Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site whuxl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!whuxl!orb
From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Soviet arms control violations
Message-ID: <156@whuxl.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 16-Aug-84 13:21:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: whuxl.156
Posted: Thu Aug 16 13:21:12 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 17-Aug-84 01:18:53 EDT
References: <148@whuxl.UUCP>, <41@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Whippany, N.J.
Lines: 24

Most of these charges are not new--they have been dealt with by
the Standing Consultative Committee.  There is little point in
throwing around accusations when one is unwilling to take the
legal means to resolve questions of treaty violations.
If one signs a contract and feels it is not being honored then
one should take the grievance to a court of law to be decided-
NOT gather up every conceivable irrelevant supposed grievance
and trumpet it to all one's neighbors to say "Look this person
is evil, evil, evil."  If the Reagan Administration believes that
there have been Soviet treaty violations then why not take those
alleged violations before the Standing Consultative Committee as
all past Administrations have done?  
That is what past Administrations did when they believed that the
Soviets were building another ABM site-when they did so the Soviets
dismantled the site.  
It is hard to believe the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CIA and the State
Dept. would all be willing to certify that the Soviets HAVE upheld
past arms agreements when suspected violations have been brought before
the Standing Consultative Committee unless this were the case.
I will respond to the specific allegations in Dani Eder's article
when I have had time to check my sources.
Tim Sevener
whuxl!orb
Bell Labs at Whippany, N.J.