1988 issue 2 - the inf treaty and us - ussr arms control - counsel of chalcedon
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/12/2019 1988 Issue 2 - The INF Treaty and US - USSR Arms Control - Counsel of Chalcedon
1/4
The INF
Treaty
and
US -
USS
rms Control
by Joe Morecraft, i l l
[Editor's n o t ~ - The following
ar-
ticle
w.as written
before the Summ.it
in
early December, 1987. It is already obvi
ous that
the
difficulties discussed by
Mr.
Morecraft have essentially proven
to
be correct.] :
t theSwnmitMeeting between
gan and Gorbachev on December 7,
1987,
the
US and the USSR m o s t l i k e ~ .
ly will enter into a new anns control
agreement called the IN Onternl.ediate:
Nuclear Force) Treaty. It is hailed as a
great breakthrough in the Cold War be
tween those two nations. This treaty
would eliminate .all US and Soviet '
land-:based missiles with ranges between
3d0 and3400 miles, inciuding 441 So- ;
viet SS-20s and
108
US Pershing
and ban the .future production of these
kinds
of
weapons as well.
~ e i U\e
pro
posed pact,
the
Kremlin wouid disman
tle three times a many warheads and
perrtrit intrusive; on-site inspection (and
verification).'' . (Huinan Eyents,
What Price theiN Treatj?'
1
.111518.7,
p.
8)
The treaty's
grial
of Global
Double Zero would reached f y 'the
supposedly to,tal elimination
o{ all
n t e r ~
mediate-range nuclear forces within five
years. .
There are several serious problems
and dangers about this
INF treaty, the
tenns ofwhich have already been agreed
upon by u.s.Secretary
of
State George' .
Sh1.1ltz
and U.S.S.R, Foreign M i n i s t ~ ~
Edward Shevardnadze.
First is the issue of compliance and
the
problem of verification. Any treaty
with the USSR
is
irresponsible
1
the suc
cess .of
which depends upon the trust
worthiness and honesty of the USSR:
Why should we expect the USSR to
keep this treaty when they have cheated
on the ABM Treaty, SALT I and SALT
ll? The Washington Tinies
re
ported
that:
Making a deal with them
(USSR) is like signing
op
with the
Mafia. They've broken every anns deal
we've ever made with
them.
Verifying Soviet compliance would
be a monumental, if not impossible,
task. This is so for several reasons. No-
body really knows
how
many missiles
the USSR has . The Kremlin has never
provided an account of its inventory.
Moreover, even i f it did, how could we
know if
it
were telling the truth?
he
vast majority of Soviet INF warheads
are on mobile missile launchers
bidden
in
bunkers, hangars,
tunnels,
garages,
etc. And each launcher can be reloaded
and reused. So, there is no way of tell
ing how many missiles they
have.
But
that is not
the
only problem.
f
verifica
ti.
on
is that difficult, enforcement is
even more
so.
How can the US force
the USSR
to
comply with
the treaty?
(The New American, 11/23/87,
Summit Time,
and
the living
is
easy,
pp.
Sf.)
Second
is
the effect of this treaty on
NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organiza
tion). (It) would further upset
the
mili
tary balance between NATO and War
saw Pact powers and increase the likeli
hood
of
a Soviet invasion
of
Europe
sometime in
the 1990's. (The New
American,
11/23/87, Summit time
and the living
is
easy, pp. Sf.) This
would send the signal to our allies in'
Europe that the US is willing to write
offWestern Europe to . he Soviets. IIi
this same article Kirk Kidwell quotes a
foreign policy analyst as saying, Be.
cause this
prol>osal
removes
the
US nu
clear deterrent against the Soviet
conven-
tional superiority in Europe, the US
.must return to
the
nuclear trip-wire poli
cy .of
the
1960's. Should hostilities
break out n Europe the USis faced
with risking a homeland-to-homellmd
nuclear exchange with the Soviets. The
difference is, the US no longer
posses-
ses strategic superiority and therefore lit
tle credibility against a Soviet invasion
ofEurope.
Third is
the
reality that ,;the proposal
will not affect
sttategiC
nuclear arms;
it
will not affect conventiona) forces; . t
will not affect basic Communist
g o a l ~
of world donrination. f all goes well,
the etimination of these ,weapons. will .
rid the world
of
no
more than 3 or 4 per
cent
of
the nuclear arsenal. (Ja111es
Kilpatrick
in
Human Events,
10/24/87. What
the
Agreement
will
NOT
accomplish . ,
p. 14) This
m ~ s
the
nuclear j m b ~ n c e in
favor
of
the Soviet Union still is basically un- .
changed. Between
1977
and
1986
the
USSR built 3000 long-range 'nuclear
m i s s i l e s
and.
the
us built . so he
USSR has deployed well .over 10,000
intercontinental strategic nuclear w E a ~
pons .
Between
1977
and
1986
. lhe
USSR build
140,000
surface-to-air ntis-
siles, while
the
US built 16,200.
While
the US was building 7100
tanks,
the .
USSR built
24,000,
etc., etc. For
the
best.
h
-
8/12/2019 1988 Issue 2 - The INF Treaty and US - USSR Arms Control - Counsel of Chalcedon
2/4
which will
shock you. [Editor's note
It is impossible for us to reproduce
these charts here. Suffice
t to
say that
the USSR far exceeds the US in vir
tually every category of military wea
ponry. Get a copy of the book
by
Crom
melin and Sullivan and see for your
self.]
Fourth is the greatest danger about
the INF treaty. It leaves Western Eur
ope naked to Soviet conventional at
tack. Warsaw Pact forces now outnum
ber NATO
roughly 2-1 in divisions, 3-
1 in tanks, 2-1 in aircraft, and in many
other conventional categories, 4 or 5-1.
The only real deterrent
to a
Soviet con
ventional attack against Western Europe
has been the NATO ability to hit back
at
the
Soviet homeland. The Soviets do
not want
to
take a nuclear hit on Mos
cow
as
a result
of
any future aggression
against Europe. Now this deterrent
is
removed."
(Daily
News
Digest,
9/30/87, p. 1).
In this same article in DaUy News
Digest, 9/30/87, entitled, '1NF Treaty
Dangerous, General Bernard Rogers,
fonnerly Commander of NATO,
who
was
highly critical of the treaty, andre
cently
retired
by
the White House ( ),
is
quoted
as
saying: "Soviet leader Mik
hail
Gorbachev is exploiting Western
divisions and public opinion to tip the
balance of power toward the East and
bring Western Europe under the Soviet
sphere of influence. The Soviets have
expanded their conventional-arms ad
vantage and Want the pact to pave the
way for a nuclear-free Europe that
would
be safer (for the Soviets) for con
ventional war. The Soviet Union's ob
jective is the intimidation, coercion,
anq blackmail of Western Europe." So
expect Gorbachev
to
promise anything
elimination of warheads, troop with
drawals
from eastern Europe--to get Rea
gan to go along with the treaty. He
may
not have
to
promise
much.
Fifth, this arms control process will
not stop with the INF treaty. Next will
be START (Strategic Anns Reduction
Treaty),,'f laybe by spring of
1988.
And
in , October a joint Soviet-American
press release stated that Reagan and Gor-
bachev will "consider thoroughly the de
velopment of instructions
to
delega-
' '
tions
on
a future treaty
on S
percent re
ductions in US and Soviet strategic of
fensive
arms
Sixth is the preservation of the Strate
gic Defense Initiative's Peace Shield.
Will it be traded away at the summit in
December? There is
no
doubt that Gor
bachev
is
pressing Reagan hard on
SDI
restrictions . In fact, our continued re
search and consideration ofearly deploy
ment of SDI is the "major obstacle" to
arms
control according to USSR For
eign Minister Shevardnadze. Gorbachev
has made clear that the completion of
an INF agreement at the upcoming sum
mit is tied to our buckling in on SDI
restrictions. (Human Events,
1117/87, p.
5)
President Reagan has, in
the past, assured us that he will not al
low SDI to become a "bargaining chip"
at
any summit, because its deployment
is essential to the defending of America;
plus,
it
has the potential of making nu
clear weaponry obsolete. BUT , as
David Hoffman of
the
Washington Post
bas reported: ''For all his (Reagan's) rhe
toric insisting that the program will not
be stopped, Reagan has not ruled out
the possibility of delaying deployment
as part of a deal for deep cuts in strate
gic arsenals. Asked today
i f
he would be
willing to accept such a delay by agree
ing
to
a longer period of compliance
with the ABM treaty, (which would put
restrictions on SDI-jcmiii), Reagan re
sponded: 'I'm not going
to
discuss that
right
now
about SDI "
Seventh, the INF treaty will open the
door to increased American trade with
the Soviet slave-state. Gorbachev, and
our new Commerce Secretary William
Verity want expanded US-USSR trade.
Even before the summit, US business
men are being encouraged
to
enter into
joint business ventures with Commun
ists. Arm and Hammer has just joined
with two companies in Italy and Japan
to build the largest petrochemical plant
in the
USSR. Most certainly, after the
summit. Congress will be pressured
to
eliminate many of the remaining trade
barriers
to
the Soviet slave-state, where
many of their products made by
slave-labor.
In conclusion, I want to refer to two
masterful articles by M. Stanton Evans
in Human
Eve
nts. The flrst is entitled,
SDI:
The Answer to Europeans' Dilem-
ma, (10/10/87).
He writes: "The
truth
of the matter is that the INF (inter
mediate-ranged nuclear force) and SDI
(strategic defense initiative) disputes are
facets of the same strategic problem-
and that
th
e weapons systems involved
are actually ALTERNATIVE METII
ODS OF DEFENDING EUROPE (and
a good deal else). f both are denied-
which at the moment seems a realistic
The Counsel of Chalcedon, February, 1988
. Pag e
5
-
8/12/2019 1988 Issue 2 - The INF Treaty and US - USSR Arms Control - Counsel of Chalcedon
3/4
prospect--then the question of how Eur
ope is
to
be protected becomes quite
problematic.
SDI, of course, is a complete repu
diationofM D (mutual assured destruc
tion) and the ABM (anti-ballistic
mis-
sile) accord. Should President Reagan
somehow succeed in getting it devel
oped and
deployed, the Gordian knot
of
this dilemma would be severed at a .
stroke. By being able to defend OUR
SELVES from an attack by Moscow,
we would be able to renew,
in
credible
fashion, our guarantee to EUROPE.
Our defensive needs could once more be
linked to theirs, rather than 'de-coupled'
as is
now
thought to be the case, and
the importance of iNF accordingly di
minished.
As
matters are presently pro
ceeding, however, it
very much looks
as
though
INF
and SDI will BOTII
be
sacrificed on the altar of arms control-
in which event the defense
of
Europe
against the overwhelming strategic and
conventional power
of
the Soviets will
be provided by neither.
Evens' second article is entitled,
Puncturing
The rms Control Delu-
sion' (11/21/87). He refers to Sen. Mal
colm Wallop's paper, The
Arms
Con-
trol Delusion, as the most withering
critique
of
the 'anns control process'
ever put between two covers. This
study can
be
obtained for $16.95 plus
$2.40 postage
from
the Institute for
Contempor;rryStudies, 243 Kearny St.,
San Francisco, Calif., 94108. It is 220
pages in length.
In a nutshell; the authors' thesis is
that arms control is a vain attempt to
constrain the Soviet Union from threat
ening behavior with the parchment bar
riers ofsignedagreements (and some un
signed ones); that this attemptis in the
nature of the case foredoomed to failure,
and has accordingly failed; and, that our
refusal to recognize this primal fact--and
insistence
on
treating the
ill
effects
of
arms control with yet more arms con
trol--has resulted in a vast and growing
threat to our security.
' D)uring the quarter-century
during which arms control has been in
the forefront of our national agenda,' the
authors write, 'a massive change in the
balance
of
powerbetween the US and
Soviet arsenals
has
taken place in favor
of the Soviet Union. . . .by all mea
sures, the danger of war is greater now
than when the arms control process be
gan. Most important, because so many
Americans have been preoccupied with
the notion of arms control;
the
US has
built an arsenal peculiarly suited, not to
defending itself, but to senselessdestruc
tion. '
WHAT DOES THE BIBLE
SAY ABOUT THESE ISSUES?
The issues surrounding the whole dis
cussion of INF treaty, SDI, arms con
trol, trade with the USSR,
etc
., are is
sues about which the Bible has much to
say. Let's focus on three of those is
sues: national defense, treaties with our
enemies, and trading with our enemies.
1). National Defense. Deuteronomy
20
and Romans
13
make clear' that the
purpose
of
civil
government is to use
deadly force, i necessary, including a
strong, godly, and disciplined military
to DEFEND and PROTECT its citizens
from those who would do them harm,
either within or c i u ~ i d e their national .
borders. And passages such as
II
Chron
icles 11:14; 11:5-12; 14:5-8; 17:1-2;
32:1-6 tell us thata national defense po
licy must be based on DEFENSE, NOT
RETALIATION; that PEACE COMES
TIIROUGH STRENGTH; and that the
BEST WAY TO MAINTAIN THE
PEACE IS TO BE PREPARED FOR
WAR. The policy of Mutual Assured
Destruction that has led to the disarm
ing of
our
defensive weapons and which
is based on the ability of the US and
the USSR to annihilate millions
of
civilians, is based on the principle of
retaliation and has left all American
families totally defenseless against mis
sile attack. The Strategic Defense Initia
tive, called High Frontier or Peace
Shield, is based on the biblical princi
ple of defense, and it is exactly that, a
DEFENSE WHICH DEFENDS.
(2). Treaties with our enemies (and
make no
mistake about it, the Soviet
Empire is
our
enemy, and must always
be considered as such)
. lf
you do not be
lieve that read: (a). Gulag Archipel
ago, by Alexander Solzhenitsyn; (b).
The
Day of
the
Cobra, by
Jeffrey
St. John; (c). You
Can
Trust the
Communists, by Fred Schwarz; (d).
Marxism, by Thomas Sowell; (e).
On Communism, by J Edgar
Hoover;
(f).
Communist Eschato
logy, by F. Nigel Lee;
(g). The
Communist Manifesto, by Karl
Marx; and (h). Witness, by Whittaker
Chambers.
Stalin said: We
h v ~
deposed the
Czars of Earth; we shall now dethrone:
the Lord of Heaven. Anti-christian
Cornmunisll\-is an enemy of freedom,
justice, and o'f God himself. For Com
munism, Christians are the enemies of
the
state, And the Bible makes clear
that Christian people and nations are
not
to
make pacts, alliances, or treaties
with anti-christian men or nations,
Isa.
28:15-19; T Chronicles 18:1-2; 19:1-2;
20:35-37. Furthermore, godly nations
are
not to
aide their ungodly enemies
in
any way for any reason,
IT
Chronicles
19:2. Whenever we forget this, we are
the ones who are trodden down by our
enemies.
(3). Tradin with .QUI enemies. The
USSR was made in the USA. Ninety
five percent of the technology used by
the military-industrial complex
of
the
USSR carne from the West, especially
from the US, according to the unrefuted
books (several volumes) by Anthony
Sutton, entitled, Western Technolo
gy and Soviet Economic Devel
o p m ~ n t
Lenin said: The capitalists
of the world and their governments, in
pursuit of
he Soviet market, will
close their eyes to the higher reality and
thus will turn into deaf-mute blindmen.
They will extend credits, which will
strengthen he Conununist party
nd, giving us the materials and tech-.
nology
we
lack, they will restore our
military industry, indispensable for our
future victorious attack on our sup
pliers. In other words, they will l b o r ~
for the preparations for their own sui-'
cide.
Under Reagan exports to the Com
munist bloc nations have averaged over
$2.5 billion per year. Under Reagan the
US Export-Import8ank authorized well
over $620 million in new credits to. the
Soviet bloc.
The
Communist nations
now owe American banks over $8.4
billion; and should they default, the
Page The Counsel of Chalcedon, February, 198$.
-
8/12/2019 1988 Issue 2 - The INF Treaty and US - USSR Arms Control - Counsel of Chalcedon
4/4
American taxpayers will pick up the
tab. And now with the appointment
of
William Verity as Secretary of Com
merce, we can expect stepped-up and ex
panded trade with our enemies.
But, once again, the Bible is clear:
we are forbidden to do business with
our
enemies, Chron. 19:2; Psa.
139: 19-22; Exo