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: Controlling Nuclear Weapons Message-ID: <375@whuxl.UUCP> Date: Thu, 29-Nov-84 17:42:45 EST Article-I.D.: whuxl.375 Posted: Thu Nov 29 17:42:45 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 3-Dec-84 12:25:38 EST References: <1133@drusd.UUCP> <2082@randvax.UUCP> Organization: Bell Labs Lines: 64 > >From me (Tim Sevener): > > The only way to *control* nuclear weapons is to *control* nuclear weapons. > > That is to negotiate bilateral verifiable agreements which attain exactly > > this aim. This does not guarantee that such agreements will not be broken. > >Laurinda Rohn's reply: > Please note the word "verifiable". This is a major stopping point, > particularly so when some sides refuse to allow on-site inspections. > Conservatives repeat this charge again and again. The Soviets HAVE agreed to 4 onsite inspections a year in the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Unfortunately, despite the request of the Republican-controlled Senate to submit this treaty for ratification, Reagan has refused to do so. > >From me (Tim Sevener): > > But then there is a body, the Standing Consultative Committee which has > > been established to monitor compliance with treaties. > > Why hasn't the Reagan administration brought their complaints of violations > > before this committee? > > Presidents Nixon, Ford and Carter all brought complaints before this > > Committee, so far Reagan has brought none. Why? > > Probably because he saw how effective it was. What did this Committee > do about said violations brought to its attention? Bend the offending > side's library card? The SCC seems about as effective as the World > Court. No the SCC did *NOT* just "bend their library card". In fact, on several occassions the Soviets stopped activities brought up as possible treaty violations before the SCC. That we haven't always gotten our way before the SCC is no reason to refuse to bring charges before it. Anymore than discontent with court decisions means one should no longer use the courts. > >From me (Tim Sevener): > > If one million six hundred thousand times the destructive power of > > Hiroshima does not threaten the human race what level does? > > Both sides have enough nuclear weapons to target every city down to > > 15,000 people. Do we need more? > > Laurinda Rohn's reply: > Ah, we are again reverting to beancounting. I have commented on the > uselessness of this before. > It is not simply beancounting. It is an attempt to point out that we already have more than enough of these terribly destructive weapons. > > From me (Tim Sevener) : > > Increasing our nuclear weapons does NOT make us safer by any means. > > Lauri's reply: > As a matter of fact, it may in fact make us safer. The issues are still > not nearly as black and white as you would like them to be. Sorry! If increasing our nuclear weapons makes us safer, I would like to see your arguments for that proposition. Please consider that the history of the arms race shows that everytime *we* increase our weapons that the Soviets will also increase theirs. You will thus have to argue that allowing the other side to increase their weapons with no restraints is better than even rudimentary restraints which could ( and have) reduce the level of Soviet nuclear weapons aimed in our direction. Awaiting your reply, tim sevener whuxl!orb