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.