Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site whuxl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!orb
From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Nuclear power "experts" are just trying to erase the Sputnik era
Message-ID: <376@whuxl.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 29-Nov-84 17:59:04 EST
Article-I.D.: whuxl.376
Posted: Thu Nov 29 17:59:04 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 3-Dec-84 12:27:00 EST
References: <1133@drusd.UUCP> <2082@randvax.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs
Lines: 43

> > Here is Lauri's response to my addition of experts who favor a Freeze:
> > Lauri, you ignored my earlier posting about the support of former CIA director
> > Wm Colby, Herbert Scoville and other "strategists" for a Nuclear Freeze.
> > This list of scientists was in response to the notion propagated by Milo
> > and others that all the "experts" and anyone who knows anything support an
> > allout nuclear arms race.
> 
> The idea of no more nuclear weapons is on a par with Mom and apple pie.
> I don't think anyone particularly likes nukes.  I'm sure there are lots
> of "experts" who would like to get rid of all of them.  But again, the
> key word is "verifiable."  It is absurd to have the US unilaterally freeze
> without being able to verify whether the Soviets are doing the same.
> 
> 
> 					Lauri
 
Lauri, this is *precisely* what these experts are arguing: that a Nuclear
Freeze IS verifiable, and in fact, more verifiable than other more limited
arms control agreements.  William Colby is *still* defending his role in
the counterinsurgency program in Vietnam and arguing that such tactics
are good.  Yet Nixon's Director of the CIA *also* argues that a Nuclear
Freeze is verifiable and should be sought.  If all testing, production,
and deployment of *all* new nuclear weapons is stopped  then the major
sources of past arms control compliance disagreements- whether this or
that new nuclear weapon violates existing agreements will be easily settled:
*any* new nuclear weapon OR its testing OR its production will violate
a Nuclear Freeze.  It makes the whole issue of compliance far simpler.
How did the US suspect that there might be MIG's on the Burkiana?
Because they could see much of the actual loading of the Burkiana from
a satellite.  Satellites can read license plates.  They can also detect
any missile tests.  Especially when both sides agree to procedures which
make such observation possible.  One can detect nuclear tests with
geological seismograph stations.  There are numerous means to verify treaty
compliance and those means are being used right now.
Herbert Scoville, former Deputy Director of the CIA has made the same point.
He wrote an article in the New York Times several weeks ago that argued that
a Nuclear Freeze *was* verifiable.
The Nuclear Freeze *is* like Mom and apple pie: so why doesn't Reagan
or many others support it?
Could it be the $200 billion to be spent on new nuclear weapons in the
next few years? Lots of money there, isn't there?
   peace,
  tim sevener whuxl!orb