9999

              During the early 1980s, the United States and the Soviet Union entered into a series of talks about strategic arms reduction. Although the U.S. President Reagan had repeatedly accused the Soviets of violating the terms of the SALT II treaty, he was still willing to propose a reduction in all warheads at Geneva in 1982. The discussions that followed were originally referred to as SALT III but ultimately came to be called the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks or START I. IN the first phase, Reagan called a limit of all warheads on missiles to five thousand and a limit of warheads on ICBMs of two thousand five hundred. Only eight hundred and fifty ICBMs would be allowed per side and a limit of about one hundred of the heaviest class of ICBMS. In the second phase, there would be negotiations on the number of warheads carried by heavy bombers.

             At the time, the U.S. had a clear advantage in long range bombers which could reach Russia although the Soviet air space was well defended and the targets spread over the huge territory of the Soviet Union. The Soviet fleet of bomber were unable to reach the U.S. for the most part and were mainly intended for conflicts in Europe and Asia. The Soviets had a clear advantage in heavy ICBM so by starting with ICBM reduction, the U.S. would benefit more than the Soviets from the first phase of Reagan’s proposal.

            In 1983, Reagan announced the U.S. Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) which was a shift of U.S. policy from the mutually assured destruction (MAD) of the prior decades when it was assumed that it was not possible to win a nuclear war with the Soviets and that if either side started one, both sides would be totally destroyed. The SDI was intended to shift U.S. policy to defending the U.S. against a nuclear attack from the Soviet Union with land and space based defense systems. This shift in U.S. policy alarmed the Soviets because they realized that if the U.S. could possibly stage a first strike against the Soviet Union and withstand a retaliatory strike from the Soviets. The Soviets withdrew from negotiations during the mid 1980s and the strategic arms race accelerated. Although SDI was viewed by many experts as being an impossible plan, billions of dollars were squandered on it in the 1980s.

            By the beginning of the 1990s, as a result of the nuclear arms race of the 1980s, both sides had more than ten thousand nuclear warheads. The START I treaty was signed in 1991 by the U.S. President Bush and the Soviet Premier Gorbachev to halt the increase in warheads. There were also limits set for fighter aircraft, tanks, artillery pieces and attack helicopters. The U.S. destroyed three hundred and sixty five B-52 bombers to comply with the treaty. When the Soviet Union broke up in 1991, the Russians inherited the Soviet nuclear arsenal and the Treaty. Other countries that had been part of the Soviet Union sent their nuclear weapons to Russia and signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to become nuclear free countries. When the SALT I treaty expired in 2009, the U.S. State Department reported that the Russians were not in compliance with the terms of the Treaty but gave no specific details of violations.

Signing of the START I in 1991 from U.S. State Department:

START_1991.jpg

I know, I know, with a title like that you are already prepared to argue. Now that you have got your hackles raised, go watch self-proclaimed "Christian vlogger" Jerry Schafer woo the ladies with his sweet, sweet pick-up lines and... *shudder* tongue motions. 

EDITORS NOTE: It appears the video has been removed from Youtube. I can only assume the sheer squick-iness of it all is the reason why. For those of you who never saw it, I am sorry. And for those who did, I am even more sorry.

.

=== Is There Something I ... er, You Should Say ===

Geoff Baker fired off an eyebrow-raising salvo this week:

No matter what the Mariners say in public, there is plenty of internal debate going on about where Franklin’s future lies. They aren’t sure whether he’s better off at shortstop or second base. Yes, I know the excuse for his Arizona Fall League time at second base was a valid one, that another team affiliated with the Peoria club had a designated “priority” player at the shorstop position who had to be played there ahead of Franklin.

But that doesn’t explain Franklin playing second base as much as he did in AAA last year. ....

If the M’s view Franklin as a second baseman, we already know Dustin Ackley is there and that Kyle Seager would probably be better at second than at third base. So, get in line.

We also know that AA shortstop Miller is highly valued by top Seattle executives for his intangibles. They see him as having a certain “it” factor that doesn’t automatically show up in stats. They see him as a leader and a winner and a gamer, much in the Seager mode. If I had to put money on Miller or Franklin as the starting shortstop in two or three years, it would be Miller.

That means, you either make Franklin your future second baseman or you trade him. No two ways around it.

Never ceases to boggle Dr. D's mind:  people pay (nationally, etc.) for 'insider info' that is, much of the time, the author's own opinion ... with a stapled-on implication that hey, you never know when I'm saying it because I talked to a scout.  :- )

People pay subscriber fees for that -- but then stride right past the Bakery, whistlin' Dixie, never noticing that it houses a pastry chef who IN FACT hangs around with Jack Zduriencik and Eric Wedge.  All the time.  

Hey, that's what you get for charging nothing, Geoffy. 

.........

Now, the 'plenty of internal debate' pumpkin cream cheese muffin there, I'll probably pass on that one.  Jack Zduriencik bemusedly listened to all kinds of 'internal debate' about Dustin Ackley playing second base, nodded along sagely, and then one day he pointed out to the right side of the infield and said "Ackley's at second."  And fifty mouths snapped shut so fast you could hear their teeth click.

Franklin plays short if Zduriencik likes his glove there.  Next subject.

.........

The infield being too crowded for Nick Franklin and Dustin Ackley both ... maybe.  Lemme pull rank a little here with my own F-500 shtick:  execs keep their options open until the last second.  Trust me on this one.  So much can go wrong, like tomorrow it can go horribly wrong, and you've still gotta be - on time - under budget - and okay'ed by the auditor.

Example:  bidding on Mike Napoli ... and winding up with Jesus Montero and John Jaso your only catchers.  And whoops, here's Kendrys Morales.  And Raul Ibanez.  And whoops, it might be something totally different in a week.

Franklin's not odd man out.  He's probably going to get his chance to land with a splash.

.........

That said, those are quibbles.  The takeaway is clear. The scenarios that put Franklin in the past tense?  They're proliferating.  The kid could be a real hitter in the bigs, and if he's valued by (say) the Marlins or DBacks at a level similar to Danny Hultzen, well, he's ML-ready and a PPRRRRRIIIIIMMMMMME trade chip.

In fact, despite SSI's love for Nick Franklin, at this point he becomes our favorite trade chip, provided only that he's fully valued by our trade partners.

Will he be?  Guess here is that the answer will be "Yes," because he:

• Is ML-ready, or nearly so
• Has 42 homers in 355 career minors games, and the power will only increase
• Looks quick on the infield
• Is universally considered a "gamer"

So, on to the really interesting part of Baker's relay --

NEXT

.

Enjoy an extra 25 percent off all sale merchandise at Kate Spade online and in stores with promo code 25SALE. No end date is specified, but take advantage of this discount while you can! Find luxury handbags, shoes and clothing for your spring wardrobe or late holiday gifts. Visit Kate Spade at Pacific Place in downtown Seattle for a tailored shopping experience.