Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site boulder.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!cires!boulder!jon
From: jon@boulder.UUCP (Jon Corbet)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Defeating Reagan, pass 2
Message-ID: <217@boulder.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 26-Sep-84 21:19:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: boulder.217
Posted: Wed Sep 26 21:19:30 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 29-Sep-84 08:30:16 EDT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 100

[ In many states you must register to vote in the next couple weeks! ]

Herein: Responses to a couple of responses to my original "Defeating 
Reagan" article.


>>					Mondale has promised to end the
>> 	  war in Nicaragua within 100 days of taking office, which at least
>> 	  provides a basis for action in that direction, even if he does
>> 	  not mean it.

>End what war in 100 days?

You know, that place down south where our peace and liberty loving
country has been mining the harbors and supplying airplanes and money?
I call that a war...

>> 	- Nuclear freeze.  Mondale supports it.  Reagan supports building
>> 	  many more weapons that will just inspire the Soviets to do the
>> 	  same (or go to a "launch on warning" policy -- hardly conducive
>> 	  to US security).  It is interesting to note that Reagan is the
>> 	  only president since the 50's who has not negotiated an arms
>> 	  control agreement with the Soviets.

>What's there to negotiate.  Look at the above statement again
>and think about how far all those agreements got us.  Even with
>SALT I, and the unratified SALT II, we are still in the current
>predicament.  What good is a non-verifyable freeze, or reduction.

	A freeze is verifiable, I suggest you read "Monitoring a nuclear
freeze" in _International_Security_, Vol 8 Number 4, Sprint 1984,
Harvard Press.  But anyway, what is the "current predicament"?  Isn't
it just terrible that we have to work so hard to maintain an overwhelming
advantage over the Soviets?

----
>	- Nuclear war.  Mondale does not joke about bombing the USSR(at least,
>	  not where the public can hear...), he does not talk about winning
>	  nuclear wars.  Reagan and Bush do.
>**Well, if I hear them talking about winning nuclear wars, I too would become
>**concerned. But they talk about Russia having the capability to win a nuclear
>**at this time. That is what has got me concerned. And the democrats are so
>**naive as to believe that the Russians would never be so inhumane. Sorry, but
>**from what I've seen over the last few years, I would not put a preemptive
>**strike past Russia if they feel sufficiently provoked. They also have the
>**advantage of not having to answer to their people(not to mention the rest
>**of the world).

The "pre-emptive strike" idea is at the heart of my objection to Reagan's
idea of nuclear war.  A Russian pre-emptive strike is simply not practical,
regardless of their motivation.  Our defensive system is set up so
that 2/3 thirds of our nuclear force is mobile and hidden -- it is
essentially invulnerable to a first strike.  By preparing for a first
strike of our own (MX, cruise missiles are first strike weapons), we
just increase the tension.

					 Mondale has promised to end the
>	  war in Nicaragua within 100 days of taking office, which at least
>	  provides a basis for action in that direction, even if he does
>	  not mean it.
>**Oh, I suppose Mondale will send in our troops to take control. No thanks.
>**Reminds me of some recent disasters we've gotten involved with. Reminds
>**me of Russia and Afghanistan. By the way, just because we support one side
>**or the other does not imply wrongdoing. We also support Isreal with
>**advanced weaponry.

If Mondale intends to do that, I certainly would not even consider voting
for him.  He proposes a cessation of the illegal, covert aid.
	
>	- ERA.  Mondale supports it, Reagan does not.
>**I will for the second time request a copy of the ERA. The first time was
>**met with no response. 

I can no longer remember the exact text, but it is very simple (< 50 
words).  Paraphrasing, it says:

	" The United States shall make no law that discriminates
	on the basis of sex."

>	- Environmental issues.  Reagan's attitude toward the environment
>	  is demonstrated by his appointments of James Watt and Anne Burford.
>	  Mondale is not an overwhelming environmentalist, but he at least
>	  will not try to destroy all the gains that have been made in the
>	  past few decades.
>**I do not blame a boss for the people working under him. Anyway, he 
>**properly asked for Watts resignation. As for Anne, I've never heard of
>**her. And I certainly would have remembered if she had instigated some
>**policy detrimental to the environment because I am a great outdoors lover.
>**By the way, other appointees that fell from favor never became an issue(ie
>**Carter and Lance).
	
How can you not blame the boss?  He appointed them!  He knew damn well
what sort of people they were -- we ALL knew about Watt!  You must be
joking.  He appointed them for a reason -- to remove any obstacles to
big business that made them actually have to consider the environment
in their actions.
	An outdoors lover who has never heard of the EPA?
--
Jonathan Corbet
National Center for Atmospheric Research.