Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!decvax!decwrl!rhea!vaxuum!dyer
From: dyer@vaxuum.DEC (Where's the falafel?)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Answer to Freeze Question Revisited
Message-ID: <6416@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 22-Mar-84 09:00:53 EST
Article-I.D.: decwrl.6416
Posted: Thu Mar 22 09:00:53 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 23-Mar-84 20:43:25 EST
Organization: DEC Engineering Network
Lines: 42

\~/	~News Flash from Jym Dyer!~	\~/

	In a previous article, where I answered the Freeze Question, I pre-
sented two different explanations about Reagan's motives for proposing the
"Zero Option" arms limitation:
.------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|	I suppose one could argue that Reagan knew that the Soviets would
| never agree to this proposal; thus the proposal was made with no intention
| of being carried out.  Another insight is offered with Reagan's revealing
| that he wasn't aware until recently that the Soviets have most of their
| nuclear forces on land!
`------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	Today I got mail from an alert reader who pointed out that the two
arguments together don't make sense; i.e., if Reagan didn't know that the
Soviets' nuclear forces were primarily land-based, how did he know that the
Soviets would never agree to the proposal?  A good question; I guess I should
answer it.
	First, I was just *presenting* the first argument, not arguing it.
The asker of the "Freeze Question" explicitly discouraged "a diatribe against
a public figure"; since people tend to vary widely in what they consider a
diatribe (depending, of course, on which public figure is involved), I didn't
offer much criticism at all.
	I'm not convinced that Reagan *knew* the Soviets wouldn't accept his
proposal.  And I'm not convinced that he *didn't* know.  I simply don't know,
and nobody outside of the Reagan Administration knows for sure, either!
	Remember that I contrasted the argument against the fact that Reagan
was not aware of the Soviets' lesser sea-based nuclear forces.  I think a
better understanding of what was going on with the Zero Option proposal can
be acheived by reflecting on this fact.  
	I don't think it matters much whether or not Reagan thought the So-
viets would go for his proposal; whether they did or didn't, his proposal
would "look good":  if they did agree with it, Reagan could then say, "See?
We can only deal with them by threatening to deploy more missiles;" if they
didn't agree with it, Reagan could then say, "See?  They don't want to nego-
tiate in good faith.  We can only deal with them by deploying more missiles."
	Either way, the basic philosophy of dealing with the arms race with
more arms prevails.
		<_Jym_>

| Jym Dyer | DEC | Nashua, NH | ...{allegra,decvax}!decwrl!rhea!vaxuum!dyer |

Thu 22-Mar-1984 09:07 Zen (not EST!) Time