Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utcsrgv.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!peterr From: peterr@utcsrgv.UUCP (Peter Rowley) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: A question about the "Freeze" Message-ID: <3521@utcsrgv.UUCP> Date: Tue, 13-Mar-84 10:20:26 EST Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.3521 Posted: Tue Mar 13 10:20:26 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 13-Mar-84 12:13:57 EST Organization: CSRG, University of Toronto Lines: 28 Why a Freeze and not the "zero-zero" option? Defining terms: a Freeze is the freezing of the arms stockpiles of the US and USSR in their current state-- no modernization or reduction is allowed. It applies to all strategic (long and intermediate range) weapons in both arsenals and, I think, tactical (battlefield) weapons too. The Zero Option is a proposal by the Reagan admin. to withdraw all deployed cruise and Pershing missiles from Europe in return for the removal of all SS-20 missiles from Europe. There is some complication in that all of these weapons are quite mobile-- they could be moved back in times of crisis. Hence, I think the proposal is to destroy the missiles in question. The problem: the Zero Option ignores the 160 or so missiles owned by Britain and France and targetted at the USSR and other Warsaw Pact nations. They are all under the control of the individual nations-- not under the direct control of NATO-- but they are clearly aimed at the USSR. This leaves an imbalance that the USSR refuses to abide, with some justification. The Freeze is a bigger issue than the Zero Option. It would be an important symbolic step to halting the arms race. But only a step-- current weapon levels are too high, and reductions, not just a freeze, are needed. But a freeze is more easily negotiated and a very good first step. p. rowley, U. Toronto