Text File

Aucbvax.1500 fa.arms-d utzoo!duke!decvax!ucbvax!dlw@MIT-AI Tue Jun 2 23:28:42 1981 SALT II There is definitely feeling among many people that SALT II is unacceptable because it is unfair to the U.S.A. I remember some of the points that I have heard put forth on this subject. One point is that the treaty limits the range of certain weapons to a certain number of miles. This is considered to be unfair because many Soviet targets are very far from the nearest ocean, while many U.S. targets are quite close to the nearest ocean, and so a limit expressed as "N miles" might mean that they can hit us while we cannot hit them. Another point is that the Soviets are allowed to retain their existing ABM system, while we do not have one, and neither side is allowed to deploy one.

Naturally, it will be hard to get both sides to agree to what is "fair". One might put forth that we should accept a treaty, even if it is unfair, so long as it is not too outrageous, so long as it is some kind of positive step. There is a lot to be said for this. The objection to this claim that I have heard is that by accepting an unfair treaty we are slighting ourselves and putting ourselves in a MORE dangerous position than simply not having any treaty at all. I find this argument difficut to evalutate.

A deeper bone of contention regarding arms treaties in general is that some people feel that verification is inherently impossible and that the Soviets are likely to comply only with the letter and not the spirit of the treaty, and probably not even the letter.

I do not assert that I agree or disagree with any of the above; I am simply relating what I have heard from SALT II opponents. My point is that there are reasons for opposing it OTHER THAN "we want toys", "weapons races are a good thing", etc. There are many people out there who are opposed to SALT II and are, at the same time, with no inconsistencies, arguing that they are primarily concerned with maintaining world peace and avoiding war. The claim that people opposed to SALT II are "hawks" who "are in favor of war" or "are inherently aggressive" is not fair; there are people who are knowledgable about this subject who think that the interests of peace are better served by NOT agreeing to SALT II.

(I'd also be interested in knowing where that film came from and what it said.)

----------------------------------------------------------------- gopher://quux.org/ conversion by John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> of http://communication.ucsd.edu/A-News/

This Usenet Oldnews Archive article may be copied and distributed freely, provided:

1. There is no money collected for the text(s) of the articles.

2. The following notice remains appended to each copy:

The Usenet Oldnews Archive: Compilation Copyright (C) 1981, 1996 Bruce Jones, Henry Spencer, David Wiseman.