THE WASHINGTON POST BROWN DEFENDS SALT II BEFORE ITS CRITICS ON SENATE PANEL

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP88-01315R000400360049-9
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 8, 2004
• Sequence Number: 49
• Publication Date: July 24, 1979
• Content Type: NSPR

vn Defends SALT
By Robert G. Kaiser
Post Staff writer
Critics of SALT II on the Senate'
Armed Services Committee yesterdays
pressed Defense Secretary Harold
Bros'an on imbalances and omissions
in the new treaty, suggesting that it is
unfair to the United States.
It was harsher criticism of SALT II
than Brown heard earlier from the !
Foreign Relations Committee, but few
new points were raised, and Brown
disputed the critics,. invoking analyses l
and statistics to argue that the treaty
is fair and useful.
Sen. Henry M. Jackson (D-Wash.), I
author of a congressional resolution
.adopted in 1972 that said SALT II'
should provide for equal Soviet and
American strategic forces, yesterday
told Brown the new treaty fails to I
meet that standard. Brown disagreed.
Sen. Gary Hart (D-Colo,), a sup-
porter of the treaty, elicted from
Brown the prediction that the Soviet
Union might deploy 13,000 to 18,0001
nuclear bombs by 1985 if SALT II is'
rejected, 10,000 of them on systems)
accurate enough to destroy U.S. land
based missiles in their silos. With the
treaty, those numbers would be 9,500!
and 6,000, Brown said.
Hart said the figures demonstrated I
the value of the treaty. He challenged
critics to show how the Soviet threat:
could be reduced by rejecting the
treaty, or what U.S., strategic pro-I
grams were prohibited by the pact.
But the critics on the committee de-
clihed this challenge, concentrating
instead on specific aspects of SALT II
that they think favor the Soviet Un-
ion. This was the theme. Jackson key-
noted with' his charge that the new
treaty fails to meet the test of his 1972
resolution calling for- equality.
The resolution called on the execu-
tive branch to negotiate a SALT' II
that provided for equal levels. of. inter-
continental strategic forces,, SALT II
does provide that both sides can have
2,230 strategic - weapons launchers in
1982. _._ y.
Jackson said floor debate' in 1972
showed that the Senate wanted equal-I
ity "taking account of throw-weight"' I
--the payload each superpower's rock-
ets can deliver to the territory of the I
other. SALT II permits the Soviets to",
maintain a large lead in this category. 1
Brown responded that :. SALT II
which he said balanced out, leaving
an equal agreement. Jackson rejected
that view.
"A team of giants and a team of
dwarfs might have equal numbers of
players . but they are hardly
equal," Jackson said, Brown later re-
plied: "If the dwarfs are' just as
strong and agile and able as the gi-
ants, that's not an unequal situation."
Later, Sen.. John C. Culver (D-iowa) !
contended that the Soviets' throw-1
weight advantage was largely neutral-
ized by SALT II's limits on the num-
ber of individual warheads or nuclear
weapons that could be placed on a sin-
gle rocket. These limits prevented the
Soviets from taking full advantage of
their heavy 'rockets and superior)
throw-weight, Culver said.
Sen. John W.' Warner (R-Va.) raised
a new point in the hearings when he I!
asked Brown about 75 older Soviet)
submarines that carry about 300 short-I
range cruise missiles, or pilotless
drones.
Couldn't these be used to attack,
coastal cities in the United States:
with lethal effect, Warner asked. 'i
Brown said that hypothetically they
could, but that the submarines in ques-
tion were deployed for use against
shipping at sea, not land targets. He i
noted that the Soviets once deployed
these old submarines near American
coastlines, but dropped that once they i
had their.'-own submarine-launched 1
ballistic missiles, which could better
be used to attack the American main-!
land.
Culver later said that those Soviet)
"ubmarine missiles were comparable `
to an American model from the 1930s 1~
that can now be .found only in "the `
naval museum."
Several senators pressed Brown on
the treaty's failure to, cover the Sovi-
ets' medium-to-long range Backfire i
bomber. Brown. repeated that the
Backfire, like U.S.. nuclear . weapons #
its
-.
based in Europe and the Soviets)
"heavy" supermissiles, was one of the
areas removed from the treaty In a;
series of compromises.
Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.), one-i
of the senators who raised the Back-,
fire issue, revealed yesterday that he
has now been satisfied that - verifi-
cation of SALT Ti is not a major:
problem. Goldwater is a senior mem-
ber of the Intelligence Committee.
Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), whose vote
on SALT II is regarded as crucial,i
failed to tip his hand yesterday, using;
his questioning time to query . Brown {
on defense issues not specifically cov-
ered by the new treaty. Committee
Chairman John C. Stennis (D-Hiss.),
another key vote, was friendly to
Brown and did not. reveal his feelings
about SALT II..`
,,ranted the Soviets s"p 8td*6 * Release 2005/01/12: CIA-RDP88-013.,15R000400360049-9
and the Americans some. advantages,
Approved For Rely sl> 2W06/ / ' 66R- -TO1315R0004003
Article appeared 24 July 1979
on page A-6
Critics Senate Panel