Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxn.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!ihuxn!res From: res@ihuxn.UUCP (Rich Strebendt) Newsgroups: net.followup,net.politics Subject: Re: Star Wars Defense Plan Message-ID: <804@ihuxn.UUCP> Date: Wed, 22-Aug-84 18:35:40 EDT Article-I.D.: ihuxn.804 Posted: Wed Aug 22 18:35:40 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 23-Aug-84 04:57:57 EDT References: <966@ulysses.UUCP>, <363@vu44.UUCP> <189@ho95b.UUCP> <284@fisher.UUCP> <138@mouton.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL Lines: 28 | ... for saying | that a far cheaper (and the only practical) solution, namely arms | control agreements, isn't feasable? Unfortunately, it is not clear that arms control agreements are really practical. Certainly, with the Soviet opposition to on-site inspections, such agreements are not practicable today. | Reagan wants to build Star Wars because he's been an utter failure at | arms control. No other reason. I will not presume to KNOW what Reagan WANTS ... the previous poster's psi abilities are far greater than mine :-). It is interesting to me, however, that as soon as we demonstrated an ability to destroy orbital warheads, then the Soviets were anxious to discuss banning the kinds of weapons which we now had but that they lacked. Reagan agreed to discuss this, but wanted to include in the arms limitation discussion the topic of other nuclear weapons. Since the Soviets have an edge on us in that kind of weaponry, they have refused to discuss it. As I said, I will not presume to guess the President's desires, but I surmise from his statements that he is willing to discuss any arms limitation agreements that hold promise of being both practical and practicable. Rich Strebendt ...!ihnp4!ihuxn!res Phil