THE MX MISSILE -- STANSFIELD TURNER

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP88-01070R000100650014-9
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 20, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 21, 2007
• Sequence Number: 14
• Publication Date: April 11, 1983
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Approved For Release 2007/05/21: CIA-RDP88-0107OR000100650014-9
RADIO 1V REPORTS, INC.
4701 WILLARD AVENUE, CHEVY CHASE, MARYLAND 20815 656-4068
PROGRAM The Today Show
STATION WRC-TV
NBC Network
DATE April 11, 1983 7:34 AM CITY Washington, DC
BRIAN GUMBEL: Later today, President Reagan gets a
report on the state of the controversial MX missile.
This is part of the bipartisan Commission on Strategic
Forces. It's expected that that report will recommend the MX
be deployed in existing Minuteman silos.
Former CIA Director, Stansfield Turner, joins us now
from KPLX-TV, in Phoenix, to talk with us about the future of
the MX.
Good morning, Admiral.
ADMIRAL STANSFIELD TURNER: Good morning, Brian.
GUMBEL: Admiral, they're putting the MX in existing
silos. Is that going to work?
ADMIRAL TURNER: No, I don't think so. You'll
remember that the Congress turned that very same proposal down
a year-and-a-half ago. They turned it down because the
existing silos are vulnerable. We originally designed the MX
to overcome that vulnerability, but we just find that it isn't
able to do it. It's such a large missile that we can't hide
it, and in today's world the satellite reconnaissance, and so
forth, anything that can be seen like that can be easily hit
and knocked out.
GUMBEL: You're not a supporter of the MX system. Is
Material supplied by Radio N Reports, Inc. may be used for file and reference purposes only. It may not be reproduced, sold or publicly demonstrated or exhibited.
Approved For Release 2007/05/21 : CIA-RDP88-0107OR000100650014-9
 Approved For Release 2007/05/21: CIA-RDP88-0107OR000100650014-9
it the missile itself which gives you a problem, or the manner
of deployment?
ADMIRAL TURNER: I think it's the missile itself,
Bryan. You see, if we have it and it's vulnerable, we're going
to be nervous that it may be knocked out by a first strike in a
surprise attack by the Soviets.
On the other hand, it is such a powerful missile that
the Soviets see that we're building it as a way of conducting a
surprise attack against their missile force. So if we have it,
they are going to be nervous. If we're both nervous, we're in
what's called "a hair trigger response situation."
The probability of nuclear war by miscalculations, by
accidents, increases. I think it's dangerous for both of us.
GUMBEL: Would we have to have a launch on attack
strategy for the MX, then, as opposed to a luanch on a warning
strategy?
ADMIRAL TURNER: Well, that is the only way the MX
could possibly be used, in my opinion. I don't the United
States will ever initiate an intercontinental nuclear war with
the Soviet Union. So, theoretically, if the Soviets start a
nuclear war, it would take about 30 minutes for their missiles
to knockout the MX. We would have to be prepared to launch the
MX in that little 30 minute window.
First of all, I don't think that's practical. I don't
think the President could make up his mind and get all the
information he needed to make that kind of a momentous decision
in 20 or 25 minutes. And, beyond that, I think it's very
unwise to put ourselves in a position where we might be forced
to launch a missile under such tenuous circumstances.
GUMBEL: Admiral, supposedly today's report will also
call for development of a single warhead missile, right now
known as the Armadillo. How do you view such a proposal?
ADMIRAL TURNER: Well, now, that is going to be what
they call "a mini missile," or "midget missile." It's about
one-tenth as large as the MX. Because it's so small, you can
move it around. You can put it on trucks, on railroads, on
ships, in airplanes and, thus, you can make it less vulnerable
-- much less vulnerable than an MX. Therefore, In think it's
basically a good concept.
At the same time, we understand the report is going to
recommend an entirely new missile -- take about 10 years to do
it. But, I think it is unnecessary. We, as taxpayers, are
already buying what's known as a D-5 missile for our American
Approved For Release 2007/05/21: CIA-RDP88-0107OR000100650014-9
 . Approved For Release 2007/05/21 : CIA-RDP88-0107OR000100650014-9
submarines. It's very similar in size and capability to this
"mini" or "midget" . . . .
GUMBEL: You consider that would be considerable
waste, then?
ADMIRAL TURNER: I think it could save us time and
money if we just adopted the D-5 missile instead of developing
a brand new one.
GUMBEL: Admiral Stansfield Turner, thanks very much
for joining us.
ADMIRAL TURNER: Bryan, glad to be with you.
Approved For Release 2007/05/21: CIA-RDP88-0107OR000100650014-9