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