Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site harvard.ARPA Path: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!matthews From: matthews@harvard.ARPA (Jim Matthews) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Green Peace and French Nuke Tests Message-ID: <452@harvard.ARPA> Date: Fri, 25-Oct-85 13:04:12 EDT Article-I.D.: harvard.452 Posted: Fri Oct 25 13:04:12 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 27-Oct-85 00:51:50 EDT References: <2404@sdcrdcf.UUCP> <733@whuxl.UUCP> Distribution: na Organization: Aiken Computation Laboratory, Harvard Lines: 36 > Moreover Green Peace is opposed to ALL nuclear tests because such > tests are a pivotal part of the nuclear arms race and allow the > continued development of nuclear weapons. I have yet to hear a convincing argument against continued testing, except, perhaps, for the argument that they damage the environment. We have enough bombs to decimate civilization right now -- new ones add nothing to the basic risk, and in fact reduce it (very marginally) though lower yields, higher reliability, less long-term radiation, etc. If anything, I would campaign for the destruction of those old, huge warheads that populate our stockrooms. > Reagan has yet to respond to > the Soviets unilateral moratorium on nuclear tests. However the Soviet > testing moratorium has scarcely been mentioned by the media or commentators > except when it was first announced. It is the first such unilateral move > since Kennedy's moratorium on atmospheric nuclear testing which later led > to the Limited Test Ban Treaty- a treaty which, according to our own > Joint Chiefs of Staff, has never been broken by either the Soviet Union > or the U.S. > "Peace in the World, or the World in Pieces!" > tim sevener whuxn!orb I have seen the moratorium all over the New York Times and Boston Globe, so I don't think anyone's forgotten about it. However, those papers have also reported the fact that the moratorium was enabled by an accelerated testing schedule in late 1984 and early 1985, so in fact it represents no sacrifice at all. The comparison with the Limited Test Ban Treaty is misleading -- it hasn't been broken because there's no reason to break it, as the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. both have the resources and technology to do underground testing. Neither, however, will abandon all testing, making a comprehensive test ban a hypocritical and useless proposition for both sides. Jim Matthews matthews@harvard