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