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 <
[email protected]>
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.
