THE COMING DEBATE ON SALT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP88-01315R000400400007-0
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 9, 2004
• Sequence Number: 7
• Publication Date: December 12, 1978
• Content Type: NSPR

=:i: .. .?:e :~?r 'teas - --- - -- - -------- - -wHT?li SJ. LSISr..C -,JC.V ?~.?.. ?-? - -- -- -_-"- -
12 December 1978 - .L?.-~srt-~= ~c..h.~.
SAj_j _L
the Corning Debate pn
. KEN,iEra H BACON tration officials assert, the U.S. still retains Othe*s are tens arproma~i h of Sovietr~
WASHINGTON- "Within. a few weeks an overall military advantage. soprui ation and rate of.gm 1
we will have a SALT agreement that will U.S. admirals talk openly of the possi- military power far exceeds Soviet require-:.
11 } resin" of na- ments for defense," says the Committee on.
a
be the pride of the country." - bilityof losing their s mm
President Carter made that prediction ? vat superiority to the Soviets in the 1980s..-,thePresent Danger. tan 1n leis private
its;
nta
d
? -
militar a...a
S. and the Soviet Union are ' still to repel a Soviet attack on Europe. An
dure offensive
WU
nature of e
i
y b
i
.
ng
il
u
worry Increas
trying to reach that new strategic arms ? _ Pentagon ^plannersnpn~ and Military challenge
Vance and Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei and seallft ?orces~quickly over ivio; 4 m. het a .viable instrument of foreign poi-!
week.' in an effort to resolve remaining sensed this acuity to project puree. ,w. Soviet;
issues. If they succeed. President Carter and The growth of Soviet strategic
wa .~,, . inintarv is catching up to the U.S.. many.;
sign a treaty the culmination of six years - A 4 fense program as,the price for supportingr
of negotiatzans a a sumn> t ?early ne> Tt ny treaty ?vslL tngger the' new. SALT. treaty.It's already clear ~,
.
,. x
e}id mare on;what c
will de
:
p
that ratification
" ~broa Obviousiy~ Mr: Carter turned out to bea,, year w , a broad p' oi.:kcal. ifiebate.-,
ons the administration promises
.
j
new weap
poor judge .at the; time.:necessa!rY.to con , ,.i , .,E ,. ~-... ~? eludea.newiagreement -assertion?that kz,t ,, 't~ ty --tO . COnviflCe terbuikl..during the life. of.-the- new.arms.L
the nuclear arms control pact will be "the ntrol treaty than on the new force limits
"man Ameri cans . that the the treaty will impose-
Chiefs turn of Staff and many in
timistic as well. 6S. failed.; _to
new long-range bomber to
o
l
t
ng
p
y
a
over
wa"
A SALT agreement would-'be. a aspic-' ; g e that Pies!-
control aCe Y41ith ~expanding Soznet : ;; replace the proposed. t..p
matlc accomp}lshment~on, arms 7_ P
-11 -. _ r_ ..-f 4 dent Ca rter canceled_Many Senators plan
t
o
d
.....--
_
em
such a treaty: But any treaty regardless of "~ rrrrra w~-y_ !r..6. J1 ? ..v to
its-terms; 'will trigger a Senate ratification isoration promise to move -forward quickly
im with a new ICBM deployed in a way that i?
h
e
fight and a broad political debate that is been particularly ominous. Much of t
1972 will be less vulnerable to Soviet attack. V
.
since
t
th
'
l
,
a
ace
?
? provement has taken p
-
likel to convince many . Americans .
the U.S. has, failed ? to keep pace with ex-,,. -when the U.S. and the Soviet Union signed Increase In Defense SpeTldlttg
. ..
ifie
:
. ,, ...... . ,. ..._.. ,., , . _.-.
s . a
Even if an, arms control pa t
l,
h the missiles each country could.: deploy, but it ;'defense spending Now he is favoring de
u
th
o
g
-and that is tar froth certain.
administration thinks it would be after a didn't restrict measures to make the weap- Tense outlays over other programs. Despite r
am he is committed F
improve-
ither b
y
e
long and acrimonious battle-the debate is ons more devastating, his anti-inflation progr
or increases in the hum-
} increase in defense spending' The
rac
i
a
y
n accu
ments
likely to leave many people feeling less se- - to cure about U.S. stye 4gth. more suspicious her of warheads each missile could carry. - only question is whether he'll stick to the i .
. - __ a._ ti...- -.-r.-ieaA n11r?allies Or
willing to increase U.S. defense.spenaing. under SALT I-me numuer UL u.u.. au a. seine iur is zma,.c_ ?u~-~ -~ -- r
gic nuclear warheads has grown to about down the federal deficit.
ust spendmore
ce
i
l
-
on m
an
while Soviet war
ttse administrat
U5Soviet l\d J
6
.?-W J " 9000 from ider ,000 in 1972, .- If_.-
in ratification of a new -
2.200
n
defense to w
"I dont believe it possible to co
s heads have.increased . to 4.000 from
on the SAJ.T= II freely in isolation from the over-the same.period: But: overall. the So-;'.arms control agreement-and the Sovietsr
general -deterioration which has taken vier gains have been more strlkiag,, "~? continue their military buildup is SALT 1,
place-In;the `overall military` balance be-~ t - ' ffort?
tweenthe V.S. and. the Soviet U nioa during-!~ Under TAI or new~Iand based:-. Zy eadmin trahon flunks so 4(7fiicials
mo largera.rgernnnenhe a est U ~1 ,,.,,~..~, .-, els. S
It. I to 'limit technological : improvet
Ntuuz. The iiecision of. the: Georgia ..De ments t
'whethe>?,or not ne support the treaty w1 be! ~''t dn3. The U.S:could have replaced ex='train :nuclear ,weaponry. while placing-2-t,
w ~- k - istirig missileswith new,models: Instead: it:''; slightly lo we r ceiling on force levels. SALT
tes say this will represent a mod tr
"cite key to its rattffcatton a~
lchose~:to improve the"Minuteman mtssile= ,advoca
,The tip In the-U S -Soviet .military bal ~~ and won't replace-it with a=new missile un ..; but important step: ;toward limiting the,
ante is beyond, question, although officials the mid-'SOs.. ,: ~ 5 -:_ ; %, sbope of the arms race while laying.the
til
tion for improvements in U.S.-Set s
d
s
a
a
foun
dvances Pres
disagree over the extent of the Soviet g
in. As: a result. of Soviet a ' Brown -
oncede that nrelatiatrs.Y ,. `
~
says
ld
B
town c
,,
;
Defense .Secretary;.Haro
dent Carter and Mr.
;-The Soviets` have been engaged in a'sub- within five years the Soviets will-.possess ", "When necessary: we will maintain ourr
stantial military buildup, for. nearly 20 t ;.an. ICBM force accurate ..and. powerful security and protect our ,interests .: by
f the US. strengthening our military capabilities:'
l) e A en
'
'
Inte
The- Central
h't theaten the security o
.
years. -enougor. re-?rts that rom 1967 to 1977 viet de-
,-~ land based missile force; Thee, for 'the first President Carter'says:.But "our security t-
i
. and the securityofaii nations, can be be
i
d
l
ge.
e
fense s ndino, w 4% to D -7o a . ear
?:. time;. the U.S. will live with the know
real, uni aced dollar terms while U S + + that one leg of its strategic triad of land ter served through equitable and u ablee I
on arms than through
it
i
s
m
spending declined in real terms, after ad.based.missiles, submarine-launched mss-'.
competion."
oreti-
tnam
Vi
th
h
i
e
e
s
e
Zustt~ avtodav costs of t
Lsiles and long-range bombers
. ti war-Currently the Soviet Union -is-.spend- y vulnerable to a crippling first strike.-,;; r Those are sound reasons. for supporting I.
-gl .. ing about .3150. billion a. year on, defense..;x??,:- --.Tu.c_ r,ffIcials can't fully explain the rea-' " the 'emerging agreement. But the -lesson s
S
the
some E30 ntulon more than.....?;? J? `'-sons.for the soviet's huge.auu race. it me.rely~.
As a result. tlie.soviets'have-sho~in..a ?,military investment. "We suspect that the Y;trol doesn~t hnue arms slightly differ`-e
, ?`?"- ~. v ~,+ rnr~ ?: .:` r .... r:
tary capabilities urw r v wvowy
sidering that the 115.. held clear military; lishingitself-as a global power,. ?5ecretary