.  One might
usefully include reporters and Congressmen in the group of inspectors.
However, I refuse to entrust America's existance to the Soviets or to spy
satellites.

Now, some interesting questions:  How many of the 80% supporting the freeze
have the same definition of verification?  Is this the definition Congress
has in mind?  If so, why haven't they said so -- vague references to
"verifiable" make me nervous.  Most importantly, what possible reason (other
than an intention to cheat) could the Soviets have to object?

Scott Renner
{ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner