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