*	Protocol of Audio tape
*
*	Experiment X500 / July 19, 1984 / E: LM, SC / S324
*
*	Filed on  {QV}<NOTECARDS>DATA>X500-PROTOCOL-TRANSCRIPT
*
*	September 24, 1985
*
*	Files used in experiment:
*
*	Starting file:
*	{QV}<NOTECARDS>DATA>X500A-NATO-MISSILES.NOTEFILE
*
*	Ending file:
*	{QV}<NOTECARDS>DATA>X500B-X501A-NATO-MISSILES.NOTEFILE
*
*	Audio tape-	X500 NoteCd-AX  7/19/84  S324
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Discusses general topics:  Where Ken is in project (Data collection), what he has been hired to do (act like analyst), what he is going to write about (this is the body of the transcribed protocol).]

37	E	Could you sorta fill me in on what, what you think about again as the main issues in the Nato Missiles.
39	S	Well, I think what I said, whata, heh, I have to try to be consistent with what I said last time.
41	E	No you don't, noI... In fact I'm interested in to some extent how, how your ideas about it change over time as you as you worked with the
42	S	Uh
	E	information.
	S	Well, I mean, I I uh, wha, as I said before, I think what th the thing I'm,I've sort of started with is the idea of trying to figure out whether it was a good, whether it was a good decision,  and  and
44	E	tua put the missiles in
	S	missiles in Europe, right, and, um, and so Iss, there's, there's, y'know, several different dimensions to it and the, there's the sorta military technical kinda dimension about whether it makes sense in military terms even to, to have done it.  And there's, there's the (ahem) the dimension of the political repercussions, in the sense that, uh, there's a lot of opposition to the deployments in Europe and it's changed, uh, internal du,d, you know, policy in Europe, in in the contries, and it's also changed the relationship of the various Nato countries to each other and to the United States as well, and so those, looking at those kinds of, those, y'know, sort of a political dimension and a military dimension, I think, in MY opinion are buh, they they ended up both being, I mean, they're bad, uh the decision was bad in both those senses, but um, um, probably muh-more people would argue that it makes sense militarily but not necessarily politically,  but I don't think it makes sense either way.
55	E	You don't think, oh you don't think it makes sense militarily?
	S	NO!, it was stupid. I mean, the, um, the problem (heh), the problem is that tha uhm ... you esyugeu, there's a big geographic component to this and the, and I think we talked about this last time where the Soviet Union's in Europe,(heh-heh)y'know, and we're not.. And so for them to have missiles in the Soviet Uni-union aimed at Europe doesn't mean the same thing as US having missiles in Europe aimed at the Soviet Union.  I mean, there's a different, there's a different logic there.  The Soviet Union, bcu, partly because of its geographic component doesn't believe in the distinction between tactical nuclear weapons and, and strategic nuclear weapons.They think they're all one thing.  It doesn't matter, um. Whereas we try to maintain this distinction.  So to them, uh, the SS20 missile is, which is aimed at Europe is just another component of their overall, y'know, uh, force and, whereas to us and our pershing missiles in Europe are something divorsed from our missiles back at home. And the thing that most people don't realize is that the Soviet Union had, ss, missiles which will do basically the same thing as the SS20, only older, and not as efficient, they're not as long range, they're not as accurate, blablabla, since ther um 1960's.  Whereas we've NEVER had missiles like the pershing 2 or the cruise missile in Europe.  And so, what wer, we're saying tha that we, like in our negotiating position was that we won't if if if they withdraw their SS20's, we won't deploy the pershing 2 and cruise missiles, but to THEM, that's giving away something they already had so that we won't do something we we've Never had.
74		Which from their point of view is nonsense, of course. And, so,ime, even militarily speaking it, I mean, its intruth escalating a situation which is already very tenuous, Imean, the situation, the nuclear situation in Europe is very dangerous. and then for us to go and add something else to it, I think was really sort of, at least in the way that we did it.  Um, I mean, you can probably make an argument that we might of, y'know, some, many of our weapons in Europe are very old.  Nuclear weapons are something that need to be replaced, so you can make that argument, but wi that's not really what we were doing.  If we were doing that,then how come the pershing missle has, y'know, like three times the range of its, the thing that it's replacing.  It's not really replacing it, it's something new. And so, I doa, think it was really.. I think think th the problem was uz that we didn't think about it from the point of v-iew of the Soviet Union. I mean, we only thought about it in the point of view, we-well, we ha we have the capability of doing this now, so therefor we should.  But we didn't think about how they would think about it, and its obviously, Imean, we're nah, the Soviet Union and the United States are not negotiating about it.  I mean, Reagan and all those people said that by deploying the missiles you would have, they would MAKE them negotiate. But they said, if you deploy the missiles we WON'T negotiate and of course they don't, they won't.
		Elef ard a to convince them.  I think this it's sort of silly. (heh)
89	E	Well, d-do you really think that if we had put in, well, I-I'm wondering, y-yknow, what you think. We put in something less than th-the pershing 2 missiles.  Thu- would it have been ok?
92	S	Wel..  well,I mean, I th I I think that we should be negotiating to reduce the numbers of weapons there, but assuming, let's say that we decided that the pershing 1-A's which are the missiles that the persing 2's replaced are too old and we need to replace them, well replace them with a modernized version. In other words, something that does basically the same thing, but does it more efficient.  Th-bhu-thu, um, and they could DO that easily. Now if they could basicly use the the difference between the pershing one and the pershing two is basically the the um reentry vehicle.  The um warhead (parking) on the pershing  2 is much much more accurate.  Um by orders of magnitude, and as a result they can have a smaller warhead on it and therefor carry more fuel so it has longer range.  And uhm, well, if we were just interested in modernizing the pershing one then why didn't we just make it have the same range?  But noa- but now we've made a missile that will actually reach into the Soviet Union.  Whereas the pershing one never did that.  And we've never, the United States has NEVER had a missile in Europe that can reach the Soviet Union until now.  Although, the Soviets always claimed the British and French nuclear weapons should be counted as a part of that force, but we would always say that they won't, but the United States proper, I mean, these are OUR missiles, we own them, has never had ones that would reach to the Soviet Union.  Whereas the Soviet Union has always had missiles that can reach from muh from the Soviet union into Europe.  So there, Imean, it its, there's a big difference I think.  And I, I mean, so I I think that thu there was just a lot of, I think was just a .. bad planning, I mean I really think that we didn't,  when we decided, we thought that no one would care.  We'd just put in these missiles and no one would care. And that's .. Stupid, y'know(heh-heh).  Buh..
111	E	Oh, they really thought that-tha-da..
112	S	Well, they tho, they thought that they could slip it in.  They, the original, ya see they were tryi, especially in the case of the pershing 2 they they were trying to disguise it as a modernization program. I mean, that's what it started OUT as.  The original pershing 2 missile was going to have the same range.  As the pershing one.  And then they just kept sort of sneaking it up, the range.  And um, uh, so then we thought that we would just portray it as a modernization program.  We're just replacing these old missiles with these new missiles, right.  And, yknow, the fact that they can reach into the Soviet Union, well, we won't talk about that too much, right?  And um buh,yknow, people (e um fa)didn't go for that. The Soviets didn't like it and a lot of people in Europe didn't like it either.  And one of the reasons that the people in EUROPE don't like it is because that means the places near where the pershings are NOW are the places the Soviets are gonna wanna hit themselves.  So, yknow, it makes them more dangerous for the people that are nearby.  That's one reason they didn't like them.
122	E	What were the missiles that were there before?
123	S	They were per-per, they were, well, we have there's lots of different nuclear weapons ranging from, y'know, ones that get shot out of cannons that have really rather short range to um, ones, y'know like, y'know ICBM's that can laun- we can launch from here to get them.  And there's, y'know, there for different missions. Like the pershing 1A had a, had a range from about 400 miles so the idea was that say, if the Soviets attacked into Europe, they would use those missiles to hit troops behind the line and hit railroad yards, um, those kinds of things to block their passage up.  They weren't meant to hit into the Soviet Union, but t-to block the the roads and things like that coming from the Soviet Union into Europe.  And then th-there's missiles of even much shorter range, and that are meant for sorta the same thing only much closer to the battle.  
134	E	It's sorta interesting that, y'know, that these missiles would be situated in-in Europe designed to hit Europe, yeh, only to block, but still..
135	S	Wu-well, I know, tha-that's, I mean, that's, there's a huge logical problem that people have recognized since we started using nuclear weapons in Europe and that is that Europe is a very(heh-heh) densely populated continent.  So how can you use nuclear weapons to defend some place because you're gonna kill the people you're trying to defend. Th-there's a saying which is literally true.  The towns of Germany are two kilotons apart.  In other words, a two- a two kiloton, which is very small nuclear weapon dropped on one town will affect the next one over.  So when (wer de feu) we're just going to be dropping these bombs trying to stop the Russians, and we're going to be killing the German people, so it doesn't make sense.  But, the logic for nuclear, having a nuclear defense was, well, one of the reasons is that it's cheaper than having large armies.  It's, y'know, its cheaper to have all the nuclear weapons than it is to pay, y'know, twice as many people or whatever now.  But , uh, and so there's a lot of, nowadays there's a lot of move toward, um, beefing up conventional defense so that we're not as dependent on the nuclear weapons because of this logical problem.  E(ahem) the other part of the logical problem is that if indeed (heh-heh-heh) so, okay, so, if the Soviet Union attacks, then we have to decide whether we are going to use the nuclear weapons.  And we may well decide that we won't because of this problem. An, Which means that the Soviet Union can think well they're not going to use these weapons, because they're afraid of killing their own people therefore we're safer to attack. I mean, it-it's one of these outguessing each other things.  And it gets to be really convoluted, so we have to we have to make all sorts of pronouncements about how we're ready to use our nuclear weapons so as to keep everybody thinking that we will.  um.  And that's why a lot of people in Europe are very sensitive about anything that seems like the United States is becoming less willing to use Nuclear weapons in Europe.  Because they're worried, th-the people in Europe are interested in what is called Pure Deterrance, in other words, that, y'know balance of terror kind of thing where no one is going to do anything because the other side is going to crush them if they try.  Um, and the euro-Europeans are very interested in that.  They want to try to keep everything absolutely stable, um, s-so anything th-th-that smacks of us not being willing to just go all out right away, there are many people, n y'know, sort of defense officials and things like that in Europe are sort of worried about because they think that it means that it gives the soviets an an advantage.

166	S	But I mean I don't know if it all makes sense.  It a, if I were a German Priminister 			        	faced with an option of say the Soviets attacked into West Germany and they couldn't stopped them with conventional weapons, a, I don't know if  I would, you know, if it would be okay to  go ahead and use nuclear weapons because it would be basically your country destroyed in trying to defend it.  Which makes a lot of sense, doesn't it.  And ah, it all pretty depressing stuff.


176	E	So, so um, I know you looked into things about, and your trying to characterize, you said one thing about, about sort of the Europeans, that they want the peer to turn.  what else can you say about that?   About you know, the Europeans?


179	S	Well, there's I mean, there's different opinions.  I mean obviously not all Europeans look  he same.  There's the people that are against the nuclear deployments now, think that you have to scrap the whole thing.  I mean, though that, you can't, you just, it won't work.  I mean that instead of, like adding new nuclear weapons, especially, its just making things  more dangerous.  And especially because now a days, the well, it starts to get complicated, but now a days,  the ah there is a lot more talk about fighting nuclear wars, I mean, in the sense of fighting a war that you can win as opposed to  it's simply being a great cataclisum and um many people, and anti-nuclear people are especially afraid of that, because it mean it's more likely that a nuclear war would be embarced on.  Whereas if you think of things in terms of all,  nothing or everything and that means people are going to be more reluctant to actually use the weapons than if you think in terms of a, slow escalation and where we'll start out with these small weapons, ah, that means that the threshold is much lower and so ah, the more of these kinds of weapons you have, the more of sorta these small weapons, the ones that are you know, as seem, that don't seem as threatening, that means its more likely, in fact that the nuclear war will begin, because it's easier, you know.  It  doesn't take as much of a lead to say, oh we're going to fire this small missile this one time, you know,  as it does to say were surlaunch everything right now.  And now a days NATO basically says that, that, they have whats call flexible response, that they're gonna use whatever level of force is required to stop the Soviets (emerging power).


210	E	What's, do you know what the Soviets stand on that?

                           

202	S	The Soviets have never believed in um, in the all out, they've always believed that nuclear, well actually, that's not really true, what they say they believe is that nuclear war is fightable and, but actually the truth is that they don't believe in that.  The Soviet is um actually  probably more conscious, conscious about um more than the West is because Soviet was completely devastated during the Second World War and that's one reason why they have a row buffer states between them and the West,  ah, is because they're very afraid of attacks and they're very afraid of war and they don't want war, um,  because they actually lost 25 million people during the Second  World War  and they know what kind of impact that has on a country.  And so, they might be willing to risk small wars like Afghanistan, and things like that.  But the truth is that they're actually less willing to risk well  they're alot less willing to risk ah, large scale war  than people think they are because they know, the United States hasn't had a war fought on its soil since the Civil War, and we're we've been pretty insulated from from what war can do um where as the Soviet Union has not, I mean they've been repeatly invaded from the West for centuries and so they you know they are pretty sensitive about it so but in doctrine, they don't they theoreticaly, they think  that a nuclear war is winable, as opposed to just simply being a catalyst.  But I, but from what I've read, the impression is that's that's window dressing, that's not really what they think.


222	E	(Were you a registar?)
                           

223 	S	Oh, I don't, just, I don't know if I could name a source, but that's just sort of a general current  that that um there's, that's a pretty typical kind of statement about the Soviet Union, that there's alot of things  that they say, and there's a large difference between what they say and what they really think. Um and, whereas in the United States  for instances when we adopt a doctrine, a say a nuclear war fighting doctrine where we think we can win,  where that generally actually means that that's where we are aiming to do.  And that's really scary.  I mean , I'm not trying to be an appologists for the Soviet Union at all, I  can't be in their (ivisious) system in a lot of ways, but but um, the truth is, I mean, I really, they really are unwilling to have a major war.  I mean, they're um for one thing, the,  they don't any illusions about what would happened , you know, and despite what people say about oh well they could, if they launch the first strike and you know they could knock out our missiles and all that stuff, it only takes a very small fraction of what the arsenals that we have to functional wipe out our country, and so there not gonna, there not gonna, interested in that kind of.


238	E	(Well  given that understanding, is that the understanding that Europe has?)
              

240	S	Well, that's the understanding that of many people in Europe,  think that, I mean, what I started out saying, was that  people in Europe are there's different points of view and some people in Europe are, basically think that that the Soviet Union, basically what I say that the Soviet is no more interest than we are and um and if we, I mean that alot of the reason that there are  (alocoiss?) because they are afraid of us and that  we have to understand their point of view as well as ours and  many people in the, especially in the movement called the ah the  movement called the Greens in Germany, um they're very interested in that idea that, in the idea that  Germany is sort of inbetween the West and the East and it's not somewhere different than either one and can sort of act a a medor between the two, but than there are many people in Germany especially um because Germany is so heavily influenced by the United States um who believe basically, who basically follow the American a line I mean a line we need, we have to have a strong deterrence, um and there're actually more interested in it, as I say in  pure deterrence  then we are even, that they think that um they don't want , they don't even like ideas, I mean basically their concectually attracted to ideas not that flexable responsive on a complete, um whats called Mutually Assurred                            Destruction, where if the Soviets attack we instantly would launch a nuclear war because they think that would deture the Soviets from attacking, and part of the rational of that which actually makes sense in some ways is that even an conventional war in Europe is incredibly devastating , as they found out from Germany was basically ruined in the second world war and there wasn't much left, and um especially now a days that the kinds of weapons are more conventional weapons that are much more destructive than in the past so they know that even  a conventional war would really be destructive, so they wanted to avoid  war at all cost basically and they think that kind of doctrine is more likely pure deterrence and more likely to stop a war whereas you have a doctrine of flexible sponsers thats sort of easy to fall into it, whereas  if you have this very strong threshold, that theres either no war or all out nuclear war, thats more likly to stop them. I think thats an attitude  which is typical of older Germans  and of Germans in the goverment, whereas the attitude that you have to take everything away in order to avoid wars is to get rid of the weapons and to get rid of all these various possiblities for war like the secret missiles and all that sort of stuff, thats more typical of younger people, and the younger people tend to be very um, are alot less um have alot less faith in the United States than people who were, say in their fifities or fourties , they have less faith in NATO, there more interested in Germany being sort of independent country.  Actually one professor I knew in Germany is very worried about that although he a Left Wing himself, he's worried about the notion that people are concieving of Germany as a different kind of place because actually is coming from the Left now in Germany that was a conception which was very popular amongs't extreme Right Wing circles in Germany in the latter part of the 19th century and up til the Nazi period that Germany was somehow distintive and different  from other countrys, it was nither a eastern country or western country  that was very distintive sort of place, he found that abit  frightening in away that sort of deal arrived. I'm not sure about that one, it's coming from an entirly different view.


294	E	(So what else ?)

295	S	Well, I don't know.

297	E	(Are we in a sense do you think  fighting a battle with the earth in doing this ? I mean I hate this.)

300	S	Well, the people I mean thats one of the things that causes this thing to be such this story be like in the news so much is that there is alot of attention in NATO now even amonst people who have in the past basically agreeded on things theres alot of disagreements about this and it's actually making the alliance alot less weak you actually are having countries like Denmark and Norweig and Greece and Spain

307	E	( Alot more weaker ?)  


307	S	Pardon ?

308	E	(You said, make the alliance less weak, you mean make the alliance  weaker ?)

308	S	Yeah.


309	E	(Yeah, ok correct.  I just wanted to quote you?)  


309	S	Oh yeah, thats right yeah right.


310	E	(OK ! )


310	S	Um, but you have countries like Greece and Denmark are actually voting against these things, where basically that didn't happen in the past or basically it pretty unified but you can find a great deal of disagreement, although it looks like the only country thats actually turned it down was Denmark, but they um voted againt funding  for the missiles. But in Norweig it was very close, it was by one vote and the Dutch now are um they keep putting off the descision, it's really great   I mean they have a coalltion goverment that's really shaky and so to avoid having to really make a decision about it they keep putting it off it was supposed to have been decided, I think in January of this year and then in June and then they put if off til this last June, and then in June they decided they were going to make a provisional decision that they would deploy that in some point in the furture and only if the Soviets deployed more SS 20 missiles so they keep putting off a decision  because they don't want to have to make decision because their country is basically torn apart, I mean a large percentage.


326	E	(Ok, I don't quite understand what you mean by these countries will deploy?)


327	S	Well, some of the countries, like Norweig that I don't think were ever plans to actually to put missiles there, but theres uneasy...


329	E	(To depoly our missiles, right ?)

329	S	Right, you see there our property but they, well it's hard to explain, there like the US controls them but there under NATO, because US has forces in NATO that are , we send like to all the other countries  we send army troops and airforce troops and they are under the command of NATO which is made up of all, I've forgoten how many countries thirteen I think. Part of the funding although the vast bulk of money is coming from the United States  part of the funding for building the bases  and all that sort of stuff for the missiles is coming from NATO, now like Norweig wasn't ever going to have the missiles, but they voted on whether to allocate money to give to NATO to buy the missiles, you know ! to deploy the missiles. Denmark I believe on the other hand was actually going to have missiles, they were scheduled to have missiles in Denmark and they voted not to fund money to base then there. The dutch claim that they are going to have missiles, I mean, there are plans you know they know where they are going to be and all that other stuff but they just keep putting it off.  Um, and there are cruise missiles in Britian and Italy and Sicily now and there are Persian missiles in Germany.  Those are the only countries now that actually have the new missiles and they were all sponsors sort of supporters of the plan.  um, at least in terms of the government. Um, but in the countries like the smaller countries, they've really had a harder time with this because often they are collision governments and the opposition is very strong and so they're they have to sort of walk a tight rope, if they come out too strongly in favor of the missiles then the opposition parties will withdraw their support and they'll get defections from their own parties and then their governments will fall.  It's very complicated.  And that's what they are afraid of happening  in Holland and Belguim is really in sort of a similar position although they approved it and everything like that it's, they're, its a really tender issue and they're having, you know they're having to be pretty circumspect about the whole thing they can't be velecose about it because they don't want to have alot of inside opposition.  And that, those sorts of things just never happen in the past, I mean it just, NATO was a pretty firm alliance before and in the late 50's there was  a sort of a  big band the bomb movement, but it never,  it was always it's was never (???) influential political, it was sort of more of a social movement more of a demonstration in the streets and those sorts of things but it never had all that much political influence.  The political parties never got all that involved. And um, but now this is very much a political issue and what generally the left wing parties are anti-deployment like the um the labor party in Britian and the um well the Social Democratic Party in Germany is split on the issue, and the Greens or a small party are against it.  And the Labor Pary in Holland is against it.  And it's really sort of torn politics apart both inside the countries within the alliances itself.  And that was really unforseen.  Um, they ah, they just didn't anticipate it.  Although, there was the first time there was ever this really ever happen was when the nuetron bomb, I don't know if you ever remember that it was back in 72.

377	E	(I didn't know much about it).

378 	S	Yeah, it was sort of the similar thing where we were planning to on deploying nuetron bombs in Europe and then there were huge public out cry um not reaching the same levels of this but still quite large.  And we eventually backed off, but um, this one was, what happen in December in 79 December of 79 they decided they were going to deploy these missiles and then sort of instantly the opposition would just sort of begun as the result of the nuetron bomb things sort of all mushroom end it's really although it's dying out now because it's happend already, I mean it's sort of  and that's what they were that's what the governments that were pro-deployment we hoping would happen  was that they were really stead fast and force their way though and actually got  the things begun to be deployed.  It would sort of begin to wind down because people figure well it's over with we can't stop it it's not going to, we can't do anything about it and it's beginning to go away.  And that's actually beginning to happen the Green Party in Germany is beginning to  lose support and things like that.  But um, so I don't think there's really any chance that the situation changing radically.   Um, the alliance will never be the same, I mean the decisions the Military decisions like that can't be now be made purely on a technical Military basis.  They can't simply assume that we are gonna decide to play a new weapon, or to change our doctrine or to change they way, how many troops in Europe, that use to be it was a decision in governmental levels it was just made.

400 	E	(Mostly US Government?)

401	S	Well yeah, but generally everyone agrees I mean it wasn't something that there was alot of disagreement about.

403	E	(They trusted us?)

404	S	Well yeah, I mean actually NATO is not completely US dominated.  I mean we've in fact  at various times we've had conflicts because NATO wants us to get more involved in Europe than we even ourselves wanted to, in the early 50's which is the first time where put large numbers of troops in Europe in Peacetime there was alot of opposition and it took a the Truman administration I think was for it but there was huge opposition to it in the senent and all that sort of stuff, but its what the europeans wanted and it eventually happened. So its not completely a oneway streak. But basically there was a general concenses, it wasn't huge difference of opinion it was more sort of "how" to go about acomplishing this goal was now even the goals were sort of questioned, you know! And they simply can't leave out public opinion anymore like they used to be able to because if they try something like this again. The odds are that there's going to  be another way of  uproar and its just not, and maybe this time they are not getting away with it, you know! its sort of, in that particular frieght of that. So one of the results of that is if there's a huge P.R. campaings, I mean they are really NATO's coming out with alot of you know sort of well, we're doing the samething, comparisons between the forces and the Soviet Union and ours, you know! they're saying that their military is alot stronger than ours and all that sort of stuff. There's alot of that kind of thing going on now, because they want to get public opinion on their side, whereas they never use to have to worry about it, because public opinion was on their side, now they are having to win it back. It's  a big debate about percentages of who supports it and who doesn't, you know! But you see alot of polls that say about 55% of the Germans are against depolyment, I've seen  several  poll graphs, and I've also seen polls that are sort of reversed and that most people are pro-deployment.


432	E	(Well, when you sit down to write this paper on this stuff, what do you think you are going to specifiy as the main issues? The defect on NATO certainly sounds like it would be one).


434          S         Well it depends, I think on what kind of paper I plan to write, actually I've been thinking some about that because it depends on what audience I'm aiming it for. If I were to write a more I mean sort of a straight factual kind of, you know! expository piece that would be different, whereas if I were trying to write a paper that were trying to persude someone towards my opinion that would be, I would emphais different things, so I'm not sure exactly how I'm going to write it, well I mean the way I would rather write it is sort of persuasive, because I'm more used to doing that, history tends to be written as in arguements, you know! You find you have an arguement with your friend, so I think I would rather write it that way,  it would be more fun. Although its probably less representive than the kind of stuff that other people will be using it for. So what I would basically, I think I would  follow the tact that I laid out alittle bit earlier about trying to sort of seperate  it into different areas and showing, say, you know with the basic  question was  this a good decision or not, and I would say, "It's a bad decision," and then trying to prove that point I would look at the technical military points of view and I think I would emphais the point of view problem with the Soviet Union, otherwords that we can't simply think in one dimesional terms that we have to think of how these things look to them, and we can't assume that just because  we put in a new weapon that makes us more secure, in fact in this case its probably made us less secure. And I would emphais that, in polictical terms I would probably talk about the fact it's whatever unity that was in NATO is pretty much gone now and that , probably, well this isn't nessarily persuading that things are bad, but I could probably  emphais that public opinion is now something that military policy you know military/political policymakers have to think about alot now it's really totally, everything's completely different now.


471	E	(This is separate from the NATO thing or?)


472	S	Well in terms NATO, yeah, I mean the NATO type decisions in NATO are no longer insulated from public opinion.  That's not actually that's sort of a sub that's not really persuading the point of view but it's certainly  but it's not persuading anyone that the decision was bad.  But it's an important point which should be emphasized.


477	E	(Ok, what else?)


478	S	Well those would be the big ones I mean if I could go you could break those down further probably but I can't think how I would do that, I haven't thought in that much detail.  Um, but I'd have to think about it more I've really just started I haven't gotten that far along the change.


484	E	(Ok, well if in fact you did a different kind of paper, an expository paper, what kinds of things would come out in that type of issues?)


486	S	I think I would emphasize the historical background of the decision, I mean the original decision to depoly the missiles alot.  Because there was a certain object to it.  Based on sort of the history of NATO doctrine about nuclear weapons and I mean I don't think I could leave out the points about where I thought that was wrong or right  but I think it made if you given the assumptions that the people who made these decision had then the decisions had then the desicion had a certain logic to it and um I think that's really important and sort of to look at the decision sort from an objective point of view you have to look at why it was taken in the particular context it was taken and I would probably emphasize that.  And I would probably also emphasize more on technical details, probably more reporting on the sort of the political in fighting to.  The masination that went on in the different countries as opposed to simply reporting that they happend.  I think that they, it's pretty important that governments fell or almost fell as a result of these sorts of things.  I mean if your just sort saying here's a decision and this is what happend as a result of it.  Those kinds of things are important to emphasize I think.


509	E	(Um, like what governments?)


510	S	Well no governments fell, but as I said like Dutch governments have alot of problems and the the Norweign government I don't remember what happend there, but Parliment lost there by one vote.  But there was some, they had a real hard time getting it through.  It came very close to the government clasping.  The German government, although there was the German government doesn't have the same kind of coilision problems as other countries.  The ruling party at the time that the decision was made was with the Social-Democrat party, which they have been replaced out of power now, but at the time they were basically torn apart in which is contributed  probably to their down fall in the election which they weren't really united in their policies.  They were sort of the Left wing of their party and their party was  against  the deployment of the Right wing and their leader of the party. So I would probably talk alot about that, but I wouldn't I don't think if it were straight expository peice it wouldn't be much evaluation and alot less pursuasion it would be more reporting of how things happen. I haven't talk this much about that looking at it at that point of view.


527	E	(Yeah, could you even imagine writing a paper for the deployment.)


529	S	OH SURE! you can, I mean its great, thats one of the things about reality is it can be looked at from many points of views, I think you could I think you can make a pretty pursuasive point, it depends on assumtions, it depends on --- I mean, If you assume for instance  that there's absolutly no way that you can get the Soviet Union to negociate in good faith, and that you can't trust them at all and you have to look at things alot different and many people don't think that, I mean thats basically the Regan's Administrations point of view is that unless you can make things so iron clad that even the Russians can't cheat and they won't, they don't want to have an agreement with the Russians which is I mean thats silly you can't expect anyone to be that trustworthy and not even us and yet if you are really convinced that there is no way that they can be trusted then you have to rely on more military---you have to rely on deturrence you can't rely on negociation and that sort of thing.



546	E	(So, that will be your main arguement?)


547	S	No! I'll probably, I mean--the main arguement that people use in favor of the deployment is the threat of the SS-20 missiles, and the fact that it gives the Soviet Union a political advantage over Europe in other words  that they can use it as sort of un a kind of political black male in the sense that they would never say oh we are gonna bomb to ruins but there's always that shadow um, and it gives without anything similar to counter it um without us something similar than we feel relatively weak compared to them.  You can make a point of view.


560	E	You say we?


561	S	We, well NATO and Europe is they're not, US is part of NATO, many people do, but um, the, in my point of view, the problem of that they've always had that capability so, maybe the difference the reason we feel relatively weak is cause we are thinking about it more , the situation really hasn't changed but other people argue the situation, but people, but other people argue that the situation is altered.


569	E	Well, what was the turning point in altering the situation?


570	S	Well, I don't, in my opinion there, it isn't much difference, I mean it's just that they have more missiles than they use to and they have better missiles than they use to.  But they've always had the missiles pointed at Europe and they've always targeted Europe and they've never thought that there was a difference between Europe and the United States it's all the same, I mean if there's a war there's a war and Europe and the United States are basically the same target it's just one a shorter range one's longer.  Um, but people think that the SS-20 is a big turning point because it's very accurate and it's very long range.  And um, actually, as a footnote, there's alot of questions about whether the SS-20 is as accurate and really as long range as we sy it is.  There's alot, there's alot of um, reason to escalate the capabilities of the Soviet Union so as to justify our building new weapons and things like that and things like that.  And so there's questions about the SS-20 really, it's not nearly as capable as um, people say.  But there even a separate question.  But some people say because the SS-20 can have such long range you can base it way back in the Soviet Union, and still be able to hit Europe and terefore we really can't fire back at it and it's  basically invulnerable to us, except if we really use long range missiles from the United States or aircraft and so it's so, they are relatively stronger than us for that reason, you can make an arguement for that I guess.  But apparently the reason it has long range, is that they have to worry about China too, and so they want to be able keep missiles more or less in the middle of the Soviet Union to be able to hit both Europe and China, and so they don't have build twice as many.  


602	E	So you just aim them?


603	S	Well, I mean the point is that, see the Soviet Union is like this ok, and here's Europe and here's China, and they have two enemies right, well if they keep shorter range missiles they'd have to have some missiles here for Europe and some missiles here for China which they do, but with the SS-20, they can keep missiles here and they can hit both.  And so they don't need, the odds of they're having to fight both at the same time aren't so good, so, I mean they do have some SS-20s here and some SS-20s here, but they also keep them sort of in a central position so they can use them against either country.


612	E	Ok,  now, just to are, that's they have a long range, so they can stick them in the middle, even thought they still use them on the parimeter as well.

615	S 	Well, yeah, pardon.


616	E	That extends their reach into Europe.


617	S	Yeah, but having them here it doesn't, actually they can hit everything you need to hit from here, it's just that, I guess the rational for putting them here, you don't need that many you know,  against China this way, it's probably more accurate to short them at shorter distances and that's where they're installations are anyway, they don't have to stick them in the middle of Siberia, you know.  They are also using them to replace older missiles and so they are probably using the same sites as before.  Because from here they can hit Africa, for God's sake with the SS-20, I mean, they don't need the new tangiers, there's nothing there for them.  They don't even need to hit Spain even althought it's a NATO it's not much of a threat, but basically the need to be able hit France and Germany and the United Kingdom and they can do that quite well.  And they've always have been able to.


629	E	Always, how long has that been?


630	S	Well, since they've had missiles in the early sixties.  Not but I mean the difference people some people would say that because the SS-20 is alot lot more accurate so they and it's also got nerves , it's got three warheads on it, whereas the old ones  had only one, so I mean that's some difference.


636	E	Why don't we depend on our long range missiles?


637	S	We do really, um,  that's what the Europeans all want to be assured that you know our minuteman back home are gonna if there's a war in Europe, we'll use them you know.  And we have submarines in Europe with the Posiden missiles and Trident missiles which are um, basically assigned to NATO so that if, um if they're were a war we could use them against the Soviet Union, so I mean, we so do.  But we haven't had what's new is Cruise missiles and Persian missiles, we've never had anything like that before, for that kind of mission we've always used aircraft, but um, one of the things you can say for the new missiles is that the aircraft are alot easier to shoot down the missiles  with defensive measures against aircraft have gotten  alot better in the last twenty years or so, and so the odds of our aircraft getting through um, much worse than they use to be, and we are also depending on rather old aricraft in alot of ways for those missions sort of fairly you know long in to the Western part of the Soviet Union type of mission to get railroads and things like that for transport, we've the aircraft that we are using for that are rather old and not very sophistocated so from a military point of view you can say well, we need to replace those with something that's more sure of getting through.  That's another that was another pieces of logic that we use.  I mean it's true, I mean I can't argue against it, but it's just a matter of whether that 's sort of the narrow kind of military logic that weaves out you know repercussions  in other words that, well by having missiles, very capable things aimed here that makes us more strong it makes us more secure, but in truth it makes us less secure because it makes the Soviets more afraid, so you know it's a point of view problem an asumptions problem.


675	E	Do you sort of characterizes or could you write a paper say on narrow military use?


680 	S	Sure, it's been done many times, I mean it would be redundant for me to write.


681	E	Well, I mean in this particular situation?


682	S	No, but I mean even this one it would be basically redundant to write it, I mean it's been written many times, I mean, that's the same, that kind of logic is really what's behind the whole decision, that's what lead to the decision, was sort of narrow military considerations.  That are weapons are old and that need to be replaced, and because and if you're going to replace them you might as well replace them with something better and since we know or have the technology capable of doing all these various things, we are going to do it. And if you leave out awhole relm of things it makes sense, it based on assumptions that leave out other assumptions and so from that point of view its always better to have a weapon thats more effective that can go longer ranges is more accurate ect; ect; ect; and thats the kind of logic that was used , but what I'm trying to argue here is that logic is narrow its leaving out other things, I guess its wrong to completly disregard that kind of thinking entirly cause its not done by stupid people or theres thought behind it and there's alot of work behind it but I just think it leaves out some really important things and its kind of narrow minded  but like I said  you could easily write a paper based on that you just have to (???). They would argue that I'm leaving out alot too because they would emphais things like Soviet Union being untrustworthy, Soviet Union being agressive ect; ect; ect; and that I'm basing my assumptions on basically having some trust in the Soivet Union, they would argue against that so.


719	E	But how?

719	S	I think I'm right, I'm not saying I don't......


721	E	Why?


721	S	Because, I think its because the Soviet, the truth is  that in the arms race its been the United States that has basically escalated the arms race all along which is strange but true. Every major technological escalation ot the arms race has been iniciated by the United States, we were the first to have the atomic bomb we were the first to have a hydrogen bomb we were the first to have balistic missiles ect; ect; ect; and the Soviet Union has always been one step behind us  and they never, they always backdown like in the Cuban missile crisis they backed down them, they've showned themselves  to be untrustworthy in a sense that they will get to attack Afganistan, their willing to put down revolts from Hungary and Polland but the've had many chances to attack the West and they haven't done it, it's not in their best interest to do it, they're not stupid people you know, they really aren't.  We might  believe they are miss guided, and I do believe they are miss guided  but they are not stupid and they are not suicidal and basically in the world as it is now, to really embarc seriously on any kind od military campaign agaisnt the West would be suicidal for both sides and they know that just as well as we do.  So I mean if there is an element of risk maybe it's no greater, I mean I would argue it's less risky than  tedering on the edge as we are now.  Maybe it's risky to trust the Soviet Union, but it's also risky to have all these weapons just sitting there, you know waiting to be fired, that's risky too.  I mean it just depends on, I mean I would rather risk in a peaceful way, than risk with the weapons in place.  I mean I don't believe unity you know at all diarmament or anything like that.  I think that would be silly, but um, I think we could be alot more commedating and still be safe. 


764	E	So what else?  That's great I didn't plan to be this long,  we sort of ignore the newspaper , ignore the politics of any critical situation.  You make it very interesting.


777	S	Oh thank you.  Um, actually I don't think I think it's not surprising that people ignore these things because people have almost no influence over them, I mean.


781 	E	Well you don't even really have a good window into them either unless you do a fair amount of work.


782	S	I know that's really true, because, I think I mentioned last time that the tings people are most likely to read are things which basically  accepted in a fairly uncritical way, what governments tell them, you know and so they tell when the governments says we're building a Persian II because they built the SS-20, Newsweek reports that but it's not true it's a lie, in truth it's as close to the a lie as you can be.  Well, I don't know if it's really  a lie, but it's it's real close to a lie, because it's much much more complicated than tat, and to leave out all that, it's dishonest and um and yet basically that's reported except you happend to be interested enough or bored or have enough time or whatever you need to dig into to it a bit, and so peopled aren't equiped to really you know there are a billion things about I  know nothing that are incredibley important and I'll never have the time to dig into them and in alot of ways you can argue there's no point in digging into them either because youo can't change them.  For instance, this is of the subject but I don't actually find it so discusting that people don't vote, because one of the things I remember when I was a Freshman in college, and I took a Political Science class they talked alot  about a theory of rational non-voting.  In other words, you don't vote for a reason, and the reason you don't vote is because it doesn't matter if you vote, because the truth is it doesn't, the difference between Mondale and Reagan for most people, your life goes on, it just doesn't matter very much.  And Reagan, and in truth that Reagan verses anybody in American politics is a pretty huge difference but when you have Carter verses Ford for instances, like why bother, why vote it doesn't matter.  There's alot of truth to that I mean there's alot of truth to that.


824	E	Well let's call it a session.


825	S	Okay.

833		end of tape


H
H�
H��
H��
�
H�	HELVETICA	HELVETICA





$

9






3


9

,L
�
mg���Df�G�,\5c�
�

�

�

�

:




�

S
c



m

�



T


9

'



[

S

�

(


%
$

u

�

�

�

1


T




$

�

�

#

�

I

�


.

.




�

B

�



h

�


,

�

&


2

6



Z

V

1

$


6



!

�

�

k

0

$




�
�z�