Why? A doo run-run-run, a doo run-run
Apparently this was one of the few substantive policy differences that most people saw between Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne during the recent leadership contest, and the guy with the bargaining chip won. I have to say I was mystified that this was the biggest difference people saw between the candidates, and even more mystified that anyone would claim to have decided their vote on the basis of this issue. We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
The NATO decision about the Pershing deployment was combined with an offer of disarmament talks to the Soviets, with the deployment made conditional on the latter's failure. (In German, the decision wa called NATO-Doppelbeschluss = NATO Double Decision.) Talks were held, at Geneva, and their failure in 1982 led to the downfall of Schmidt"s coalition government. (Successor Kohl then permitted the Pershing deployment.)
Now supporters of the Pershing decision claim that the 1987 INF treaty on short/medium-range missiles was the result of their policy. Which I find idiotic: if the Soviets weren't fazed in 1982, nor in 1983, maybe we see after-the-fact justification, while leadership change had more to do with it... Though, ironically, Gorbachev claims that he succeeded to get the Americans, who would have continued armament struggle, into an agreement only after he reminded them of the disarmament offer in the NATO Double Decision. *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
That did call the Russians's bluff, because with France on board the idea became a lot less controversial.
And from what I remember, it made sense then to react to the SS20s. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Well, did Andropov respond by going into talks? Did Chernenko? If that was merely calling the Soviet's bluff, it didn't achieve much.
And from what I remember, it made sense then to react to the SS20s.
Do you remember arguments about movability and multiple warheads? Those aren't qualitative changes. *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
the French perspective
One French perspective. *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
Do something you don't really care about that you know will drive the Other side nuts to use as a bargaining chip. A doo run-run-run, a doo run-run
I am not convinced about the bargaining chip argument.
That would be because it's complete horseshit. anyone that uses it is either fool or a bald-faced liar who thinks that you're a fool. keep to the Fen Causeway
