Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site tty3b.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ltuxa!tty3b!mjk From: mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: A Sketch of Arms Control Agreements Message-ID: <462@tty3b.UUCP> Date: Fri, 10-Aug-84 12:41:09 EDT Article-I.D.: tty3b.462 Posted: Fri Aug 10 12:41:09 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 11-Aug-84 01:21:51 EDT References: <457@tty3b.UUCP>, <794@ihuxb.UUCP>, <1012@ihuxi.UUCP> Organization: Teletype Corp., Skokie, Ill Lines: 62 >From: cher@ihuxi.UUCP (Mike Musing) > >While all of the aforesaid treaties were being signed USSR kept >building its arms at a faster pace then USA. Does not make some >people (myself included) feel any safer. >It looks like the trend terminated during Reagan's term. >Too bad there were no agreements signed. >Also, this administration was not dealing with any stable (biologically) >Soviet leader. The current one looks pretty bad, too. The only kind of >agreements they had the time to make was funeral-related. The question is not the pace at which either side builds up (which is too fast in both cases) but the relative balance produced. All four service chiefs have testified in Congress that they would not trade their forces for the Soviets. Independent (one cannot trust government agencies anymore when the stated policy of the government is clear superiority) analyses have found rough parity between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. Of course, this does not mean exact equality -- the strategic situations are different. We, for example, do not have hostile borders surrounding us. Rough parity means that overall, neither side has a clear advantage. What Reagan has done is (1) first renounce arms control, then, when it became clear that this was politically impossible, make cosmetic efforts that were *designed* to fail (2) begin an unprecedented arms buildup with the stated goal of clear superiority (3) get the funds for this from cuts in social programs and massive deficit spending (4) declare over and over that there was a "window of vulnerability" that his own MX commission said was imaginary. Let's see a show of hands. How many people know that every significant advance in the arms race was initiated by the U.S.? We dropped the first bomb; we developed the first hydrogen bomb; we developed the first ICBMs; we developed submarine-launched missiles (still the most reliable part of the triad); we developed MIRVs (on which Henry Kissinger later remarked "I wish I'd thought through the consequences of a MIRVed world." We wish you had, too, Henry.) My point is not "look at the big, bad U.S." but (a) we have always been ahead by any reasonable analysis (b) it seems to me that the country that brought these weapons to the world and is the only country to use them has a special responsibility to reduce the threat of their use. The arms race is unstable. If Reagan's buildup continues, the U.S. probably will pull ahead of the Soviets. Do you think they're going to let that stay that way for long? Of course not. So they'll devote even more their GNP to military spending, pull even again or maybe even get ahead (although I doubt that Soviet technology will let them pull ahead in any significant way) and someone else will come along with tales of missile gaps or windows of vulnerability and so starts round 46. Where does it end? The cold warriors have no answer. A recent survey in Illinois, though, found that somewhere around 40% (I forget the exact figure) of people believe that nuclear war is "inevitable". Given the current pattern, I can't see how they're wrong. But I believe in human beings, and I think that, as Dwight Eisenhower said, enough people will want peace badly enough that their leaders will just have to get out of the way and let them have it. Reagan comes in as the cowboy from the west, talking about showdowns and "this planet ain't big enough for the both of us." The polls indicate that most Americans disagree with his approach, and that it is the second-most important issue to voters this fall (after the economy). The possibility is that Ronald Reagan could lose the election on this issue. Mike Kelly