ADMINISTRATION IS SPLIT ON 'ZERO-OPTION' PLAN

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP85M00363R000300450027-5
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 20, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 7, 2007
• Sequence Number: 27
• Publication Date: December 13, 1982
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Approved For Release 2007/09/07 :CIA-RDP85M00363R000300450027-5
WASHINGTON POST 11 December 1982
.~drninistration Is Split ,?
On `Zero-Option' Plan.
By Walter Pincus
WYhrngton Pat 9t8tt Wrlter
A split has cJeveloped in the administration
over whether President Reagan should move
away from his "zero option" proposal for reduc-
ing European-based nuclear arms, which calls
for the Soviet Union to dismantle all its me-
dium-range missiles and the United States to
cancel deployment of the new Pershing II and
ground=launched cruise missiles.
On one aide in inter-agency working group
de}iberations about how to advise Reagan, ac-
cording to informed administration sources,
are those who believe there is an opportunity
beginning in the next round of negotiations
with the Soviet Union in Geneva to achieve
agreement on a substantial-but not total-re-
duction of Soviet SS20 nuclear missiles aimed
at western Europe.
Those holding this view, who are said to
include some officials close to the negotiations,
reportedly believe the Soviets are prepared to
destroy some of their SS20s and older missiles
while moving other SS20s to eastern Russia
out of range of targets in NATO countries.
Such an agreement, however, the sources
said, would leave some missiles remaining on
both aides in Europe. This would require Rea-
gan to abandon his "zero option" insistence on
the Soviets agreeing to dismantle all their
SS20 and other medium-range missiles.
Arguing against this are administration of-
ficial, mostly in the Pentagon, who believe the
security of NATO countries cannot be assured
:without elimination of the 324 SS20a so far
deployed by the Soviets along with 300 older
SS4 and SSb missiles. ?
They contend that the almost 1,000 war-
heads on these missiles constitute much more
than the Soviets need for their security, so
that any reductions short of nothing would
still leave them with a nuclear missile advan-
tage over NATO in western Europe.
"I haven't seen any significant change by
the Soviets other than that which would leave
them with missiles and us with zero," one Pen?
tegon official holding this view said of the lat-
est round of talks in C,eneva, which ended
Nrty. 29. "Maybe some people see straws in
the wind," he added. "But I don't think the
Russians will change until we come closer to
deployment [of Pershing II and cruise mis-
siles]."
Reagan ultimately may have to settle this
conflict before the administration drafts new
instructions for its negotiator, Paul H. Nitze,
to take back to the next round of talks sched-
Fg. 1 (13)
tiled to begin Jan. 27 in Geneva.
?~ The negotiations were prompted by r,
NATO decision to deploy it)8 Amer;can Per-
shing II and 464 ground-launchers crni~f~ mis-
siles in western Europe beginnin~~ in Ur=-~,?r~.
bar, 1983. The Soviets have opposed Chia i::~?
ployment of missiles that wool,! be able tr. hit
Russian targets within minutr~,? of Ittnr.ch.
The United States hay sought to limit t~,c:
negotiations to missiles, while t.hc Soviets ~~.~,,~t
them to inclrule [1.5. homhr~rs ar,r{ 1{ri;ial, r~~,1
French nuclear weapons. 't'h~~ Sr,vu~>s ;r!ar,
want to omit SS2U missiles aimed at target~t in
China from bases in the eastern Sovit [fuuntr.
The talks that ended Nov. 2y :v.^re de-
scribed by sources earlier this week as pr,~dur~~
tive, with the .5'OVIet4 making impc,rtwtt ac.l-
justments in their earlier pvsitiuns. Sr>me par
ticipanta "believe there is an oppnrl:rrnity now
for a breakthrough," one officinal paid yester-
day.
However, Nitze re}tortedly was .3topped last
Octoher by Washington fmm pursuinK, dt,ring
informal meetings with the ~ovie!s, their idea
of moving SS20s east of the [1rn1 Mounta;ny.
Strong backers in the administration f~~r tix~
zero option proposal reportedly objected t,hal.
Nitze had exceeded his UT9t.f!lCtJr11t9, arcurdint~
to informed sources, and thr+ uu,lrr~r wus
dropped after White Ilr~us?+ natir~,tal securiav
affairs adviser William P. Clark 9eut rug inyui-
ry about it to Nitze in Geneva.
Some officials believe the Suvict (I,fion aa~ {v
generate new pressure on the United State ; to
change its position by annuuucing before the
next round of talks that it will include i~a a
new negotiating position~e r, roes no . '?
1
c ear-c
Although NATO foreign miniarcr: ?~~tiu
g
in ru . bexlay-~ec~#' ? t ae~r ,tta[+}x:rt
for the zero option, NA'1'0 Secretary-(,cmr~ral
Joseph Lunn said at a NA'I'0 ctefr;nse mini~-
ter' meeting earlier Lhis month that "the [bait-
ed States never said it wars zero option car
nothing."
Earlier, West (',erman Defense Minister
Manfred Woerner was quoted making a siut-
ilar statement. Both he and Luns had been
briefed on the latest round of Geneva nego-
tiations before making their atatementy.
~ ~nrtsie aircraft and hat?lefield wc~apun r~
is move could he aimed at West (aern,an
voters going to the pulls in March. The Bonn
government of Chancellor Helmut Kohl sup-
ports the zero option position hut. wani:+ Chr?
Reagan administration to he prcn:ared Gt altrr
it if an opening develops in tht~ nepotiat.iona.
His socialist opposition has said ~{epi,~~?rna~nt
of the NATO missiles should he delx~, ~d as
long as negotiations are under way.
Approved For Release 2007/09/07 :CIA-RDP85M00363R000300450027-5