NATO MINISTERS SHOOT DOWN POSSIBLE NEW US WEAPONS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP84B00049R001604110010-3
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 20, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 27, 2007
• Sequence Number: 10
• Publication Date: December 8, 1982
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Approved For Release 2007/06/27: CIA-RDP84B00049ROO1604110010-3
14 - ~. ._.. !.... _.. _... Wednesday; December 8,-1982.._ 11 IE d-f tSTIAN `SC`IENCE NIONITIX2.T
NATO ministers ~~ ~hoot down possible new US weapons
By David Fouquet ? :+ .1 1- the initial' European reaction to recent sug , the capacity of smaller land conventional 1] duplication, and enable European industries
Special to The Christian Science Monitor... gestions by Supreme Allied Commander Gen.
Brussels Bernard Rogers stressing an upgraded con-:
d
t t
l
h
e
, cussion abou
rue feat h
level
h
vcuuvuatfufutary force.
g
possible introduction of a new generation of, General Rogers' first public comments in
highly sophisticated Amerlcan-made,eonven-, September had stimulated a lively press con-
tional weapons In the Western alliance has, troversy, especially In West Germany, where
also touched off a potentially lengthy, debatk,, concern was high that the US might be paving
'.' over costs, , contracts,'. and f; tactical the way for a dismantling of the nuclear um-
ramifications. brella over Europe.
Several European ministers and other offi=; , US . ? Defense Secretary Caspar W..
dais remarked publicly or privately last, Weinberger gave his NATO colleagues an-
? week that any additional defense spending foE other glimpse of this emerging military tech
such a lvanced systems under present eco-. nology. While they were officially cautiously
nomic conditions was "unrealistic.',';
receptive to further study, some of the other
, ?
They also displayed their irritation at the defense ministers privately expressed caustic'' need for personnel. - '~-themselves to this new round of costly defense'
American domination of the military market rconcern about the concept.. At the same meeting, however, there were' spending1,seen as necessary.,by. the, United]
place and emphasized that European Indus- ,' Mr. Weinberger and other senior US de- O serious reservations expressed in many Euro- "States could Increase the pressure in certain
tries would have to get a fairer share of any tense officials gave journalists only the vague pean delegations that the plans might result UJS circles to reduce the: Ameri can military
future weapons modernization program. ? ? ?."' .ioutlines of the new equipment still in the re-' in another in a long series of costly purchases presence in Europe.
The emerging debate is expected to be a,.c -,search stage for the most part: They said that of American weapons by the US allies. During
top agenda item in NATO for many years and they included advancements in laser; radar,t his press conference, Weinberger reacted tes,.c
has important Implications for a host of allied and other areas "beyond the fringes,of classi ; tily, observing that ,"this is not an effort to
and East-West Issues. ,. t,?? +? . -~!r~j rrc :~ t'f, fled material.' ` ",,-,increase sales or any nonsense like that"
It could further fuel the move in the United } They, added that they would give NATO! . .West German Defense Minister Manfred
States Congress to reduce US forces In ?Eu- forces "unprecedented precision" In seekingWOrner and his British colleague John Nott
rope and become an element In the agitation out targets under all types of adverse condi-. both said afterwards that there had to be a
for reduction of nuclear armaments, ~ a sub- lions General Rogers had also stressed that;.. genuine two-way traffic in NATO arms pro-
ject that could dominate the international po- they could provide the ability to destroy en- 'c with contracts for their own arms
litterl scene until the scheduled deployment emy reinforcements and break the back of ab .as a reversal by the Reagan administration of
of new NATO nuclear missiles late next year,t invading force and lessen the need for nuclear '~?previous efforts among the alliance to coordi-
The semiannual meeting of NATO defense weapons,_R-einberger added that. the study to? sate weapons development. A NATO drive to
ministers In Brussels last week amounted to condcicted m NATO would examine "how ?: - .standardize ailed :weapons, reduce wasteful
forces can be enhanced." to win production contracts has slowed down'
Other Western sources, however, indi- producers to supply weapons to the US.
cated that such research Included fiber optics This was the most recent occasion forEu-
and infrared technology, improved communi- iropean displeasure to arise at what some see
cations and intelligence, so-called "brilliant , since the advent of the Reagan team, analysts -;
weapons," biotechnology, and genetic engi= . here say. The blame is put on the administra=
veering in the chemical and biological war don's free-market orientation; which feels
fare field and even :robotics. that it IS up to'market forces and open coinpe= ,
"
"
Brilliant
weapons,. as an example, tition, rather than government planning and P
would be better than the current "smart"- Intervention, to determine who should win lu-
weapons that home in on- a target. "Smart" crattve arms contracts.
weapons need a soldier to release them, while ' The end result, Europeans fear, is contlnu-
their "brilliant" successor will not. The use Of, Ing large deficits and ? duplication In' allied.`:
higher automation robotics also reduces the. amis-supplies: But any reluctance to'commit
Approved For Release 2007/06/27: CIA-RDP84B00049R001604110010-3