Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 22, 2016
Document Release Date: 
August 9, 2010
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
March 24, 1983
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP90-00552R000505400047-8.pdf7.83 MB
PA/STAFF 1F06 HO 1 COPY Part I of "Star Wars" N4 May o. 991983 Two Parts 0 NEW YORK TIMES 24 MARCH 1983 Pg. 20 President's Speech on Military Spending and a New Defense poi's mlainw Yet lfr WASHINGTON, March 23 - Following is the text of president Reagm's speech tonight, as roads available by the White House: Thank you for your time with me tonight. The sub ect 1 want t' discuss with you, peace and notional =%1s=t1, mely and Important I lave reached ^ decision which offers a new hope for our children in the 21st century - a decision I will tell you about in a few minutes - and important beaause must male for yourselves. Thisitsub. ject involves the most basic duty that and my any the duty to protect an the p Atttthe beginning of this year, I sub- rolued to the budget which Crefeats c my beat judg. ment, and the beet understanding of the experts and specialists who advise me, about what we and our allies must do to protect our people in the years ahead. That budget is much more than a Iong list of numbers, for behind all the numbers lis America's ability to pre- vent the greatest of human es and preserve our free way of Ii e In a sometimes dangerous world. It is part of a careful, long-term Plan to make America strong again enter ten man) yen of =and mistakes. Our of forts to rebuild America's defenses and strengthen the peace began two yyeasrs age when we requested a major Increase In the defense program. Since than the amount of those in- crosses we first proposed has been ra duced by half through improvements in management and procurement and other savings. The budget requst that Is now before the Congress 1w been trimmed to the limits of safety. Fur- ther deep cuts cannot be made without seriously endangering the security of the nation. The rbolce is up to the men and women you have elected to the Congress-std that means the choice isup toyou. Tonight I want to explain to you what this defense debate is all about, and why I am convinced that the budget now before the Congress Is necessary, responsible and deserving of your support. And I want to offer Mrorthe at, turtwo. first me saywhatthe defense debate is not about. It Is not about spending arithmetic. I know that in the last few weeks you've been bom- barded with numbers end petcent- egee.somesay we resod only ^ S per- cent Increase la detnae spending. The so-called alternate budget backed by liberals in the House df Reprwnta- tives perc would lower the figare to pd9b lUllonover the nert five years. trouble with an these numbers is that they too us little about the kind of defame America needs or the b@Doj Main securityaand freedom thatourdefese elfort for us. What seems to have been lost in all this debate is the simple truth of how ^ defense budget ts arrived at. It isn't time by dec=Nng to spend a amtaln number of dollars. Those lend votcs that are occasionally beard charging that the Government is trying to solve a security problem by throwing Money at it are nothing more than noise based onIpgrance. We start by considering what must be time to maintain peace and review oil the potable a thrown; against our se- encuri. tng Than and def nding7m thcee threaust ba agreed upon. And finny air defeae establishment must be evaluated to see what y nec- esary to protest agalast any or all et the potentw threats. T e cst of the resultis the Budget nor no~o al teas Thus Is no e. lay yy can let's spend X billion dollars less. You can only say, which part of our do- tam measures do we believe we can do without and will have seventy against all contingsnds? Anyone in the Congress who advocates a - nonage or specific dollar cut indsde- teae spending should be made to my what part of our defenses he would eliminate, to ~ledgethatt be caselld his cuts enough mean cutting our commitments to allies or inviting greater risk or both. The defense policy of the United states is based on a simple promise: The United States does not start DebtsW We will never be an aggreasor. We maintain our strength in order to deter and defend aploet aggreseim Wes have eo prwrve freedom and sons. ic age, loe the dawn d the atomrut of u~t tereducethe on a d by seeking a genuine arms deterrent control. Deterrence mean imply this: Idak- t aura any adve~ry wet t Inks about attacking the United States or our allies or our vital Interests con- ch" that the risks to him outweigh Once anypot nisi gates. he under- slands ti en ut, he won't attack. We main- tain lie peace through our strength: weakness only lavits aggression. ' This strategy of deterrence has not changed. It still works. But what It deterram has takes to ch military anged. itm~ ms ki force to deter an attach when we had far more nuclear weapons than any other power; It takes another kind now that the Soviets, for example. Have enough accurate and powerful unclear weapon to destroy virtually as of our missiles on the ground. Now this 'le not to my the Soviet Union is planning to make war on us. Nor do I be ieve a war is Inevitable-quite the contrary. But what must be re og- ntsed is that our security Is based on being prepared tomeet all threat'. Then was a timis ponied on coastal In d and artillery batteries because, with the weaponry of that day,, any attack would have had rld and our defenses must he different wwo based the on, eaponry puma wl by ~ other r nations w m the nuclear age. We can't afford to believe we will never be threatened. There have been two world wars in my lifetime. We didn't start them and, Indeed, did everything we could to avoid being drawn lam them. But we were in-pre- pored for both - had hwe been better ave prepared, ~peace might For 20 years, the Soviet Union has bbtaertwy accumulating enormous Mill- might. " when thdr force exceeded didn't all rquire- balty.AndtheyhavenRetappodnow . The Saylot Gabs During the past decade and a half, PRESIDENT...Pg?2 Helen Young, Chief, Current News Branch, 6918185 Daniel Friedman, Assistant Chief For special research services or distribution call Harry Zubkoff, Chief, News Clipping & Analysis Service, 895-2884 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/08/09 : CIA-RDP90-00552R000505400047-8 PRESIDENT... Continued the Soviets have built up a massive ar- senal of new strategic nuclear weap-p tau - weapons that can strike di- rectly at the United States. As an example, the United States in- troduced its last new Intercontinental ballistic missile, the Minutemen III, in 1859, and we an now dismantling air even older Than missiles. But what has the Soviet Union done in these Intervening years? Well, since 1958, the Soviet Union has built five new classes of ICBM's, and upgraded these eight times. As a result, their missiles are much more powerful and accurate than they were several years ago and they continue to develop more, while ours are Increasingly ob- solete. The same thing has happened in other areas. Over the same period, the Soviet Union built four new clause of submarine-launched ballistic missiles and over 00 new missile submarines. We built two new types of submarine missiles and actually withdrew 10 sub restless from strategic missions. The Soviet Union built over 200 new Back- fire bombers, and their brand new Blackjack bomber is now under devel. opment. We haven't built a new long- ran`e bomber since our BM's were deployed about a quarter of a century ago, and we've already retired sev. eral hundred of those because of old age. Indeed, despite what many peo- e think, our strategic form only percent t of of the defense cost about 15 budget. Medium-Range Nuclear Arms Another example of what'a hap- pened: In 1975, the Soviets had 000 In- termediate-range nuclear missiles based on land and were beginning to add the SS-20 - a new, highly accu. rate mobile missile, with three war- heads. We had none. Since then the Soviets have strengthened their lead. By the and of 1979, when Soviet leader Brshnevdeclared "a balance now ex- ists," the Soviets had over 800 war- heads. We still had none. A yyeeaar ago this month, Mr. Brezhnev pledged a moratorium, or freeze, on SS-50 de- E yment. But by last August, their 0 warheads had become more than 1,700. We till had none. Some freeze. At this time Soviet Defense Minster Ustinov announced "approximate parity of forces continues to exist." But the Soviets are still adding an average of three new warheads a week, and now have 1,500. These war- heads can reach their targets In a matter of a few minutes. We still have none. So far, It seems that the Soviet definition of parity is a box score of 1,300 to nothing, in their favor. So, together with our NATO allies, we decided in 1978 to deploy new weapons, be this year, as a deterrent to elf S 's and as an a- tentive to the Soviet Union to meet us in serious arms control negotiations. We will begin that deployment late this year. At the same time, however, we are willing to cancel our pro g ra if the Soviets will dismantle theirm This is what we have called a zero- zero plan. The Soviets are now at the negotating table - and I think it's deployments, say that without our planned they wouldn't be there. Convank lForces Now let's consider conventional Forces. Since 1974, the United Stats has produced 3,090 tactical combat aircraft. By contrast, the Soviet Union has produced twice as many. When we look at attack submarins, the United States has produced 27, while the Soviet Union has produced 61. For ar- mored vehicles including tads, we have =Produced The Soviet Union des produced 51,000, a early 5-to-1 ratio in their favor. frith artillery, we have produced Bbd artil- IQty and at launchers while the Soviets have produced more than 13,000, a staggering 14-to-1 ratio. There was a time when we were able to offset superior Soviet numbers with higher quality. But today they are building weapons as sophisticated and modern as our own. As the Soviets have Increased their tpower, they have bow am. Idet+rY ied extend that power. They am their military Influence in ways that can directly challenge our vital interests and those of our allis. The following aerial photo? mo~rrphs, most of them acres until snow, as to Illustrate this polar a a rrnaal aria Ica and the Caribbean Basin. Theeyy an non dramatic photographs ism I think c they help give you a better under- sanding of what I'm talking about. Largest In the World This Soviet intelligence collection =78 lets than 100 mils from our the largest of its kind in the world. The acres and acres of antenna fields and luteulgence monitors are targeted on key U.S. military installs. done and sensitive activities. The in- sallation, in Lourdes, Cuba, is manned by 1,500 Soviet technicians, and the satellite ground station allows Instant communications with M cow. This 28-square ro by more 00 mile facility has g and capability d percent in size In there rde. In western Cuba, we sae this the mW tary airfield and Its complement of modem Soviet-built MIG-19 aircraft. The Soviet Union uses this Cuban air- field for its own long-range reconnais- sance minions, and earlier this month two modem Soviet antisubma- rine warfare aircraft began operating from it. During the past two years, the level of Soviet arms exports to Cuba can only be compared to the levels reached during the Cuban missile crisis 70 years ago. This third photo, which is the only we in this series that has been previ. only made public, shows Soviet mill- tary hardware that has made Its way to Central America. This airfield with Its MI-8 helicopters, antiaircraft guns and protected fighter sites is one of a number of military facilities in Nice- raga which has received Soviet equipment funneled through Cuba and reflects the massive military build-up going on in that country. Grenada's Large Airfield On the small Island of Grenada, at the southern end of the Caribbean chain, the Cubans, with Soviet financ- big and baddng, are in the process of ding an aUllold with a 10,000-foot runway. Grenada doesn't even have an air force. Who Is It intended for? The Caribbean is a very important passageway for our international commerce and military lines of com- munication: More than half of all American oil imports now pass through the Caribbean. The rapid build-tip of Grenada's military tial is unrelated to any cat vable threat to this wand country of under 110,000 people, and totally at odds with the pattern of other eastern Caribbean States, most of which are unarmed. The Soviet-Cuban militarization of Grenada, in short, can only be seen as power projection into the region, and it is in this important economic and strategic area that we are trying to help the governments of El Salvador, Costa Rica, Honduras and others in their struggles for democracy against ~ Nicaragua. supported through Cube. These only tell a small part of the story. I wish I could show you more without compromising our most sensitive Intelligence sources and methods. But the Soviet Union is also ssunpgpo ~ ECuban military forces in ha bassis in Ethiopia and South They nenear the Persian Gulf oilfields. They have taken over the port we built at Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam, and now, for the first time In the Soviet Navy is a force to be srreeckoned with in the South Pacific. Question of Soviet Intentions Some people may still ask: Would the Soviets ever use their formidable military power? Well, again, can we afford to believe they won't? There Is Af die awill of nd in Poland, the Sovi- ets people and, in so doing, demonstrated to the world how their military power could also be used to intimidate. The final fact is that the Soviet Union is acquiring what can only be considered an offensive military force. They have continued to build far more intercontinental ballistic missiles than they could possibly need simply to deter an attack. Their con- ventional forces are trained and equipped not so much to defend against an attack as they are to per- mit sudden, surprise offensives of theirown. Our NATO allies have assumed a great defense burden, including the military draft in most countries. We are working with them and our other friends around the world to do more. Our defensive strategy means we need military forces that can move very quickly- forces that are trained and ready to respond to any emergen- cy. PRESIDENT.. .Pg. 3 PRESIDENT... Continued Every item in our detain program -our ships, our tanks, our Plana, out hoods for training and spare parts - 11 intended for one all-important put pose - to keep the peace. UMmtu stately, a decade of neglecting out military forces had called into ques Lion our ability to do that. Situation In January IMI When I took office in January1981, I was appalled by what I found: Ameri- can planes that could not fly and American ships that could not sail for lack of spare parts and trained per- some[ and insufficient fuel and am- munition for essential training. The inevitable result of all this was poor morale in our armed forces, difficulty in recruiting the brightest young Americans to wear the uniform and difficulty in convincing our most ex- perienced military personnel to stay on. There was a real question, then, about how well we could meet a crisis. And it was obvious that we had to begin a major modernization pro- gram to Insure we could deter aggres- sion and preserve the peace in the years ahead. We had to move immediately to im- prove the basic readiness and staying power of our conventional forces, so they could men - and therefore help deter - a crisis. We had to make up for lost years of investment by moving forward with a long-term plan to pre- pare our forces to counter the military capabilities our adversaries were developing for the future. I know that all of you want peace and an do I. I know too that many of you seriously believe that a nuclear freeze would further the cause of peace. But a freeze now would make as less, not more, secure and wood miss, not reduce, the risks of war. It would be largely unverifiable and would seriously undercut our negotla- tions on arms reduction. It would re- ward the Soviets for their massive military buildup while preventing us from modernizing our aging and in- creasingly vulnerable forces. With their present margin of superiority, why should they agree to arms reduc- tions knowing that we were prohibited from catching up? A Change In Direction Believe me, it wasn't pleasant for someone who had come to Washington determined to reduce Government spending, but we had to move forward with the task of repairing our defenses or we would lose our ability to deter conflict now and in the future. We had to demonstrate to any adversary that aggression could not succeed and that the only real solution was substantial, equitable and effectively verifiable arms reduction - the kind we're working for right now in Geneva. Thanks to your strong support, and bipartisan support from the Congress, we began to turn things mund. Al- ready we are seeing some very en- oounglog results. Quality recruit. ment and retention are up. dramati- cally - more high school graduates are choosing military careers and more experienced career personnel are choosing to stay. Our men and women in unform at last are getting the tools and training they need to do their jobs. Ask around today, y our young people, I thick you'll find a whole new attitude toward serv- ing their country. Thin reflects more than just better y, equipment send leadership. You the American people have sent a sig al to these young peo- pie that it is mice again an honor to wear the uniform. That's not some- thing isa very real ~ part OIn a f our natim's strength. I take is longer to build the kind of equipment we need to keep peace in the future, but we've made a good start. Bombers and Submarines We have not built a new long-range bomber for 21 years. Now we're build- ing the B-1. We had not launched one new strategic submarine for 17 years. Now, we're building one Trident sub- marine a year. Our land-based mis- siles an increasingly threatened by the many huge, new Soviet ICBM's. We are determining how to solve that problem. At the same time, we are working in the Start and I.N.F. negoti- ations, with the goal of achieving deep reductions in the strategic and inter- mediate nuclear arsenals of both sides. We have also begun the long-needed modernization of our conventional forces. The Army is getting its first new tank in 30 years. The Air Force is modernizing. We are rebuilding our Navy, which shrank from about 1,000 in the late 1980's to 453 ships during the I970's. Our nation needs a superior Navy to support our military forces and vital interests overseas. We are now on the road to achieving a B00-ship Navy and increasing the amphibious capabilities of our marines, who are now serving the cause of peace in Lebanon. And we are building a real capability to assist our friends in the vitally Important Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf region. This adds upto a major effort, and it is not cheap. It comes at a time when there are many other pressures on our budget and wherthe American people have already had to make major sac- rifices during the recession. But we must not be misled by time who would make defense once again the scapegoat of the Federal budget. Change in Speeding Pattern The fact is that in the past few dec- ades we have seen a dramatic shift in bow we a the taxpayer's dollar. Back in t payments to individuals took up only about 20 percent of the Federal budget. For nearly three dec- ades, these payments steadily in- creased and this year will account for 0 percent of the budget. By contrast, In 1955, defense took 4 more than half of the Federal budget. By 1980, this spending had fallen to a low of 23 per- cent. Even with the increase I am re- questing amamt to only 28 percent of the budg. The calls for back the de- ferns budget comeuin nice simple 'arithmetic. They're the same kind of talk that led the democracies to neg. lect their defenses In the 1930's and in- vited the tragedy of World War II. We must not let that grim chapter of his- tory repeat Itself through apathy or Yes, we pay a great deal for the weapons and equipment we give our military forces. And, yes, there has been some waste in the past. But we are now paying the delayed coat of our ogled in the 1910's. We would only be fooling ourselves, and endangering the future, if we lot the bills pile up for the IM's as well. Sooner or later then bills always come due, and the later they come due, the more they cost in treasure and in safety. Appeals to Congress This is why I am speaking to you to- talon at ndto Courge you to tell Your Senk- ngressmen that you know asretymust continue to restore our mil. If midstream, we will not only jeopardize the progress we have made to date - we will mortgage our ability to deter war and achieve gent ine arms reductions. And we will send a signal of decline, of lessened will, to friends and adversaries alike. One of the tragic ironies of history - and we've seen it happen more than once in this century - is the way that tyrannical systems, whose military suwtgth is based on oppressing their ppeeoopple, grow strong while, through wishful thinking, free societies allow themselves to be lulled into a false sense of security. Free people must voluntarily, through open debate and democratic means, meet the challenge the totali- tarians pose by compulsion. It is up to us, in our time, to choose, and choose wisely, between the hard but necessary task of preserving peace and freedom and the tempta- tion to ignore our duty and blindly hope for the best while the enemies of freedom grow stronger day by day. The solution is well within our grasp. But to reach It, them is simply no alternative but to continue this year, in this budget, to provide there sources we need to preserve the peace and guarantee our freedom. Hope for the Furore Thus far tonight I have shared with you my thoughts on the problems of national security we must face togeth- er. My predecessors in the Oval Office have appeared before you on other oc- casions to describe the threat posed by PRESIDENT... Pg. 4 NEW YORK TIMES 24 March 1983 Pg.1 REAGAN PROPOSES U.S. SEEK NEW WAY TO BLOCK MISSILES By STEVEN R. WEISMAN spa ltoT. an YSttlo WASHINGTON, March 23 - Presi- dent Reagan, defending his military Program, Proposed tonight to exploit advances in technology in coming dec. Mae so the United States can develop an effective defense against missiles launched by others. In effect, Mr. Reagan proposed to make obsolete the current United States policy of relying on massive re- talatton by its ballistic missiles to counter the threat of a Soviet nuclear attack. In a television address from the White House, be coupled his proposal with his strongest appeal yet for his Ad- ministration's program to increase military spending. Decades Away From Reality Mr. Reagan outlined his vision of new strategic doctrine, which he sale was decades away from reality. Using charts, graphs and photo. graphs - some of them recently declas- sified for tonight's speech - Mr. Rea- gan reviewed in detail what he said was the buildup of Soviet military forces in recent years. His Administration's pro- gram, he said, is needed because of "cur neglect in the 1970's." "Sooner or later these bills always come due, and the later they a.oe due, try for flexible response. But is it not tree the every norld Investment oothreatw of mu- the same time, we must take step to rednnoe the risk nits cmvmUmal mW- byy Impom0irbvMlnR our ammuclear capaM6 itSM. America dos Donee - mw - reduce any Incentive that the Soviet Union may have to threaten attack As Identity of Intervals PRESIDENT... Continued Soviet power and have proposed steps to address that threat. But since the advent of nuclear weapons, those step Ewa Gam dhected toward .nericee ofr aggression through the notion that no ratlmefi nation m would launch an attack that would inevitably result hn unacceptable loses to themselves. This approach to stability through of- fmdve threat has worked. We and or allies have succeederd in preventing unclear war for three decades. In re- omt menthe, however, my advisers, including in particular the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have underscored the bleakness of the future before us. Over the saline of lase discw- slons, I have become more and more deeply convinced that the human spirit must be capable of rising above dealing with other nations and human beings by threatening their existence. Feeling this way, I believe we must itlemmughl examine tuwi ereducing ions and for ln- bility One s rates calculus on both stainto the of the most important contributions we can make is. of course, to lower the level of all arms, and particularly on. clear arms. We are engaged right now in several negotiations with the Soviet Union to bring about a mutual reduc- tion of weapons. I will report to you a week from tomorrow my thoughts on that score. But let me just ay I am to- tally committed to this course. Specter of Retaliation If the Soviet Union will join with us Inner effort toachieve major arms to, ductlon we will have succeeded in sta- bWdng the nuclear balance. Never- theless it will still be necessary to rely an the specter of retaliation - on mutual threat, and that is a sad com- meataryon the human condition. Would It not be better to eve Yves than to avenge them? Are we not noable of demostrating our peace- t cow by applying all our abil- tnuly land asting stiWliittyl I V =a indeed, we must) After careful consultation with my advisers, Including the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I believe there is a my. Let me stare with you a vision of the future which offers hope. It is that we em- bark on a progam to canter the awe- some Soviet missile direst with meas- ures that are defensive. Let us turn to the very strengths in technology that sspapawned our great industrial bee and that have given us the quality of life we enjoy today. Up until now we have increasingly satrMa upon the threat of tion. But what if free people could live secure in the knowledge that their security did not =%= eat oWant U.S. re- a Soviet attack; that we could intercept and destroy strate- gic ballistic missiles before they reached our own Will or that Of our allies? A Long Effect I know this is a formidable technical task, one that may not be accom- before the end of this century. Yet, current technology has attdneda level of sophistication where it is rea- sonable for as to begho this effort. It will take years, probablK decades, of effort an many trouts. Theist will be failures and setbacks just as there will be ouccosess and breakthroughs. And to deter attacks against them. heir vital interests and ours are I ex- triably linked - their safety and airs are one. And no rbabge in technology can or will eke that reality. We must and shall continue to honor our nom. mitmmta. I Clearly recognize that defensive systems n roand raw carts" problems t ambiguities. gaited with offird" systems, they can be viewed as fostering an aggees- dvepolicy and none wants that. But with these considerations firmly In mind, I upon the scien- tific ty gave us nuclear weapons to turn their gnat talents to the cause of mankind and world peas to give us the means of render. glo time nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete. Tonight, Consistent with our obliga- Units Wider the ABM Treaty and recogrilking the need for close coosul- tation with our allies, I am taking an Important first step I am directing a deflost reha ll i ng~md research and development program to begin to achieve our ultimate goal of ellmlat- big the threat posed by strategic nu- clear minUet. This could pave the way for arms control measures to eliminate the weapons themselves. We seek neither military superiority nor political advantage 1 only par. pees - one all poop a share - is to ta search for ways to reduce the danger ofnuclear war. an launching an effort which holds the purpose Changing the course of human history. There will be risks, and results take time. But with your support, I believe we an do it. REAGAN... Continued the more they cost in treasure and in safety," Mr. Reagan said. "This Is why 1 am speaking to you tonight - to urge you to tell your Senators and Congress- men that you know we most continue to restore our military strength." Defends Arms Reduction Plans Mr. Reagan also used his speech to defend his Administration's arms re- duction proposals to the Soviet Union, but for the first time he hinted publicly that he might be ready to modify his proposal for banning all Soviet and American medium-range nuclear mis- tiles from Europe. Administration officials said today that Mr. Reagan was prepared to modify his so-called "zero-zero" mis- sile proposal and recommend instead new and lower equal limits on Soviet and American missiles. These officials said Mr. Reagan might make his pro posal next week In a speech in Los An- geles, and the President said he would address the issue at that time. The speech tonight was aimed at de- fending NO proposal to increase mili- tary speeding by 10 percent in 1951. The proposal is under attack from Demo crats and Republicans in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Just 33 minutes before the President s ke, the House approved by a vote of M9 to 196 the Democratic leadership's 1954 budget propda1 , which the Demo- cote say provides an increase of 4 per- cent in military spending. In his ad- , the the President contended that the Democrats had actually proposed a military program with growth of only 2 tea percent. Most of the President's speech was devoted tea familiar litany of the Soviet ? threat as the Administration sees --- The most innovative part came to- ward the end, when Mr. Reagan said he had recently begun rethinking the foun- dation for the American strategic doc- trine. That doctrine of massive retalia- tion is based on the United States ability to counter any Soviet attack with a nu- clear attack of its own. .'Since the advent of nuclear weap- ons," Mr. Reagan said, the United States has based its defense on "deter- rence of aggression through the prom- ise of retaliation -the notiogthat no re- tional nation would launch an atact that would inevitably result in unac- ceptable losses to themselves. This approach to stability through offensive threat has worked," Mr. Rea- gan said. "We and our allies have suc- cesded in preventing nuclear war for' three Recently, however, Mr. Reagan said his advisers "have underscored the bleakness of the future before us" under this doctrine. At the same time, he said, there has been great technological progress enabling the United States to rethink whether "massive retaliation" would remain appropriate in the dec- ades ahead. "Would it not be better to save lives than to avenge them?" Mr. Reagan asked. "Are we not capable of demon- etraHeg our peaceful intentions by ap- plytng all our abilities and our f tenuity to achieving a truly lasting stability? I thidtwe tie. Indeed, we mustl" Mr. Reagan then prWaed a Program to exploit American technology and achieve ways of destroying Soviet or other missiles launched against the United States. I know this is a formidable technical task, one that may not be accomplished before the end of this century," he said. ad~dddiknugg that he was cal on American adeuWm to help in the At a White House briefing, senior Ad- State now sppeudssaabosaid the United ut $1 billion a year on ballistic missile technology. They said the prepare a programfor s increasing this amount in the nett several months. They said the program might involve such technologies as two, microwave devices, particle beams and projectile beams. Thus devices, most of which are in a very early stage of develop, meet, in theory could be directed from satellites, airplanes or land-based in, sallatios to shoot down missiles in the air. Scientists have felt that the beam de- femee could revolutionize the concept of nuclear strategy because. up to now. the Idea of shooting missiles down after they were launched has been deemed Impractical. More than a decade ago, the Soviet Union and the United States signed and ratified a treaty on "defeslve" straw sic weapons, then known as the Anti- Ballistic Missile Treaty. At the time many scientists regarded ballistic mis- sie systems asunworkable. At the time, the rationale for the treaty was seen as an acknowledge- meet by the two superpowers that there was essentially no defense against a on. dear attack. But many aspects felt that if one side acquired such an ability, it might then be tempted to strike that against the other, believing that it could defend itself In return. coo oae wane That' Tonight Mr. Reagan made an allusion to this danger, saying he recognized that "defensive systems" lead to "at- tain problems and ambiguities" and that "tbtlwan be viewed ea fostering an aggressive policy and no one wants that.,, At the White House briefing, a senior Administration official said Mr. Rs- gan's proposal to embark on research an defensive missile systems repre- sented no threat to the Russians. Nor did it violate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, he said, because that treaty barred the deployment, but not re- search and development. of such sys- tems. He said the United States would con, suit with its allies and with the Russian and thus deploying any pM rystem. that He nd Reagan's proposal aggressive tonight should not be eeemphasized that it might emphasized lead ever- hat arms reductions and lea reliance on a policy of "basing your security on threatadnjothen " The official said Mr. Reagan was aware that the Russians might fearChas the United States was seekins a "fint- strike" ability oy sesuu a oversaw system. "This is in no seise his eaten- tion,' the official said. The commit- ment tonight, he said, was for research to be completed by "the turn of the an- The bulk of Mr. Reagan's address was devoted to more familiar and less difficult to understand reviews of Soviet and United States military forty. Although the recent debate in Con. gress has been over whether to sub scribe to Mr. Reagan s request for a 10 percent Increase in military spending, as opposed to lesser increases, Mr. Rea- gan said the debate should not be "about spending arithmetic." He then challenged his opponents not to counter with lower percentages, bet to name Specific programs they would delete in cutting the military budget. Despite this challenge. he avoided some of the harsh oratory of the last week. He did not repeat his assertion that the Democratic proposals would bring ,Joy to the Kre,Alin, ? for example , WASHINGTON POST 24 MARCH 1983 Pg.15 Missile-Defense Plan Could Bring Breakthrough, Revive Debate By Michael Getler WNNnrlon Past SLt It Writer President Reagan's proposal to focus U.S. scientific skill on ways to shoot down Soviet missiles represents a bold gamble that could lead to a revolutionary military breakthrough or make his already contro- versial defense policies even more so. In announcing his plan last night for an all-out research program to see if "we could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies," Reagan sought to raise the notion that the wave of the future could he a shift from offensive to defensive weapons development. Such an idea could have some popular appeal. It could take some attention away from weapons of mass destruction, such as the new MX missile. It could also take some steam out of the nuclear freeze move- ment. It might make people feel more se- cure. the president noted last night. in that it offers an alternative to automatic and instant retaliation if Soviet missiles are fired. But Reagan's proposal also could reopen the bitter debate that flourished here in 1969 and 1970 over whether this country should try to build an anti-ballistic missile (ABM) defense system. In 1972 the United States and the Soviet Union finally signed a treaty allowing each country to build a defense around a single city or military base, and banning anything more. The United States did not even ac- tivate the one site allowed because it was widely assumed then that ABMs don't work and that the offense can always over- whelm the defense. The idea behind the ABM treaty was that defense was potentially dangerous and destabilizing because it might lead either superpower to think it could safely attack, then shoot down the other side's remaining missiles when it tried to retaliate. In short, t United States and Soviet Union agreed to leave their countries hostage so as to ensure that neither would strike first. In his speech last night Reagan acknowl- edged all the pitfalls. It is still not at all clear that missiles can be shot down, and it may take until the end of the century to figure out if it is possible. And, he said, "I clearly recognize that ... if paired with offensive systems, they [ABMs can be NEWS ANALYSIS viewed as fostering an aggressive policy, and no one wants that" Nevertheless, it is precisely those issues on which critics undoubtedly will focus: whether it will lead in the end to a breach of the ABM treaty and a potentially desta- bilizing quest by both superpowers for nu- clear superiority based on having a defense as well as an offense. Such an accelerated program is certain to be even more expensive than the $1 bil- lion already spent annually on such re- search. There will be charges that counter- measures can always be developed against any defense, and that the program is so long-range that another administration will probably stop it before it can produce much. On the other hand, Reagan has done something rare. He has launched a new technological crusade, not as specific as the REAGAN'S VISION Space-age defense to stop missiles Special for USA TODAY WASHINGTON - President Reagan proposed Wednesday a major shift in USA defense strategy: a new high technol- ogy system to destroy Incoming Soviet nuclear missiles. Reagan said the new system might change "the course of human history." But Sen. Ed- ward Kennedy, D-Mass., im- mediately called it a "reckless Star Wars scheme. In outlining the new defense system, Reagan: ^ Did not give specifics on how it would work or its cast. ^ Said development might not be completed by 2000. ^ Called for a massive scien- tific development effort slml- lar to A-bomb of the 1940s. USA policy currently is re- taliation - the Soviets know if they attack the USA, It has the weaevastate them race w utu ulWll, Out at least potentially important, to see if American technological prowess can achieve a radical shift in em- phasis that might "free the world from the threat of nuclear war," Because this project was launched from the White House, it is apt to be taken more seriously and to be more controversial than if it came from the Pentagon. Such a crusade is almost certain to rattle the Kremlin because it tends to emphasize American technological strength. Although the Soviets have always seemed more in- terested than the United States in ABM systems and have made a more vigorous research and de'velgpment effort, most technical experts believe that the Soviets do not have an appreciable lead on this country. Many technical specialists believe that if there were ever an ABM race the United States would win. The questions remain, however, of whether any system will really work and whether a country might miscal- culate and launch an atomic attack because it thinks, perhaps mistakenly, that its sys- tem will work. Henry Kendall, a physics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and chairman of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said last night that "the Soviet Union would not stand idly by while we deploy such a system that might effectively disarm them." Kendall suggested that the Soviets might even try to attack the system before it is completed. "It is a very provocative system, and a very dangerous nuclear arms race in space would result," he said. USA TODAY 24 March 1983 Pg. 1 White House officials my a- plan advanced a year ago by the conservative Heritage Foundation is the kind Reagan envisioned. It includes defensive mi - saes at existing USA mleelle al. fps: a network of 432 sateWtea, armed with heat-eeeking mfr; saes to destroy Soviet missiles soon after launch; and Betel, lites, able to destroy Soviet mfr saes in mid-bight DALLAS MORNING Reagan urges development NEWS 24 March 1983 of space defense program Page 1 By William J. Choyke Washington Bureau of The New WASHINGTON - President Reagan, sending a clear signal to the Soviet Union, suggested Wednesday night that the United States turn away from the nuclear policy of offensive deter- rence and accelerate research in exotic technol- ogy designed to knock out Soviet missiles in space. The president, who also exhibited pictures of Soviet intelligence and military facilities in the Caribbean as evidence of the growing Soviet threat, said the futuristic defense system is in- tended to destroy Soviet missiles in flight and render "these nuclear missiles impotent and ob- solete." Less than a half hour before his speech, geagan received a setback to his requested 9.5 pm o* incrpae in 1984 defense growth when the House approved a Democratic budget plan that called for cutting that increase in half. While he didn't dwell on his fight with Congress, he did ask the American people to urge their lawmakers to support his efforts "to restore our military strength." In a nationally televised speech, the presi- dent did not renounce the 11-year-old anti-ballis- tic missile treaty with the Soviets, but said that "defensive technologies" raise the greatest op- portunity to attain world peace. Currently, the United States has no missile defense system. Rather, the policy is designed to deter a Soviet first-strike by maintaining a sur- vivable, retaliatory strike force through land- based and sea and air launched nuclear missiles. Reagan said his proposal to undertake the splice defense program is intended to "achieve our ultimate goal of eliminating the threat posed by strategic nuclear missiles." "This could pave the way for arms control measures to eliminate the weapons themselves," he continued. "We seek neither military superl ority nor political advantage. Our only purpose- - one all people share - is to search for ways tO. reduce the danger of nuclear war." The suggestion, coming at a critical time in negotiations with the Soviets on both intermedi, ate and strategic missiles, conveys to the Soviets that without significant reductions in nuclear arms the United States would embark on an ex. pensive missile defense program. It also throws in question whether the ad. ministration will seek to renegotiate a speck treaty with the Soviets that expired last year, The treaty prohibited the stationing of anti-mis- sile weapons in space. Senior administration officials, who briefed' reporters before the speech under guidelines they not be identified, said the plan envisioned a "full complement" of microwave devices, laser beams, particle beams and projectile beams. They cautioned that such a system probably would not be ready until the 21st century. The administration officials said in the early years the advanced technology defense program would receive in the vicinity of $1 billion annu- ally. Although details have not been worked out, officials said the project would involve the scien. tific communities at the Pentagon, other govern- ment agencies and the private sector. Currently, the approximately $220 million budgeted for space defense programs is spent mostly on surveillance satellites, radar and in- formation-processing systems. An air-launched rocket that could be used to intercept Soviet "killer" satellites has been developed by Vought Corp. of Dallas, under an Air Force contract that dates back to 1977, but it is still being tested by the Air Force Space Division. The concept of the president's suggestion tracks a widely-publicized proposal issued last year by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington-based study group with strong ties to the administration. In its "High Frontier" re- port, the group said a space defense program of missile-killing satellites designed to detect and destroy Soviet ICBMs as they leave their silos would revolutionize U.S. strategic defense. Since the president has not made a specific proposal, it is uncertain what, if any, congres- sional approval he needs to embark on research and development. However, Sen. John Tower, the Texas Republican who directs the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the initiative "holds out a great deal of promise for future de- terrence of nuclear war and restoration of stabil- ity to the world." Reagan also resorted to charts and graphs to once again emphasize that the Soviet build-up has placed the United States in a precarious mili- tary situation. One photograph showed a Soviet intelligence field, complete with acres of an- tenna fields and monitors, in Cuba, less than 100 miles from the U.S. coast. Another picture portrayed a Cuban airfield and its complement of Soviet MIG23s while an- other showed a 10,000-foot runway built with So- viet backing on the tiny island of Grenada. While three of the four pictures had previously not been made public, they disclosed little that had not been publicly discussed before. Reagan Orders Search for U.S. Missile Defense Wants to Develop Technological Shield in Space Against Warheads to Replace Nuclear Deterrence WASHINGTON-Holding out the vision of an America no longer threatened by nuclear holocaust, President Reagan on Wednesday ordered the start of a long-term search for a missile defense system that would use space-age technolo. gy to intercept enemy warheads before they reached the United States. "Tonight we are launching an effort which holds the promise of changigg-lhe course of human his- tory," Reagan declared in a televi- sion broadcast aimed at rebuilding support for his embattled defense policies. The new approach, he said, "offers a new hope for our children in the 21st Century." Fundamentally, the President called for developing a technologi- cal shield against strategic missiles that would supplant the policy of relying on the relatiatory threat of ever-more-frightening nuclear weapons to deter attack. Far I. the Future Reagan acknowledged that such a defensive umbrella lies far in the future. "It will take years, probably decades, of effort on many fronts," he said, "to give us the means for rendering these (offensive) nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete." In the meantime, he asserted, the public must pressure Congress to support his $244.5-billion defense budget, which has run into deter- mined opposition on Capitol Hill. The House on Wednesday voted $9.3 billion less for defense than the President wants. To "stop in midstream," Reagan said, would "mortgage our ability to deter war and achieve genuine arms reductions. And we will send a signal of decline, of lessened will, to friends and adversaries alike." The President's call for develop- ment of a new strategic missile defense came unexpectedly, near the end of a speech in which he used previously classified intelligence photographs of Soviet military in- stallations in Central America and the Caribbean, including a huge Russian intelligence facility at Lourdes, Cuba, to demonstrate what he called the continuing expansion of Moscow's military might. After consultations with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Reagan said, he is "directing a comprehensive and in- tensive effort to define a long-term research and development pro- gram" to devise a non-nuclear mis- sile defense system based on weap- ons ranging from conventional shrapnel to sophisticated lasers." "What the President is trying to do," a senior White House official told reporters, "is open the door to the next century so we can get away from these hair-trigger missile systems." The official briefed re- porters on condition that he not be identified. In his speech, the President sought to reassure U.S. allies in Europe as well m the American people that he is a man of peace, who seeks both to reduce the threat of offensive nuclear weapons and to devise new defenses against them. He promised to report next week on negotiations with Moscow on arms-control talks. There is wide- spread expectation that, under pres- sure from Europe, Reagan will modify his present zero-option offer to forgo deployment of 572 new U.S. ballistic and cruise missiles on the Continent if the Soviets dismantle their more than 600 medium-range missiles. Oppwitlon Is Expected His call for intensified missile-de- fense research-which eventually will cost more than the $1 billion a year now being spent on such studies-could erode support in the United States for the nuclear freeze Pg. 1 movement and other such positions by offering hope that offensive weapons may one day be made out of date. But the Administration's push for missile defenses is certain to spark opposition from dedicated arms- control experts, some of whom have long feared that if either side has such a defense, pressure on the other aide to mount a surprise attack will be increased, not re- duced. The current Soviet-Ameri- can treaty limiting anti-ballistic. missiles to under 100 on each side is based on the belief that defensive missiles would be destabilizing to the nuclear balance. Reagan promised to comply with the ABM treaty, which presidential aides said does not prohibit the research and development effort he proposed. The Soviets have had a more ambitious effort of this kind, officials said, but have not achieved significant success. Reagan also said he recognizes "that defensive systems have limi- tations and raise certain problems and ambiguities. If paired with of- fensive systems," he said, "they can be viewed as fostering an aggres- sive policy, and no one wants that." But he proposed to proceed "boldly" with new technologies to- ward a missile defense system that would "end the specter of retalia- tion" and introduce "a truly lasting stability" in superpower relations. "I call upon the scientific commu- nity who gave us nuclear weapons to turn their great talents to the cause of mankind and world peace; to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete," he said. Precisely what kind of missile defense programs will be undertak- en is not known, senior Administra- tion officials said. "We have avoided endorsing a single potential tech- nology to pursue," one official said, "because there is not enough data yet." But he named "lasers, microwave (systems), particle beams, projec- tiles" among the existing concepts that will be candidates for future intensified study. Included among the projectiles to be studied would be missiles that would, upon exploding, create an umbrella of steel shrapnel or pellets SEARCH ORDERED ...Pg.9 Weinberger's apparent key role in Reagan's antimissile proposal By Jeffrey Antevil Reuter WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger apparently played a key role In bringing the idea of an antimissile system to President Ronald Reagan's at- NUW$ tention several weeks before the ANALYSIS President publicly embraced It. Administration officials who confirmed Weinberger's part in shaping the an- tiballistic missile proposal also said some senior advisers argued unsuccessfully against includ- ing It in Reagan's televised speech on defense issues Wednesday night. But the ABM debate did not simply pit the White House on one side against the Pentagon on the other. In fact, some Pentagon arms specialists have raised serious questions about the feasibility and cost of defending Americans against a Sovi- et missile attack. and conservative groups fear the Defense Department may be a major obsta- cle to the plan. Reagan told reporters yesterday the idea had been "kicking around In my mind for some time" and he brought it up at a meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff several weeks ago. But senior officials said the military chiefs had raised the subject at a meeting with Rea- gan. and Weinberger. who was present. knew in advance that they planned to do so. Asked if In fact the Joint Chiefs had taken their lead from the Weinberger, a Pentagon offi- cial replied: "Nothing comes out of here than doesn't have his imprimatur on it." Senior Administration officials who briefed reporters on the ABM plan said some presiden- tial aides had pointed out "shortcomings" of the SEARCH ORDERED... Continued through which incoming warheads would have to pass, tearing them- selves to shreds in the process. Lasers are beams of intense light that can quickly make a target so hot that its internal mechanisms fail. Particle beams are essentially "atom-smashers" that shoot neu- trons like tiny bullets into a target. Early missile-defense efforts,in- cluding the ABM system that now guards Moscow and the U.S. system that was designed but never built, contained hticlear warheads to ob- literate incoming missiles. Howev- er, the blast from such weapons would blind the defender's radar proposal and argued it might detract from an appeal for higher defense spending, which they viewed as the major purpose of the speech. Among the substantive Issues they raised was the likelihood of critics asserting that an ABM system would violate several treaties and would create the impression of abandoning US allies in favor of "a fortress America." But Reagan decided to go ahead with the speech. coupling his call for an intensive scienti- fic search for protection against nuclear mis- siles with a staunch defense of his proposed 1245-billion military spending budget for next year. Reagan tried in his speech to answer criti- cism in advance, denying that research on an ABM system without actually deploying one would violate treaty obligations and strongly reaffirming the US commitment to deter a nu- clear attack on the allies. The charge of violating treaties, including the 1972 ABM pact, was duly registered after the speech, by the Soviet news agency Tass among others. but most domestic criticism fo- cused on Reagan's call for a military buildup to match Moscow's "margin of superiority" rather than on the ABM Proposal. In the official Democratic response to the speech, Sen. Daniel Inouye of Hawaii said: "The President attempted to instill fear in the hearts of the American people, to raise the specter of a Soviet armed nuclear attack and to divert our attention from the dismal failure of his economic policies. "Indeed, he left the impression that the Unit- ed States is at the mercy of the Soviet Union," Inouye said, adding: "Most respectfully, Mr. President, you know that is not true." and other electronic measures against further use and would cause numerous casualties on the ground. But non-nuclear ABM schemes also have serious drawbacks, such as being unable to tell the difference between real and decoy warheads as they arrive. Ground-based lasers would lose too much power as the beam penetrated the atmosphere. Particle beam weapons would re- quire energy comparable to the output of the Grand Coulee Dam. according to some defense scien- tists. The easiest interception of an enemy missile would take place as it rose from its launching pad, when its rocket exhausts could be tracked and before its multiple warheads separated. WASHINGTON POST '24 March 1983 P .1 President seeks Futuristic Defense Against Missiles Speech Says Soviets Building An Offensive Military Force* By Lau Cannon W:'bingwn Post shall Wnlrt President Reagan last night called for a futuristic re- search and development effort aimed at providing a space or ground-based defense against Soviet intercon- tinental ballistic missiles by the end of the century. A senior administration official said that the proposal, which was designed to dramatize the president's call for nuclear arms reductions, would take "decades to reach fruition," but Reagan described it as "an effort which holds the promise of changing the course of human his- tory,. "We seek neither military superiority nor political ad- vantage," Reagan said. "Our only purpose-one all people share-is to search for ways to reduce the danger of nit- clear war." The president did not discuss any specific arms reduc- tion proposals in his nationally televised speech, which was devoted mostly to the theme that the Soviets were building "an offensive military force" that could be used to attack the United States or its European allies. But Reagan said that he would give his views on this issue on March 31, when he is expected in a Los Angeles speech to propose an interim plan for reducing but not eliminating intermediate-range nuclear weapons in Eu rope. In his speech last night, Reagan warned that "true ,yo. viets have built up a massive arsenal of new strategic nuclear weapons-weapons that can strike directly at tfa United States." He also contended that the Soviets have extended their power to the Western' Hemisphere with installs Lions in Cuba and the Caribbean island nation- of Grenada and with mt'Iftary aid to Nicaragua. "They are spreading their military influence W ways that an directly our vital hverests and those of our allies," the president - said. Administration offw a'a~t acknowledged that the pres- ident's speech was at* carefully to coincide with the congressional debate on his defense budget. The speech was cast so that it focu d not on the increases m mil- itary spending that Reagan is requesting but on the na- ture of the Soviet threat. Reagan illustrated his tank With graphs showing the dimensions of the Soviet buildup and with`aerial photo. graphs-some of them classified until last night--which purported to show Soviet-ighter planes and intelligence headquarters in Cuba, Soviet weaponry in Nicaragua and a new airplane runway in Grenada. The Niatttgule photo had been made public previously. '"These pictures only tell a small part of the story." Reagan said. "I wish I could show you more without torn. promising our most sensitive intelligence sources amt methods. But the Soviet Union is also supporting Cuban military farces in Angola and Ethiopia They have base." in Ethiop~a'end South Yemen near the Persian Gulf oil Fields 17th 14ve taken over the port we built at Cam Ranh Bay hi Vietnam, and now, for the first time in his- tory, the Soviet navy is a force to be reckoned with in the South Pacific." Reagan asked rhetorically whether the Soviets would ever use "their formidable mil- itary power," and answered his own question by saying: "Well, again, can we afford to be- lieve they won't? There is Afghanistan, and in Poland, the Soviets denied the will of the people and, in so doing, demonstrated to the world how their military power could also be used to intimidate." Reagan also suggested that the Soviets were willing to wage a nuclear war, saying that "they have continued to build far more intercontinental ballistic missiles than they could possibly need simply to deter an at- tack." An administration official said that the televised speech, which has been under die- moon in the White House for several weeks, was an attempt by the president to "regain the political offensive" on the defense idle -un r me aminiuratraf Yaw a steady decline ofpublle support for the pen- itent's defense stand, with a majority of Americans favoring reductions in the mili- tary budget. Reagan referred obliquely to the growing opposition to his defense policies, and in the ;process criticized advocates of a nuclear freeze, an issue that will be voted on in the House after the Easter recess. '" .. A freeze now would make ue Was, not more, secure, and would raise, not re- duce , the risks of war," Reagan said. "It would be largely unverifiable and would se- riously undercut our negotiation on arms reduction." In a White House briefing Wore the pres- ident's speech, administration officials were vague on the details of Meagan's call for "a comprehensive and intensive effort to define a llo ng-tebrmmmresearch and development pro- Y7iminatinegtiie p od'ity nc o Wear missiles." Reagan: USA needs defense buildup Special for USA TODAY WASHINGTON - President Reagan Wednesday defended his $1.5 trillion, five-year de- fense buildup, saying the USA must remain strong while try- ing to end the arms race. Reagan's network TV speech was aimed at justifying current massive Pentagon bud- gets and at showing he is pursu- ing an eventual end to the nu- clear arms race. But even as Reagan pre- pared to give the speech, the Democratic-controlled House was rejecting the basic call for increased military spending. By a vote of 229 to 196, it 9P proved a 1984 budget that would trim the defense buildup by $30 billion. Also, Democratic congres- sional leaders asked the televi- sion networks for equal time to respond to Reagan. The president bolstered his argument by using some previ- ously secret photographs of a PRESIDENT... Continued About $1 billion is currently being spent such efforts by the United States, officials and even greater amounts by the Soviet pion. Officials said that if scientists respond to Qs:preaident's call they would expect to pro- pose budget increases within the current fis- cal year, but gave no estimates on the degree of any stepped-up effort. They said that the expenditures would be consistent with the anti-ballistic missile (ASM) treaty with the Soviets, which ex- pressly permits spending for research and development. The officials dismissed ques- fbnsthat such defensive measures might be destabilizing because they would encourage a Superpower to launch a first nuclear strike, believing they could stop the other side's missiles. But in his speech, Reagan expressed gen- eralized concern about the problems associ ated with an ABM system. "I clearly recognize that defensive systems have limitations and raise certain problems and ambiguities," Reagan said. "If paired with offensive systems, they can be viewed as fostering an aggressive policy and no one wants that." Last night's speech was carefully orches- trated by White House officials, who have become sensitive both about news leaks and about prior lack of coordination in admin- Soviet intelligence-gathering facy In Cuba, the Soviet mis- sile buildup there and in Nica- ragua and an airbase under construction in Grenada. The Soviet arms in Cuba, he said, "can only be compared" to the buildup there during the Cuban missile crisis two de- cades ago. Such actions, he warned, mean the Soviets "are spreading their military influ- ence in ways that can directly challenge our vital interests." The president Insisted that the Soviets have "demonstrat- tary power could be used to in- to "ignore our duty -and blindly timidate," and are arming not hope for the best while the ene- Just for self-defense but to en- mien of freedom grow stronger able "sudden, surprise offen- day by day" sives" against others. In defense of his military The president's call for a buildup, Reagan said Pentagon new defense policy, his aides spending has already been said, would not change his In- "trimmed to the limits of safe- tentlon to negotiate amts re- ductions now re e P paaiuon with the Sovi ls try behind t titration efforts'to present the military bud- get in a positive light. On Tuesday, network correspondents were informed that taeie would be "major news" in the speech 1a}t night, news that was de- liberately kept both from communications director David R. Gergen and White House spokesman Larry Speakes. Yesterday, the president's call fqr the research and devel- epment on ABM seas then carefully leaked to some of the same correspondents in an effort to get some, but not all, of the story told on the evening newscasts. The White House also invited past digni- taries, as well as prominent nuclear scien- tiefa, for dinner in the State Dining Room. The list of those who attended included four former secretaries of defense, four former national security advisers and two former secretaries of state, among them Alexander M. Haig Jr. But the most prominent invited guest, Henry A. Kissinger, did not come, m rid the two secretaries of state in the Carter administration, Cyrus R. Vance, and Ed- namd S. Muslde. House Speaker Thomas P. (Tip) O'Neill Jr. (D-Mare.) and Senate Minority Leader Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) issued a joint statement describing the speech as directed st the defense budget, rather than national security. They asked the major networks for air time to reply. ty and that further cub would "endanger the security" of the The speech, to be followed support Reagan's P~ but USA, next week by a proposal for a publicly aid In the White House He warned of the temptation new amts antrol negotiating lobbying effort to get the coun- sident h USA TODAY of a campaign to enlist support for the administration's nation- al security Program. Reagan invited a sting of former defense, national secu- rity and military officials to the White House Wednesday. The White House hope Is that those officials will not only WASHINGTON TIMES 24 March 1983 Pg.1 Reagan calls for a `total defense' vB y Biall Kl OM 88TVF President Reagan last night pro- posed a sweeping United States sci- entific and technological program to develop a new totally defensive weapons system to"intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies:' Development of such a system, expected to take the rest of this century, would free the United States of reliance solely on the threat of an offensive retaliatory missile strike to deter a strategic Soviet nuclear attack, the president said. Calling the program "a vision of the future which offers hope" for peaceful resolution of the nuclear arms race, Reagan suggested to a national television audience that the United States "turn to the very strengths in technology that spawned our great industrial base and that have given us the quality of life we enjoy today." While Reagan's remarks, deliv- ered from the Oval Office in the White House, were not specific on the type of technology he had in mind, senior administration offi- cials told reporters the list could include laser and microwave sys- tems and particle and projectile beams, both space- and earth- based. Reagan's speech, which a senior White House official earlier in the day said would "launch a new ini- tiative in American strategic policy that offers a hope for dra- matically reducing the possibility of nuclear conflict over the long term:' underscored administra- tion efforts to win congressional approval of more defense spending in the face of a marked increase in Soviet military and strategic power. The president made public newly declassified' high-altitude photographs showing a huge Soviet intelligence-gathering installation in Cuba, Soviet military equipment ii Nicaraugua and a modern Soviet-financed airfield under con- struction in Grenada as evidence of Soviet expansion in the Western Hemisphere. Reagan said his proposed defense budget now before Con- gress "has been trimmed to the limits of safety;' and that "deep cuts cannot be made without seri- ously endangering the security of the nation." "The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights:" Reagan said. "We will never be an aggressor. We maintain out strength in order to deter and defend against aggres- sion - to preseve freedom and peace." The president noted that the United States and the Soviet Union are engaged in arms reduction talks in Geneva. "If the Soviet Union will join with us in our effort to achieve major arms reduction, we will have succeeded in stabilizing the nuclear balance:' he said. "Never. theless it will still be necessary to rely on the specter of retaliation- on mutual threat - and that is a sad commentary on the human condi- tion. "Would it not be better to save lives than to avenge them? Are we not capable of demonstrating our peaceful intentions by applying all our abilities and our ingenuity to achieving a truly lasting stability? I think we are - indeed, we must! Asserting that he has discussed his new initiative with his security advisers, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Reagar acknowledged that it "is a formida- ble technical task, one that may not be accomplished before the end of this century." "Yet:' he said, "current technol- ogy has attained a level of sophisti- cation where it is reasonable for us to begin this effort. It will take years, probably decades, of effori on many fronts. There will be fail. ures and setbacks just as there will be successes and breakthroughs. And as we proceed we must remain constant in preserving the nuclear deterrent and maintaining a solid capability for flexible response. But is it not worth every invest- ment necessary to free the world from the threat of nuclear war?" At a White House press briefing before the speech, senior admin- istration officials declined to spec- ulate on how much money the development of such a new defen- sive system would cost, nor would they set limits on the scope or type of technological approaches to the development, rather giving the American scientific community free rein in dealing with Reagan's challenge. The officials did not rule out a defensive weapons system such as High Frontier, a proposed network of satellites capable of intercept- ingany missiles fired on the United States. It (High Frontier) is a concept to look at;' one official said. While Reagan appeared on tele- vision, his speech was watched in the president's White House resi- dence by members of his Cabinet and a number of former ranking government officials of his and earlier administrations of both parties. They included former Defense Secretaries Clark Clifford, Elliot Richardson and Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretaries of State Wil- liam Rogers and Alexander Haig, and former presidential national security advisers McGeorge Bundy, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Richard Allen. Deputy White House Press Sec- retary tarry Speakes said invita- tions were made to former Secretaries of State Henry Kis- singer, Cyrus Vance, Dean Rush and Edmund Muskie, but all could not attend. The President and his shift o new defense William Beecher lobe Staff WASHINGTON - In essence. President Ronald Reagan says he would like to rely more on Buck _ Rogers and less on NEWS Dr. Strangelove to ANALYSIS protect the United States from nuclear attack. Since the Soviet Union acquired strategic weapons. the United States has premised its defense on a threat of massive reteltation if the Russians launcher nuclear war against this country of against its NATO allies. In the argot of strategic plan- ners. this is called "assured de- struct ion," meaning that attacking the United States or its allies would guarantee the destruction of much of the attacker's society. But last night Reagan an- nounced an ambitious, long-term scientific effort to see whether exot- ic new defense technologies might hold promise of destroying incom- Ing nuclear weapons, allowing a shift of emphasis to strategic de- fense. Senior officials at the White louse said this would include such Qtings as high energy lasers and particle beam weapons, technol- ogies the Soviets are known to be "eking on, too. "Up until now," the President geid, "we have increasingly based our strategy of deterrence upon the threat of retaliation. "But what If free people could live secure in the knowledge that their security did not rest upon the threat of instant US retaliation ... that we could Intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before tjtey reached our own soil or that of our allies?" Reagan conceded this repre- gents a "formidable" task which might not produce working sys- *Fms "before the end of this cen- sspry.- But he insisted he was deter- mined to try to break the cycle of reliance on ever more devastating 6' fensive systems to deter war. Senior aides insisted the Presi- dent has been itching to find a way of de-emphasizing offensive sys- tems since he came to office. and only last month was encouraged by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to place significant new emphasis on ad- vanced.defensive technology. Certainly at a time when both the nuclear freeze movement in the United States and the antimissile movement in Western Europe are questioning whether Reagan is really sincere about arms control and whether he might be contem- plating under certain circum- stances waging nuclear war. last night's surprising focus on a major new effort at strategic defense is probably good politics. Whether it will lead to good new strategic systems and doctrine will be determined well after Reagan has left the Presidency. The President also hinted last night that in one week's time he' will make an important announce- ment on nuclear arms control. It is understood he will make a speech in Los Angeles on March 31 an- nouncing an intention to offer a compromise proposal seeking an interim agreement on medium range missiles in Europe. Senior officials, In background- Ing reporters before the speech. said the United States is currently spending on the order of $1 billion annually on a whole range of de- fensive technologies, ranging from antiballistic missiles to lasers and particle beams. These latter tech- nologies are known as directed en- ergy weapons. The Soviets, the offi- cials said, have an even larger overall program in these areas. For years there had been a rous- ing debate within the defense and Intelligence communities on how big and how successful were the Soviet programs in such far-out fields and whether the United States should move from basic re- search into weapons applications. Apparently the debate has now been resolved in terms of taking the Russian effort very seriously and deciding on a greater serious- ness on America's part. In the report on Soviet military power released by the Pentagon earlier this month, the Russians were said to be working on "a very large. directed energy research pro- gram including the development of laser-beam weapons systems which could be based either in the USSR, aboard the next generation of Soviet [antisatelllte weapons' or aboard the next generation of Sovi- et manned space stations." The report said further that a prototype space-based laser system to attack American space satellites could be launched in the late 1980s or "very early" 1990s. An oper- ahunal system wouldn't be far be- hind, it was claimed. "Space-based (antiballistic mis- sile) systems could be tested in the 1990s, but probably would not be operational until the turn of the century." the Pentagon said. The report was prepared by the Defense Intelligence Agency but was con- curred in by the Central Intelli- gence Agency, officials said at the time it was released. Reagan said he was calling on the nation's best scientists and en- gineers "to give us the means of rendering [offensive] nuclear weap- ons impotent and obsolete." He insisted that success In this effort could "pave the way for arms control measures to eliminate" strategic offensive missiles and bombers. The President, In a seeming aside, said he recognized the poten- tial hazard that if one side develops an effective defense, in combina- tion with a strong offense this could be seen as threatening by the Soviet Union. He insisted, however, that he had no Intention of foster- ing with such a combination of weapons an "aggressive." destabi- lizing policy. President Asks New Anti-Missile Research That Would Make NuclearArms `Obsolete' By WALTER S. MossORRG Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREn JOURNAL WASHINGTON-Scrambling to save his arms buildup in Congress, President Reagan said military spending is the key to peace and called for new anti-ballistic missile re- search to eventually make nuclear weapons "obsolete." In a nationally televised address that came a half hour after the House voted a deep cut in his defense spending plan for fis- cal 1984, the president combined a tradi- tional recital of the need for more arms with some unconventional elements. He buttressed his remarks with declassi- fied spy-plane photos showing what were de- scribed as Soviet-built military installations in the Caribbean, including a huge Russian eavesdropping station in Cuba that Mr. Rea- gan said was built to spy on the U.S. These and other exhibits were designed to show that the threat from Moscow is severe and must be met. The president urged his viewers to tell your senators and congressmen that you know we must continue" the Pentagon buildup. Calls for New Weapon By far the most surprising element of the address was Mr. Reagan's call for American scientists to begin "a comprehensive effort" to develop futuristic, non-nuclear devices that could destroy Soviet missiles aimed at the U.S. -1 call upon the scientific community in our country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace to give us the means of rendering those nu- clear weapons impotent and obsolete," he said. Administration officials told reporters before the speech that the president had In mind exotic devices such as lasers or "beam" weapons, possibly based in space, that might be ready around the year 2000. The president stressed the visionary na- ture of his appeal, saying it could change "human history." But administration aides conceded it had a baser political purpose as well: to defuse the nuclear freeze movement by offering a long-term plan to end the use of nuclear weapons. Administration strategists hope that by building new public concern about the Soviet threat, while simultaneously holding out hope of ending the need for nuclear arms, the president can rally enough support to re- verse his loss in the House when the Senate votes on the budget. However, Mr. Reagan's drive to rekindle public support for his military policy comes late in a public relations game he has been losing for months. Most public-opinion polls show wide ma- jorities believe Pentagon spending has been increased enough already. And even many Republicans in Congress oppose the presi- dent's call for a 10% increase in military funding, after inflation, in fiscal 1984, which starts next Oct. 1. The House voted him just a 4% increase and the Senate has seemed headed for only a 5% rise. Plans Arms Control Speech The White House expects to keep punch- ing away, however. A week from today, Mr. Reagan said, he will make another speech, this one on arms control. In that address, he is expected to offer a compromise plan for reducing medium- range nuclear missiles in Europe. The new plan, officials say, Is likely to be offered as an "interim" step toward eliminating the missiles altogether, as Mr. Reagan pro- posed. The plan probably would allow 75 to Ito such missiles on each side, as favored by European leaders. Moscow has rejected the U.S. call for total elimination. In addition, the administration plans a barrage of news briefings and speeches on defense In coming weeks. As part of its selling campaign, the White House invited in and fed several former high foreign-policy officials, who also met briefly with Mr. Reagan. Among the guests were former Secretaries of State William Rogers and Alexander Haig; former Defense Secre- taries Clark Clifford, Elliot Richardson and Donald Rumsfeld, and former National Se- curity Advisers McGeorge Bundy, Zbignlew Brzezinski and Richard Allen. Mr. Reagan's cabinet members and the Joint Chiefs of Staff also were there. The riskiest part of the effort, politically, could be the president's bold but vague call for a national drive to develop a whole new class of anti-ballistic missile weapons. Administration officials told reporters that the idea is to gradually abandon the 35- year-old philosophy of deterring a nuclear attack by threatening to destroy the U.S.S.R. in retaliation. Instead, they said, the president hopes to rely in 20 years or so on attacking only the enemy missiles them- selves. This idea, they said, has been developed by Mr. Reagan personally over the last two years as he has become convinced that "there must be a better way" to defend the U.S. The president was moved to propose the plan formally, they said, after a similar ap- proach was urged on him last month by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who were reacting to the failure to find an acceptable way to base the MX missile. Defense Policy Debate At its best, the proposal allows the presi- dent to assume the high road in defense de- bate, arguing that defense is better than of- fense and that the prospect of new antimis- sile systems could spur the U.S.S.R. towards real arms control. White House strategists hope this prospect of a fundamentally less dangerous defense system can increase pub- lic willingness to go along with the arms buildup for now. But the proposal could further fuel the national debate over defense policy. The White House expects that some critics will charge that the plan could set off a new round in the arms race, in which many bil- lions would be invested by both sides to per- fect space-based lasers that could disarm the other. A less exotic anti-missile race was avoided in the 1970s when the U.S. and U.S.S.R. signed a treaty limiting each side to 100 anti-ballistic missiles at a single site. The U.S. built such a site at a missile base in North Dakota, but then closed it down. The U.S.S.R. still has a system ringing Mos- cow, but the Penatagon views it as ineffec- tive. The White House stressed that Its long- range research effort wouldn't violate the treaty. And the officials who briefed report. ers refused to estimate how much more money would have to be added to the Penta. gon's current billion-dollar-a-year anti-mis- sile research budget to finance Mr. Rea- gan's new drive. Administration officials, and the presi- dent himself, took pains to head off another criticism they expect: that perfection of an anti-missile system could increase the risk of war by allowing one nation or the other to carry out a first strike nuclear attack with impunity. The officials said that wouldn't happen, because offensive nuclear weapons would be retired gradually, probably under an arms control pact, as workable anti-missile de- vices were produced. Reagan offers defense-based nuclear `vision' By Robert Timberg Washington Bureau of The Sun Washington - President Reagan, projecting what he called "a vi- sion of the future that offers hope," last night proposed a broad, gauged technological effort to replace offensive nuclear weapons with an impenetrable defensive curtain by the turn of the century or shortly thereafter. If successful he said in is nationally televised address to the nation, the U.S. might be able to abandon its three-decade-long strategy of nu- clear retaliation. Instead of depend, ing on the "specter of retaliation," he said, U.S. strategy in the Twenty-first Century might be based on an array of futuristic weapons still to be devel- oped that could intercept and destroy nuclear missiles before they reached their targets. For the present, however, he said the U .S. must continue its arms build- up, and urged citizens to tell theb senators and congressmen to resist attempts to scale back his proposed 1984 defense budget. "The budget request that is now before Congress has been trimmed to the limits of safety," he said. "Fur they deep cuts cannot be made with- out seriously endangering the securi- ty of the nation. The choice is up to the men and women you have elected to the Congress - and that means the choice is up to you." Democratic congressional leaders, upon receipt of an advance text of the speech, fired off a telegram to the tel- evision networks demanding equal time to respond to the president, pos- sibly as early as tonight. They said they were doing so be- cause the president's speech was not directed primarily at national securi- ty matters, but congressional consid- eration of his 1984 budget request. Mr. Reagan spoke less than an hour after the Democrat-controlled House, on a vote of 229-198, defied his harsh rhetoric of the last several days and passed a budget blueprint mat would cut his request for a 10 percent increase in military growth by more than half. Administration aides insisted that the speech had not been timed to coin- cide with the House vote, but it clear- ly was meant to strengthen the presi- dent's hand in the Republican Senate, which has been talking of slashing de- fense nearly as much as the House. Earlier in his address, Mr. Rea- gan, armed with secret intelligence information and aerial photographs declassified for the occasion, argued that the Soviets are "spreading their military influence in ways that can directly challenge our vital interests and those of our allies." One photograph purported to show a 28-square-mile Soviet intelligence collection facility in Lourdes, Cuba, which Mr. Reagan said was manned by 1,500 Soviet technicians and was "the largest of its kind in the world." He also said the level of Soviet ex- ports to Cuba during the last two years "can only be compared to the levels reached during the Cuban mis- sile crisis 20 years ago." The president did not back away from his zero-zero option proposal for complete elimination of medium- range nuclear missiles in Europe, but said he would address that issue next week. He did hint at some flexibility on pg. 1 that score, however. And the Associ- ated Press reported that he would an- nounce March 31 in Los Angeles that an interim cutback - something short of zero-zero - is the only practical way to stop the Soviets from adding to the more than 606 missiles now targeted on North At- lantic Treaty Organization allies. The president continued to argue against a nuclear freeze, saying a freeze now would leave the U.S. With a nuclear force rapidly growing obso- lete at a time when the Soviets have greatly modernized theirs. "It would reward the Soviets for their massive military buildup while preventing us from modernizing our aging and increasingly vulnerable forces," he said. Mr. Reagan, in embracing the con- cept of a defensive strategy, urged scientists to embark on a long-term research and development program for new defensive technologies that eventually could lead to the outright elimination of strategic nuclear weapons. "I call upon the scientific commu- nity who gave us nuclear weapons to turn their great talents to the cause of mankind and world peace," he said, "to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete." As a first step toward achieving his goal of replacing nuclear retalia- tion with an impenetrable defensive curtain, Mr. Reagan said he was di- recting a comprehensive and inten- sive effort to determine how to attack the problem. Mr. Reagan's address, which was heavily promoted in advance by ad- ministration aides, contained few it any specifics on the kinds of new weapons he had in mind. Senior administration officials however, briefing reporters befon the speech, said such weapons proba bly would incorporate laser technolo gy, microwave devices and particle beams, possibly even defensive arma- ments deployed in space. The aides also maintained that the "strategic vision" Mr. Reagan ad- vanced last night would not conflict with the 1972 treaty that limited the U.S. and the Soviet Union to a single site each for antiballistic missiles. To underscore the seriousness of his proposal, and possibly to recruit some high-powered advocates to his cause, Mr. Reagan invited a biparti- san group of former secretaries of LONG ISLAND NEWSDAY 24 MARCH 1983 Pg. 15 Space Defense Poses Many Questions By Roy Gutman Newsday Washington Bureau Washington - President Reagan's proposal to develop futuristic antimissile weapons sounds like something out of a Buck Rogers fantasy but probably has its roots among conservative defense strategists who favor developing a "High Frontier" for space-based systems. Retired generals Daniel 0. Graham and George Keegan have warned for many yeah that the Soviet Union was developing space-based laser and parti- cle beams and urged the United States to develop similar weapons. Up tonow, Graham, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, and Kee- gan, former chief of Air Force intelli- gence, have not been taken seriously by successive administrations. It was not immediately clear last night why Reagan decided to embrace some of their ideas in a speech ostensibly written to win con- gressional backing for his defense bud- get One reason may be the increasing advocacy for proposals to develop defen- sive weapons by another conservative strategic thinker, Edward Teller, often called the "father of the H-bomb." In a recent speech, Teller, who was at the White House last night, hinted that scientists at American weapons labora- tories had come up with some significant new proposals for such defensive sys- tems. He said the schemes were techni- cally feasible but he was unable to go into any detail because the information was classified. If the administration decides on a pro- gram in the next few months, as a senior official told reporters last night it would, it will have to win funds from a Congress shandy skeptical about the logic under- lying Reagan's defense build-up. Reagm's last novel weapons proposal, the dense-pack basing scheme for the M missile, was unveiled in November and killed the following month in Congress. Questions are bound to be raised about the implications of futuristic weapons for the arms race and arms con- trol as well as whether the technology can be developed, and at what cost. Officials last night listed four poten. tial weapons: projectile beams, which could amount to small pellets being fired et a target; particle beams, involving subatomic particles or atoms; lasers and microwave devices. Each has its techno- logical promise, each its problems. One major problem is the energy in- put needed to power any one of the sys- tems. A particle beam or laser system based in space and with adequate capac- ity to halt a Soviet nuclear attack would require in six minutes "as much energy as the State of West Virginia uses in one year," according to nuclear physicist John Parmentola, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Pittsburgh. Parmentola, coauthor of articles on the subject in Scientific American and Nature, the British science magazine, said last night any space-based system would be "very expensive, very compli- cated. I'd put it in the same category as building an atomic-powered airplane." A different sort of question is what strategies the Soviets would develop to counter U.S. defensive systems. Some scientists have suggested as simple a trick as coating a missile with a highly reflective material might be sufficient to counter or weaken a laser attack. Others have said the firing of decoy warheads could defeat any space-based system. If the history of the nuclear arms race is any example, the Soviet Union is like- ly to try tomatch the United States and develop its own arsenal of futuristic weapons. One question asked repeatedly by re- porters at a briefing last night was this: 11 the United States was first to acquire a defensive weapons system and kept its offensive nuclear missiles, would this not give the U.S. the ability to deliver a Imock-out first strike against the Soviet Union while remaining immune from a Soviet counter-attack? Senior officials said fast-strike capa- bility absolutely was not President Rea- gan's intention, Left unstated was the military verity that threats posed by ad- versaries are ordinarily assessed by ca- pabilities, not intentions. The President said that in developing the new technology, the United States would act in a manner consistent with existing arms control treaties, such as the 1972 accord limiting anti-ballistic missile defense. He also said that devel- oping such a futuristic system would give an added incentive to the Soviet Union to negotiate arms reductions. Without a specific proposal in hand, there is no way of knowing whether it would violate the anti-ballistic-missile treaty, experts say. Ae to giving an add- ed incentive for arms control talks, the counter-argument is bound to be made that development of such weapons as a high national priority is just as likely to give a new incentive to the arms race. state and defense, as well as ex-na- tional security advisers, to the White House last night for a briefing and dinner in the state dining room. Mr. Reagan employed a total of four aerial photographs of sites in Central America and the Caribbean, all but one declassified for last night's speech, to make his points about Sovi- et expansionism. In addition to the intelligence fa- cility in Cuba, they showed, according to Mr. Reagan: A military airfield in western Cuba and its complement of Soviet- built MG-23 aircraft. "The Soviet Union uses this Cuban airfield for its own long-range reconnaissance mis- sions and, earlier this month two modem Soviet antisubmarine war fare aircraft began operating from it," Mr. Reagan said. An airfield in Marxist Nicaragua showing Soviet military hardware "that has made its way into Central America." Mr. Reagan said the site was "one of a number of military facilities in Nicaragua that has received Soviet equipment funneled through Cuba, and reflects the massive military buildup going on in that country." An airfield on the tiny Caribbean island of Grenada, 1,000 miles south- east of Cuba, where the 4-yearold pro-Cuban government is building a 10,000-foot runway with Soviet fi- nancing. "Grenada doesn't even have an air force," Mr. Reagan said. "Who is it [the landing strip] intended for?" Reagan calls for `Star Wars' technology By Jerome R. Watson Sur-Times Bureau WASHINGTON-President Reagan committed the nation Wednesday to de- veloping futuristic defense systems such as lasers and particle beams that might be placed in orbit to destroy Soviet missiles in flight. In his second nationally televised ad- dress on defense in four months, Reagan called on the nation's scientific community to join in evolving the new technologies as a step toward reducing the risk of nuclear war and eventually making possible the elimination of strategic ballistic missiles. Reagan's proposal for developing a "Star Wars"-like technology during the next sev- eral decades was coupled with an urgent defense of his military budget, which is under heavy attack on Capitol Hill but which he said already has been "trimmed to the limits of safety." "Further, deep cuts cannot be made without seriously endangering the security of this nation," Reagan said. But the House late Wednesday adopted a Democratic budget resolution that would substantially trim Reagan's proposed de- fens buildup. The action is likely to weaken Reagan's bargaining power in the Senate, where the issue will come up next., Using charts and newly declassified aeri- al spy-camera photographs, Reagan sought to document his contention that the Soviet Union is increasingly projecting its mili- tary power around the globe as it develops a massive offensive force. Reagan displayed photon of a Soviet intelligence-collection facility and military airfield in Cuba, and another of a large airfield on the leftist Caribbean island of Grenada. A fourth photo, previously publi- cized, showed Soviet military equipment at an airfield in Nicaragua. Reagan also decried-but in more con- ciliatory language than he sometimes has used-the movement for a U.S.- Soviet "freeze" on nuclear weap- ons. He said a freeze would in- crease, not reduce, the risk of war because it would be unverifiable, reduce Soviet incentives to reach an arms accord and prevent the Unit..d States from modernizing those of its nuclear forces that are inferior to the Soviets'. The dramatic proposal for new anti-missile technologies, which he conceded would take decades to reach fruition, appeared de- signed in part to project an image of Reagan as devoted to peace and ultimate demilitarization of the world at the same time he is insisting on a major upgrading of U.S. military forces. IT ALSO MAY have been in- tended to deflect critics who in-, silt that with the MX missile. Reagan is seeking to develop a first-strike capability for the United States-that is, the power to wipe out Soviet missiles sitting in hardened silos. Senior administration officials who briefed reporters on the vague proposal for developing the new anti-missile defenses said more than a dozen technologies show promise of evolving into anti-missile defense systems. They said funds for a stepped-up research-and-development pro- gram probably will be requested in the next fiscal year. The officials said the research- and-development program would not violate the existing antibal- listic missile treaty with the Sovi- ets, which limits the anti-missile defenses each sidecan deploy. In announcing the proposal, Reagan said: "I know that this is. a formidable technical task, yet one that may not be accom- plished before the end of this century. Yet, current technology has attained a level of sophistica- tion where it is reasonable for us to begin-this effort It will take years, probably decades, of effort on many fronts." But, he said, "This could pave the way for arms control mea- sures to eliminate thp: weapoM themselves' He also said he will deliver an address March 31 in Los Angeles on efforts to reach an agreement with the Soviets on intermediate- range missiles in Europe. Admin- istration officials said Reagan will modify his "zero option" that asks the Soviets to dismantle missiles in exchange for a U.S. pledge not to go ahead late this year with deployment of Pershing II and cruise missiles in Europe. The administration has been under pressure from Western Eu- ropean allies to modify its pro- posal, in part to demonstrate its commitment to reaching an agreement with the Soviets. In arguing for his military bud- get, Reagan sharply denounced its more vociferous critics. He said that "those loud voices ... are nothing more than noise based on ignorance." He said: "Anyone in the Con- gress who advocates a percentage or specific dollar cut in defense spending should be made to say what part of our defenses he would eliminate, and he should be candid enough to acknowledge that his cuts mean cutting our commitments to allies or inviting greater risk or both." Conceding that it is hard to ask for major increases in defense spending in a recession, Reagan said: "But we must not be misled by those who would make de? fense once again the scapegoat of the federal budget." HE SAID THE tragedy of World War Il'was invited by the democracies neglecting their de- fenses. "We must not let that grim chapter of history repeat itself through apathy or neglect," he said. Reagan said curtailment of his defense program would "mort- gage our ability to deter war and achieve genuine arms reductions. And we will send a signal of decline, of lessened will, to friends and adversaries alike." He urged viewers to signal Congress of their support for his defense buildup, which seeks a 10 percent increase, after inflation, in military outlays for fiscal 1984 , ' The Democratic i proposal adopted by the House just before Reagan spoke calls for .a 4 per- cent rate of growth, while many Republicans and some Democrats in Congress favor a figure some- where in between. Also before Reagan spoke, Democratic congressional leaders asked the three major television networks to give them equal time to respond. House Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill (Mass.) and Senate Mi- nority Leader Robert C. Byrd (W.Va.) made the request for CONTINUED NEXT PAGE SOVIET WEAPONRY ARRHAL PHOTOGRAPH of S.d t mihlvr .edpvet i. e+?ch W.d,adoy to Winer W. c. for.. *A" Nkvoyw w wd by t Roes, N e Hdrriud h4dgs M.ew. (UPI) - J-1 Soviet jets view U.S. carriers, land in C40 'a NORFOLK, Va. (UPI)-Four Soviet Bear reconnaissance planes flew over three U.S. aircraft carriers participating in a war exercise in the Atlantic Ocean last weekend, and U.S. fighters scrambled to intercept the converted bombers, the Navy said Wednesday. A spokesman for Atlantic Fleet headquarters said the Soviet jets landed in Cuba after being escorted from the area of maneuvers. The three carriers-the Vinson, the Eisenhower and the Kennedy-were participating with 33 other U.S. ships in a "war at sea" exercise in the western Atlantic and the Caribbean when the Bear jets appeared in two incidents. REAGAN ... Continued time Thursday in a- telegram in which they said: "At first we did not intend to request equal time. However, we have seen an ad. vance text of this speech. "Upon review, it is clear to us that the address is not directed primarily at national security matters but rather it is directed at the current congressional con- sideration of the fiscal 1984 bud- The Navy said two Bean flew over the Y Saturday while the carrier was about 1,000 ~es southeast of Bermuda. Two F-14 Tomcat fighter jets from the Eisett'how- er intercepted the Soviet aircraft and escorted them from the area, the spokesman said. -- Later Saturday, two other Bear jets flew within 100 miles of the Eisenhower and the Ketlfedy. Tomcats from both carriers escorted the Sbtiet planes from the area. The four Beers landed in Cuba. The spokesman said two other Bear jets with anti-submarin6 `War- fare equipment aboard were sighted on Cuban landing strips. get." Virtually all of the critics con- cede some buildup is necessary but some oppose specific weap- ons systems that Reagan wants, and others say modernization can proceed safely at a 'slower pace. Although White House aides recognize that Reagan 's de~fepse budget will have to be Qoaled back, his appeal clearly-&as an effort to minimize trim Reagan 's defense of hie mili- tary budget included his familiar recitation of U.S. neglect of its defenses and Soviet military ex- pans ion. Noting that some skeptica::ask whether the Soviets ever would use their growing military power, Reagan said: "Can we afford to believe they won't? There is.Af- ghanistan, and in Poland, the Soviets ... demonstrated to the world how their military power could also be used to intimidate." Reagan to Offer Interim Plan on Europe Missiles By OSWALD JOHNSTON, Times Staff Writer WASHINGTON-Under growing, pressure from America's allies, President Reagan has decided to offer a compromise proposal for limiting mid-range nuclear missiles in Europe, but he continues to insist on total elimination of such weapons as this country's ultimate goal, Administration officials said Wednesday. Reagan is expected to declare his willingness to accept an interim solution in a speech a week from today, but Administration officials stressed that it has not been decided whether the speech will contain a specific proposal or only a general statement of the President's posi- tion. There has not been a final deci- sion on precisely what to offer the Russians, the officials said. One-Week Delay Despite earlier speculation that Reagan might use his televised speech Wednesday night to outline a new position on U.S.-Soviet inter- mediate-range missile negotiations, he passed up the opportunity and told viewers, "I will report to you a week from tomorrow my thoughts on that score." That is when he is scheduled to address the Los An- geles World Affairs Council at the Century Plaza Hotel. For nearly a month, the Adminis- tration has been actively consider- ing alternate proposals to Reagan's 18-month-old zero-option offer to forgo deployment of Pershing 2 and cruise missiles in Western Europe if the Soviet Union agrees to scrap all of its medium-range missiles, in- cluding the modern, triple-warhead SS-20. Hinting at Flexibility Reagan and others in the Admin- istration have been publicly hinting at a more flexible approach. And Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger, at a North Atlantic Treaty Organization meeting in 24 March 1983 Portugal, told reporters Wednesday that the NATO defense ministers showed "consensus in welcoming President Reagan's indications that there could be more than one way to reach agreement." Most of the new proposals being considered by the Administration are variants of a suggestion dis- cussed last summer by the chief U.S. and Soviet negotiators at the missile-reduction talks in Geneva. According to that suggestion, each side would be allowed 75 launchers. Those suggestions were rejected, by both governments last summer. But in the negotiating climate cre- ated by the approaching December date for NATO to begin deploying the new missiles, Washington is now considering proposals that would permit each side about 300 warheads. This would allow the Soviets 100 SS-20s and NATO a mix of 75 to 100 four-missile cruise launchers and single-warhead Per- shing 2 launchers. The March 6 national election in West Germany, in which Helmut Kohl's center-right coalition deci- sively defeated a Social Democratic Party moving increasingly in the direction of reneging on the missile deployment, was seen by U.S. offi. cials as a crucial turning point in the arms negotiations. It virtually guar- anteed that the first Pershing and cruise missile deployments could begin on schedule. It is widely accepted by arms- control specialists in and out of the government that the Soviets will not negotiate a reduction of their weapons until they believe that there is no chance to forestall NATO's deployment of the new weapons. The Europeans, led by Kohl, coupled the new political mandate in favor of NATO deployment with a renewed demand that the United States show greater negotiating flexibility by offering to swap a limited deployment of new missiles for a less-than-total removal of the SS-20s. Both Proposals Rejected But the Soviets, who have flatly rejected Reagan 's zero-option pro- posal, have also said they will not consider any interim proposal. In public statements, Administra- tion officials, including Reagan, have increasingly hinted at flexibil- ity. The zero option is preferred, White House and State Department Pg. 1 press officers have been instructed to say, but it is not a take-it-or-leave-it offer, and the United States will consider any reasonable Soviet counterproposal. In recent' testimony on Capitol Hill, Assistant Secretary of State Richard R. Burt has carried that hint a step further with the sugges- tion that missiles deployed by NATO can just as easily be removed and that the talks at Geneva be- tween Paul H. Nitze and his Soviet counterpart, Yuli A. Kvitsinsky, could well continue after the sched- uled December deployments begin. Nitze himself said publicly before the current round of arms talks resumed Jan. 27 that he is "confi- dent that if it becomes wise for the U.S. government to change its posi- tion, it will, in fact, so do." `Ready to Negotiate And Reagan, in an interview granted last week to the Sunday Times of London, said of the evolv- ing U.S. policy. "Were ready to negotiate in good faith any reason- able proposal or suggestion on the way to the ultimate goal (of the zero option)." The stage, accordingly, has been prepared for the announcement Reagan now is expected to make next week in his previously sched- uled Los Angeles speech. The timing is considered ripe for such a move, because the current round of Nitze-Kvitsinsky talks in Geneva is scheduled to end next Tuesday-two days before the speech. Since the Soviets already have rejected in advance the sort of compromise Reagan is now consid- ering, it is argued that it makes no sense to make a public proposal that would be recognized as a U.S. concession, then to have that pro- posal rejected by the Soviets, with a probable new round of Soviet de- mands for yet another concession to follow. It would better serve U.S. inter- ests to wait until the Geneva talks resume in late April before present- ing a new proposal in any detailed, formal way. But at the same time, by an- nouncing a willingness to make such a proposal ahead of time, Reagan can satisfy European de- mands' for flexibility and probably draw more votes away from the nuclear-freeze resolution in the House. Space arsenal PRESIDENT Reagan said yester- day the E will start building a Star p Wars-style defense arsenal capable to of knocking missiles out of the sky and rendering Soviet "nuclear weap- ons impotent and obsolete." He said the strategy only from offense Soviet defense was the way to avoid all-out n- nuclear war in e s ght in light of f Soviet military en- croachments around'the globe. The President drew special attention to Cuba, saying Russia has supplied arms at levels that "can only be compared to the missile crisis 20 years ago." Reagan announced the plan in a nationally tale- S C vised speech from the Oval Office during which he urged the nation to support his military budget. B ut he suffered a stinging rebuke only a half-hour before deliv. ering the 8 p.m. address when the House passed by 229-196 a Democratic budget plan that would slash his defense buildup by more than half. During the speech, the President outlined Rus- sian military moves around the world and displayed four black- and-white photos taken by U.S. spy planes of Soviet-supplied weap- onry and installations In Cuba, Grenada and Nicaragua. Pentagon officials said the pictures marked the first time in 20 years that recognais- sance pictures of Cuba had Men publicly re- leased.' One picture showed a 28-square mile Soviet communications intelli- gence facility near Lourdes, Cuba Reagan said the com- plex, less than 100 miles from the U.S. coastline and manned by 1500 Soviet technicians, 14t! the largest of Its kind,Qz the world." '> He also pointed out that the facility has grown 60 per cent In the past decade and now, "monitors key U.S. mill. tary Installations and sensitive activities." Another picture showed Soviet-built M1G-22 aircraft at a field in western Cuba Earlier this month Soviet anti-submarine aircraft began operat. ing from the field. A picture of an airfield in Nicaragua showed Soviet anti-aircraft guns and helicopters. That photograph previ- ously had been made public. A fourth picture showed a 10,000-foot air craft runway on Gre- nada, along with fuel storage facilities and housing for Cuban workers. Reagan said "the rapid buildup of Gre- nada's military poten. tial is unrelated to any conceivable , threat - to this Island country of under 110,000 people and totally at odds with the pattern of other eastern Caribbean states, most of which are unarmed." He said the pictures demonstrate the Soviets "are spreading their military influence in ways that can directly challenge our vital in- terests and those of our allies." from three decades of strategy based on nu- clear deterrence and rely more on a devastat- Ing arsenal of futuristic- defense weapons. Reagan said it could be the turn of the cen- tury before such weap- ous - based on laser and particle-beam tech- nology that now exists more in theory than fact - could be produced. He said such a system posed a "formidable technical task ... Yet current technology has attained a level of so- phistication where it in reasonable for us to begin this effort." The U.S. already is spending nearly $1 bil- lion a year on such space-age weaponry, but it is certain this fig- ure . will _ increase dramatically. Russia is acknowl- edged to have a signifi- cant but surmountable lead In development of a Star Wars arsenal. The U.S. and Soviet Union now are virtually banned by treaty from deploying an anti-ballis- tic missile system (ABM). Reagan said his pro- posal was "consistent with our obligations" under the treaty and added that this "could pave the way for arms centre) , aneasurds I to eliminate the weapons themselves. "We seek neither mill- tary superiority nor political advantage," Reagan said. "Our only purpose - one all people share - is to search for ways to reduce the danger of nu- clear war." Reagan said he recog- nixed that defensive systems "have limita- tions and raise certain problems and ambigui- ties. "If paired with often. site7systesne' they) aft be viewed as fostering an aggressive policy, and no one wants that. "But with these con- siderations firmly in mind," he added, "I call upon the scientific com- munity who gave us nu- clear weapons to turn their great talents to the cause of mankind and world peace; to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete" 11... Tonight we are launching an effort which holds the prom- ise of changing the course of human histo- ry. There will be risks, and results take time. But with your support, .I believe we can doft'i. ? 11 To answer that chal. lenge without destroying the world in an atomic war, the President said the U.S. must depart Reagan poses futuristic defense plan By Terence Hunt WASHINGTON - President Reagan said last night that the United States would begin work on a futuristic defense system that could destroy Soviet missiles in flight and render "these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete." The plan, announced in a national- ly broadcast speech from the Oval Office , foreshadows a major depar- ture from three decades of strategy calling for deterring nuclear war- fare with the promise of massive retaliation. Reagan said it could be the turn of the century before such defensive weapons could be produced. Appar- ently, his plan envisions laser and particle-beam technology that cur- rently exists more in theory than fact. Officials were vague on what type of technology eventually would be employed and gave no estimate of how much such a system would cost. "Would it not be better to save lives than to avenge them?" Reagan said. He said that after consulting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other advisers, "I believe there is a better way ... that we embark on a program to counter the awesome So- viet missile threat with measures that are defensive." During his speech, Reagan dis- played four black-and-white photo- graphs taken by US. spy planes of Soviet-supplied weaponry and instal. lations in Cuba, Grenada and Nicara. gua. According to Pentagon officials, the pictures marked the first time in 20 years that reconnaissance pic- tures of Cuba had been publicly re- leased. One picture purported to show a 28- square-mile Soviet communications intelligence facility near Lourdes, Cuba. Reagan said the complex, less than 100 miles from the U.S coastline and staffed by 1,500 Soviet techni- cians, was "the largest of its kind in the world." Another picture showed Soviet- built M1G-23 aircraft at a field in western Cuba. A picture of an airfield In Nicara- gua purported to show Soviet anti- aircraft guns and helicopters. The photograph had been made public before. A fourth picture showed a 10,000- foot runway on Grenada, along with fuelstorage facilities and housing for Cuban workers. Reagan said the pictures demon- strate that the Soviets "are spreading their military influence in ways that can directly challenge our vital in- terests and those of our allies." Reagan said the system he pro- poses posed a "formidable technical task" that might not be accomplished before the end of the century. "Yet current technology has at- tained a level of sophistication where it is reasonable for us to begin this effort," Reagan said. "It will take years, probably decades, of effort on many fronts." Reagan's proposals came as he re- newed his push for a major military buildup, yet just hours after the House approved, by a vote of 229-196, a Democratic budget plan that would cut the increase he wants by more than half. Currently, the United States and the Soviet Union are virtually banned by treaty from deploying an anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system. But Reagan said that "tonight, con- sistent with our obligations under the ABM treaty and recognizing the need for close consultation with our allies, I am taking an important first step" that would employ different technologies. Specifically, Reagan said he was "directing a comprehensive and in- tensive effort to define a long-term research and development program to achieve our ultimate goal of elimi- nating the threat posed by strategic nuclear missiles." "This could pave the way for arms control measures to eliminate the weapons themselves," Reagan said. "We seek neither military superi- ority nor political advantage," the President said. Our only purpose - one all people share - is to search for ways to reduce the danger of nuclear war." Reagan noted the current policy of deterrence through the threat of crushing retaliation. "But what if free people could live secure in the knowledge that their security did not rest upon the threat of instant U.S. retaliation to deter a Soviet at- tack; that we could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies?" He said that despite the difficul- ties, "is it not worth every invest- ment necessary to free the world from the threat of nuclear war? We know it is." Reagan said the United States would continue to pursue nuclear arms reductions, "negotiating from a position of strength that can be en- sured only by modernizing our stra- tegic forces." At the some time, he said, the Unit. ed States "must take steps to reduce the risk of a conventional military conflict escalating to nuclear war by improving our non-nuclear capabili- ties." Reagan said he recognized that de- fensive systems "have limitations and raise certain problems and ambi- guities. If paired with offensive sys- tems, they can be viewed as fostering an aggressive policy, and no one wants that. "But with these considerations firmly in mind," he said, "I call upon the scientific community who gave us nuclear weapons to turn their great talents to the cause of mankind and world peace; to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete. "My fellow Americans, tonight we are launching an effort which holds the promise of changing the course of human history," Reagan said. "There will be risks, and results take time. But with your support, I believe we can do it." In a briefing before the speech, a senior administration official said the research would be aimed at la- sers, particle-beam weapons and oth- er futuristic technologies that might be used to shoot down incoming mis- siles. "The generic technologies are by no means mature, but they have been there for years," said the offi- cial, who spoke on the condition that he not be identified. "What is being launched today is a search for a plan." The official said the United States was spending about $l billion a year on various types of anti-missile de- vices. He said the new effort would be "completely independent" of the work by the presidential commission seeking a basing system for the MX missile. The official said the research ef- fort had been endorsed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff last month, prompted by Pentagon leaders' concerns about the increasing vulnerability of U.S. land-based, long-range weapons. The official insisted that the pro- gram would not violate the ABM treaty, noting that it permits re- search and development. Aides Advised Against Arms Plan By Roy Gutman and Susan Page Newsday Washington Bureau Washington - President Reagan dis- regarded the advice of his closest aides when he proposed development of a fu- turistic antiballistic missile system, sen- ior White House officials said yesterday. Reagan's advisers warned him that his proposal would detract from the main purpose of the Wednesday night speech, which was to win support for his defense budget, the officials said. But "on balance he felt that it wouldn't," a top official said. Aides also pointed out several "short- comings" to the idea: it would prompt questions about violating the 1972 anti. ballistic missile treaty and might lead to the charge that the United States would abandon its allies and move toward cre- ating a fortress America. But "in full knowledge of the short, comings or what would certainly be re- ported as shortcomings, he asked that we go forward in preparation of last night's announcement," a senior official told reporters at a background briefing. His remarks constituted the first occa- sion in memory that Reagan's senior aides formally distanced themselves from the contents of a presidential speech. This top-level official, who could not be named under the ground rules for the briefing, was joined by two other advis- era who sketched out the background and implications of Reagan's speech. As they described it, the idea was new, was Reagan's own and was not closely exam- ined within the government. They did not seem to be in complete agreement about its consequences. But they left no doubt that Reagan 's intention was to reopen a debate closed nearly a decade ago over whether the United States should build an ABM sys- tem - an idea rejected then on the grounds it would give a false sense of security and might destabilize the stra- tegic nuclear balance. 'he program we are planning to pur- sue is an antiballistic missile system, no question," one official said. "We are not proposing to build a Maginot line. We propose to build a flexible system that of course takes into account every conceiv- able advance we can imagine in ICBM [intercontinental ballistic missile] devel- opment . . Under the 1972 ABM treaty, the Sovi- et Union and United States limited themselves to one ABM system each. The Soviets have built one system around Moscow and the United States could build one in Grand Forks, N.D., site of the U.S. ICBM installation, but decided unilaterally not to. The new con- troversy is raised by Reagan's call for re- search and development of space-based lasers, projectile and particle beams and microwave devices, despite the ban in the 1972 accord of development of any space-based or mobile ABM. The idea of reviving interest in defen- sive nuclear weapons, or, as a senior official put it, "going from the spear to the shield" was broached to Reagan little over a month ago during a routine meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The meeting was Feb. 15, three days before Reagan's spe- cial commission was Supposed to report its recommendation on a basing mode for the troubled MX missile, an offensive missile system that successive administrations have been unable to find a home for. In fact the commission was unable to meet its dead- line and is now due to report in April. The top official said the Joint Chiefs "surfaced" the idea, indicating it was not a formal proposal. Reigan's "interest ease immediately," and he asked for further information, having been concerned for "months if not years" about the "intermina- ble buildup of offensive nuclear arms without much apparent hope of ending or diverting that particular race." "In the intervening weeks, on a rather close-held basis, this theory was further developed," the official said. Reagan appar- ently did not have it "staffed out," that is, discussed, criticized or refined by lower level experts. As one official put it, "the Presi- dent was not bureaucratic in his approach to this." At the briefing, to which about 20 reporters were invited, the officials stated repeatedly that Reagan's initiative was not prompted by any technological development either in the Soviet Union or the United States. They said his thinking was motivated by "the very spirit" that prompted retired Gen. Daniel Graham's proposal for space- based weapons - the idea that has evolved in the past 30 years in which the two superpowers base their national security on the threat of mutual annihilation. It is sometimes called "mutu- al assured destruction." Another strong influence, they said, was Dr. Edward Teller, often called the "father of the H-bomb," who met Reagan two months ago and who has spent "an enor- mous amount of time" with George Keyworth, presidential sci- ence adviser. As to what will result from Reagan's proposal, the officials seemed themselves to be unsure. One official said the effort, which may take until the end of the century to bear fruit, was like the Manhattan project which developed the atomic bomb during World War H in that it is a total program that would involve a wide cross-section of the scientific community. But as he spoke, he was intej'rupted by another official who said it would be a "stretchedout effort and added "there's no flavor or tension of a crash program." In fact, the administration is now spending about $1 billion a year on research into futuristic defensive weapons and does not plan to ask for more funds this year. A White House official, in a separate interview, said: 'There's only so much money that can be used in research ef- forts, so much that can be absorbed." NEW YORK TIMES 25 March 1983 Pg.9 Soviet Sees a Treaty Violation In Arms Proposed by Reagan By SERGE SCIBUEMANN spadettwNwYO.snww MOSCOW, March 24 - The Soviet press said today that President gas- San's plan for new antimissile technolo- gies amounted to a new stage in the arms race and that their deployment would violate the 1972 treaty limiting such systems. Official commentaries also depicted Mr. Reagan's speech as an effort by the Administration to push its arms buildup through the Congress. The Soviet responses consisted of summaries of the President's televised address, referring to his "beloved theme" of a Soviet military threat and accusing him of using "figures about the Soviet military potential fabricated by the Central Intelligence Agency to try and justify the unprecedented mill- taryexpenditures." One commentary, by Tass, the Soviet Government's press agency, focused on Mr. Reagan's proposed program "to counter the awesome Soviet missile strength with measures that are defen- sive." Research Consistent With Pact Mr. Reagan said the research and development of the new technologies would be "consistent with our obliga- tions under the antiballistic missile treaty" and would pave the way for steps to eliminate offensiveweapons. Tales quoted senior Administration of- ficials as having said that the new tech- nologies would be based on land and in space and would include lasers. The press agency added: "The deployment of such antiballistic missile systems would be a direct viola- tion of the Soviet-American agreement and protocols, according to which the United States had the right to move the existing ABM system from the ICBM base at Grand Forks only to the region of the capital. "Thus, what is being talked about is a new attempt by the United States to achieve superiority in strategic arms over the Soviet Union and to upset the existing rough balance of power." When the ABM treaty was signed in 1972, it limited deployment of antiballis- tic missiles to two sites, including the national capital. A 1974 protocol, in amendment, reduced the two sites to one. However, in accord with a 1975 Congressional directive, the single American site, at Grand Forks, N.D., was deactivated and dismantled. The treaty limited defensive missile systems on the premise that their de- ployment might reduce incentives to negotiate limitations on offensive weep- ons by fostering a sense of security against attack. While the treaty did place restrictions on some forms of re- search and development, wide areas re- named open, including the exploration of new technologies. Though the treaty was of unlimited duration, the two sides agreed to review it at five-year intervals. Other Soviet commentaries were less specific, and Western diplomats ex- pected a more authoritative response after closer Soviet study of the Presi- dent's speech. They noted that Soviet criticism of Mr. Reagan had been com- paratively muted in recent weeks, pos- sibly reflecting a re-evaluation of offi- cial attitudes toward the United States in light of a growing Soviet feeling that Mr. Reagan will be re-elected. The Government newspaper Izvestia said that "only in the 24th minute of his speech did Reagan finally begin saying that his Administration, you see, was dedicated to ideas of peace and disar- mament." The paper said the "destabilizing idea" of accelerating research on new defenses against missiles was slipped in "Just before the curtain." "The speech thus underscored that the White House had no desire of re- treating from its unrealistic positions," Invests said, "and this stubborn unwill- ingness to get out of the rut of the cold war increasingly transforms Washing- ton into a dangerous breeding ground for thermonuclear confrontation." 'Sermon in Militarism' Novosti, a feature syndicate, branded the speech as "a sermon in militarism" and declared that his proposal "clearly indicates his intentions to perpetuate the arms race and carry it over into the 21st century." Novoeti and Tales rejected Mr. Rea- San's assertion of a growing Soviet mill. tary threat, which he outlined to Sup- port his request for more military spending. The Soviet Union insists that there is rough parity in military Strength between the two sides. Tess quoted various Congressional critics of the military budget to the of fect that the President's sole goal was to "scare the American people and the Congress to death and get even more money for military needs." "The real aims of the address made themselves especially clear when the President bitterly attacked the Con- gress, which has lately been making modest attempts to somewhat cut the unprecedented military spending on the ground that it is destroying the United States economy4" Reagan's plan-Would it simply invite attack? Washington-Suppose we were bulletproof. Yes, I know we're not bulletproof, but just suppose. We wouldn't have to walk around in fear of being mugged. We could laugh at robbers who pointed shotguns at us. We would be totally safe. On the other hand, society could regard us as a threat If we were bulletproof, we could mug other persons. We could hold up banks and shoot at policemen with impunity. Would society, facing this threat, allow us to become bulletproof? Or would it shoot us first? This is the dilemma raised by President Reagan's call Wednesday night for a scientific effort that would make the United States invulnerable to Soviet nuclear missiles. Will his Star Wars, charged-particle beam, laser death rays (it that is what build) really make us bulletproof? Or 11 e~y.496~1t~ @L)i'&e$ at&kt, ought4 WOW. ftpe't. six major cities? Or, still worse, will the Russians shoot first, before we can deploy our system? INVULNERABILITY IS AN alluring idea As the Pre sident put it: "What If free people could live secure in the knowledge that... we could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies?" It was equally alluring when Soviet Prime Minister Alessi Kosygin raised it with President Johnson at the Glassboro, N.J., summit in June 1967. The Soviet Union was about to defend itself from nuclear attack by deploying an antiballistic missile system that would intercept and shoot down any attacking American missiles. Johnson tried to persuade Kosygin that an ABM system was not defensive-that it was a threat A country that , . . to use its own missiles In the belief that it is immune from retaliation. Kosygin could not understand. "ABMs do not fuel an arms race," he said. "They are purely defensive." Johnson turned to his Defense secretary, Robert S. McNamara. "I'm not getting through to him, Bob," Johnson said. McNamara took up the argument "Look," he told Kosygin. "We need a strategic nuclear deterrent against the Soviet Union. If you build an ABM system, we're not going to race you with our own ABM system. "We are going to expand our offensive missile force Be that it will antimissile defense-except that you overwhelm your ABMs. You will in- lost Chicago, New York and San crease your ABMs and we'll Increase Francisco in a nuclear attack-It our missiles. We'll have an arms would be pretty dismal." race. We'll keep ratcheting higher Prof. Albert Carnesale of Harvard and higher." (by way of the Bronx High School of Kosygin exploded. "That's immor- Science and Cooper Union) helped to al," he told Johnson and McNamara. negotiate the 1972 ARM treaty, which "We are expanding our defensive specifically outlaws any Star Wars- systems. We are defending Mother type space-based laser weapons. He Russia. We are not threatening you, supports Reagan's call for research "You are trying to deprive us of and development on antimissile de- our n l d t " uc ear e errent McNamara , said. "And we will not let that happen." The cruel logic of McNamara's argument finally dawned on. Kosy- gin--and ft paved the way for the first U.S.-Soviet _ arms-control agreement SALT-I was signed in 1972 Accompanying SALT-i was an ARM treaty limiting each side to an antio missile defense of a single city and a single missile field. The U.S. actually built an ABM site In North Dakota and then scrapped it as useless. The Russians have an ABM system around Moscow. McNamara's logic still applies to- day. The only thing that has changed is that a United States President is now making Kosygin's argument Reagan is holding out the hope that the U can achieve the tech S `...The question: Will the Soviet Union let itself be disarmed?' nological breakthrough that will make us safe from Soviet nuclear attack. "I don't think anyone could disag. ree with him-if," Gerard C. Smith, who helped to negotiate the SALT-1 treaty, said yesterday. "...if we could guarantee that the system works. But if you had a perfect feces-but he deplores Reagan's "messianic rhetoric" about the Soviet Union. "What Reagan is proposing Is sensible. It's fine. We ought to look at the technology," Carnesale said. "But what he is talking about Is well into the future, and it would have to be coupled with arms reductions. De- ploying an ARM is the same as disarming the other side." This raises-the question: Will the Soviet Union let itself be disarmed? A second problem is that Reagan's ARM system would have to be perfect The Soviet Union has 7,500 nucle. ar warheads. A defensive system that destroyed 90% of them would allow 750 hydrogen warheads to hit Amer, ican targets--enough to wipe out this nation. T HE SHARPEST criticism of Reagan came from a former Democratic cabinet officer yesterday who asked not to be identified "Reagan's proposal is absurd and it is totally Irrelevant to the prob. lems we face today. He it talking about a pielo-the-sky, endof' he century, ' space-based, destroy-on. launch antimissile system. "That has no relationship what- soever to the urgent problems we now face with the defense budget and with the arms race. Reagan was die playing the same characteristics as Korygin. It just amazed me." Debate on Missile Defense Plan By Earl Lane Newaaay Washington Bureau In proposing that the United =:I= futuristia counter Soviet Reagan hes focused attention on a debate that has engaged esiatists and arms-control experts for more than twodeades. Here is a lookat someofthe issues Q. What Is President Ragan seeking? He has asked for a major research and develop- mat effort on methods ofknocking out Soviet inter- continental ballistic missiles before they reach U.S. Boil. Leading possibilities include putting particle- beam weapons or lasers on orbiting platforms to ddr afroy Soviet missiles shortly after launch ty How might the Soviets react to such a devel- opment? Reagan and Pentagon planners argue that the Soviets, faced with the certain destruction of their ballistic missiles, would agree to negotiate a reduc- tion in offensive weapons. Critics say that it could be destabilizing. At the heart of nuclear strategy has been mutual assured destruction - the knowledge that each superpower could launch a devastating orb tack on the other. Without that assurance, the Sovt eta might launch a preemptive strike rather than allow the United States to finish building an anti- missile system. The United States fates the same uncertainty: The Soviets, too, have been pursuing space-based weapons. But even if such systems are built, there are pos- sible ways to evade them. Cruise missiles hug the earth's surface and are much less susceptible to damage by space-based lasers. Dust, water droplets and smoke in the air disperse the beams. Subma- rine-launched missiles that reach their targets quickly on depressed trajectories also would be dif l- cult to atop. Q. How would space-based weapons work? In the case of a laser system, a beam of intense light would be used to overheat or bore a hole into a warhead, causing it to malfunction. The laser plat. form would have several components: A telescope would detect and track missiles as they are launched, and a hinged mirror would be used to point the laser at its ttaarrggeett. Koster Tsipis and his colleagues at the Massachusetts Institute of Tech- nology have estimated that the United States would need at least 50 laser platforms, orbiting at about 600 miles in order to have at least one platform al- ways in position to counter a et stiack. Tapia has also noted that space lasers would re- enormous amounts of energy, complicating deployment and use. Some defense planners tentk the ?tic. anyal fain that lasers ono- yeses by Teipla are feasi- ble and could be used in an antiballistic missile (ARM) system. They propose launching 300 or more of the tforme. Q. any s sy breskthroulghsTthat have made There have been suggestions by Edward Teller and others that the power supply problems are solv- able. Compact laser battle systems have bra pro- posed that would produce pulsed X-ray laser beams. The power source would be a small nuclear explo- sion. The energy from the blast would be directed into narrow, coherent beams of X-rays that would evaporate a Asked there had been any major co- search breakthroughs in recent months, a senior White House official said no. He added, however, that there had been progress in technologies needed for space-based wapons, such as large-scale optics, tracking systems and data processing. Q. Assuming laser systems are built, would they perform as advertised? Some scientists are extremely skeptical. They say that the highly sensitive radars needed to track missiles could be easily blinded. The elec- tronic oncoming radiation emitted from a single nuclear blast in space would disable sensitive circuits and radar screens There are ways to harden such circuits, but the technology is still being developed. The laser systems also could be countered by launching numerous decoys, or warheads with burn- resistant or mirrored surfaces to diffuse the laser beam. And, of course, the Soviets might launch a strike against the space-based system before it be- onal. comes operati Q. How would they do that? With an anti-satellite weapon already under de- velopment and tested at least 20 times during the past decade. A killer satellite is sent near the target. It explodes, showering the target with shrapnel. The U.S. is also preparing to test an anti-satellite weap- on, to be launched from an F-16 fighter plane. Democrats Charge Reagan Distorted Balance of Power Speech Also Attacked On Anti-ICBM Issue By Michael Geller W"sItlngWn PasLSWU Writer In an official response to Presi- dent Reagan's nationally televised speech Wednesday night, Democrats yesterday accused Reagan of presenting a distorted and mislead- ing account of the U.S.-Soviet bal- ance of power in order to protect his "excessive defense budget" and "di- vert our attention from the disntal failure of his economic policies." Congressional Democrats chose Sen. Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii to deliver the party's rebuttal. At the same time, a number of other Democrats, some liberal Re- publicans and a Nobel Prize-winning scientist also criticized Reagan's call in his speech for an all-out research effort to see if a high technology de- fense against missile attack can be developed in the next two decades. The Democratic charges escalated the widening battle between the ad- ministration and its critics over the size of the defense budget, nuclear policy and the best way to preserve national security. At the White House yesterday, administration officials reinforced Reagan's position that it was his duty to tell the public about the So- viet threat and what the United States most do to meet it, while on Capitol Hill there was a growing con- sensus that the Reagan defense bud- get was too big and would be cut. Senate Majority Leader Howard H. Baker Jr. (R-Tenn.) and Minority Leader Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) said they believe the Senate will ap- prove a defense budget somewhat higher than the one passed by the House Wednesday but far short of the administration request for a 10.3 percent increase, after inflation. House Minority Leader Robert H. Michel (R-III.) said he doubted that an eventual House-Senate compromise will include an increase of more than 6 percent. The current House version allows for a 4 percent in- crease. In the Democratic policy rebuttal to Rea- gan's speech, Inouye said, "The president attempted to instill fear in the hearts of the American people, to raise the specter of a Soviet armed nuclear attack. "He left the impression," Inouye contin- ued, "that the United States had stood still while the Soviets had accelerated and vastly expanded their nuclear arsenal. that the United States is at the mercy of the Soviet Union, Mr. President, you know that is not true. You have failed to present an honest picture." He said Reagan failed to point out that Soviet land-based missile strengths are "more than offset" by U.S. atomic warheads on missile-firing submarines and bombers. He said the total of such atomic weapons showed 7,339 for the Soviets and 9,268 for this country. The administration claims that the Soviet land-based missile edge gives them a theo- retical first-strike threat against U.S. mis- siles. Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), an influential member of the Senate Armed Services Com- mittee, said in an NBC'l'V appearance that the Soviet threat "is real. There is no doubt about that." But he also said, "I would fault the president's speech for not taking into account America's strengths, the strengths of our allies and the weaknesses of the Soviet Union." Inouye, a member of the Senate Intelli- gence Committee, said he deplored the se- lective declassification of intelligence photos used by Reagan Wednesday night to show military installations in Cuba and 'Nicaragua. Inouye asked why Reagan chose to high- light the basing of Soviet-built MiG jet fight- ers in Cuba at this time, when they have been there for years. "Why did he suggest American inferiority. I believe he did so be- cause he is afraid his excessive defense bud- get will be trimmed by the Congress and be- cause he wants to take our attention off the economic disasters brought on by his poli- cies," Inouye charged. The big surprise in Reagan's speech, how- ever, was his placing a top national priority on attempting to develop a workable defense against intercontinental ballistic missiles. The president suggested that success in such an endeavor could lead eventually to a dra- matic shift in strategy away from reliance on quick nuclear retaliation as the only way to deter attack. Senior administration officials yesterday portrayed Reagan's emphasis on defensive weapons as "a deep commitment ... to get off this trail, this interminable route of buildup of offensive nuclear weapons." But Sen. Mark 0. Hatfield (R-Ore) said, "This is not, as the president suggests, a shifting of our national genius away from war. It is a call to siphon off the meager and inadequate commitment which now exists to rebuild America." Hatfield, chairman of the Senate Appro- priations Committee, said, "The president's advisers must be called to account for these terrifying proposals." Reagan, he said, "has, in effect, called for the militarization of the last great hope for international cooperation and peace-outer space." Although the administration says it wants to explore many new technologies, there is special interest in exploring lasers and other weapons using highly focused beams of en- ergy as possible space-based interceptors. These weapons could aim their rays at enemy missiles soon after they were launched and shoot them down before they had a chance to dispense atomic warheads. Administration officials stress, however, that they are also interested in ground-based sys- tems. In Spain yesterday, Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger said the kind of re search and development program called for' by Reagan would be "fully consistent with the treaty," Washington Post staff writer George C. Wilson reported, because "the treaty goes only to block deployment." Wein- berger pointed out that the president had CONTINUED NEXT PAGE U.S. hones new anti-missile weapon and scientists there are running it By Whitt Flora through a battery of tests before turn- asnaamoaTilde ewr It would operate at So million volts ing it up to full tower. df' h t The United States is developing a "lightning bolt" weapon to destroy anti- ship missiles and could have a working model in three years, scientists claim. The Defense Department has spent several million dollars on the project at the Lawrence Livermore National Labo- ratory near San Francisco, where scien- tists now are working out the bugs on a prototype model of the weapon. They say it would work like a Gatling gun, firing up to 2,000 bolts of electricity per second to destroy anti-ship missiles with a lightning bolt effort. Bill Berletta, the associate adminis- trator for the lab's research in this area, explained the weapon this way. DEMOCRATS... Continued committed himself only to study the tech- nology, not to deployment. But Jeremy Stone of the Federation of American Scientists pointed out that the 1972 treaty does ban development and test- ing, as well as deployment, of "ARM systems or components which are sea-based, air- based, space-based or mobile land-based." Administration officials said vesterdav that it probably would be another five or 10 years as the research progresses before the president's plan could come into conflict with the treaty and that provides "ample time to discuss this with the Soviets." Successive administrations have invested billions in ARM research for some 20 years. But no system has proved workable and it has always been reasoned that such defenses could he thwarted by countermeasures or overwhelmed by an enemy who just adds more warheads. In recent years, however, new technologies have progressed to the point where they may offer some advances for anti-missile work. Weinberger and other officials yesterday ac- knowledged that while the quest for an an- swer is old, what is new about the president's and 10,000 amps to generate an ire e He said that first test probably would bolts, which would each be only millime- come later this year, adding, "You have ters in diameter and last for only 50 to be very careful with a machine that But, bihe of a said second. burns up metal to make sure the metal it would fired burns up isn't the machine:' at a rate te rate he of 2,tlOll , the a he as bolts second, and would that be , give the weapon 25 times the power nec- The prototype isn't usable for mili' essary to kill an anti-ship missile. tary applications, he said, but the labs He said this method of burning up mis- are planning to have a working model of siles should be better than a laser because a military particle beam weapon work; it would be instantaneous, while a laser ing within three years. could take up to a half-second to destroy "This is basically a response to the a targget. Thisdelay gives lasers problems with new generation oP Soviet missiles, which tracking the new Soviet anti-ship are superior to the Exocet missiles the weapons, which are very maneuverable," Argentines used in the Falklands we& he said. The Exocet is a very primintive technol, Berletta said a prototype of the ogy compared to what the RussiansaM machines was completed late last year, developing," he said. action is that he has elevated the goal to a national priority and thus given the program a better chance to succeed. Many critics, however, argue that the search for an ARM will induce a false sense of security and that this could destabilize the nuclear balance because one side may feel it can launch an attack and safely shoot down the other side's retaliatory force. In a telephone interview yesterday, Hans Bethe, the Nobel Prize-winning nuclear physicist who was one of 13 scientists invited by Reagan to attend a White House briefing Wednesday, said he was "worried" by the development and that he got no answers when he asked about this potential for de- stabilization. ` Bethe said about the ABM challenge: "I don't think it can lie done" and questioned why Reagan announced his plan now when the president acknowledged it might be the next century before such a system could be deployed. "It will cause a race" between the United States and Soviet Union, Bethe predicted, "but what is worse is that it will produce a star war, if successful," in which each side also will race to develop better anti-satellite weapons. This, he believes, will inevitably lead to U.S. intelligence-gathering satellites becom- ing vulnerable to attack. "So we will lose out eyes" and in a crisis or war "we won't know anything." Administration officials mid yesterday they did not know how much more the pres- ident's plan would cost beyond the $1 billion annually already spent on such research. There was also uncertainty yesterday about how the president came to his decision to propose this plan. Officials said that the president's decision was "triggered" during a routine meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff six weeks ago. Officials declined to say, however, what it was that the chiefs said that triggered Reagan to act on his sup- posedly long-held views about the benefits of missile defense. One source said that at the meeting the chiefs expressed concern about preliminary conclusions of a special commission studying overall U.S. strategic forces, including the MX missile. Both the chiefs and the commission re= portedly believe that retaliatory forces were, becoming increasingly vulnerable and that some new effort would have to be made lu try to maintain deterrence. Reagan's futuristic defense plan short on details N?ws analysis By Patrick Oster are reports that the president negotiations. Lassos Oaf nouns a new U.S. position on the effort to reduce superpower nuclear missiles in Eu- WASHINGTON-President Reagan's plan to put in- rope. creased emphasis on futuristic weapons as deterrents to The president has favored eliminating nuclear war is both a political and a military move. But such missile& The Soviets want to limit the political aspects of his new policy are more evident them to 162-but to include the 162 Brit- than the military ones-and are likely to remain so. lab and French nuclear missiles. Partly Senior administration officials told reporters Thursday because of pressure from NATO allies to that it would take at least until the end of the current move forward in the talks, a U.S. offer of fiscal year to decide what weapons technology would be 100 missiles is under consideration. pursued most vigorously. Until then, the officials said, the The next week, Reagan will speak on his administration could not say how much the president plane for basing the MX missile. There intends to spend on such technology, beyond the $1 has been much controversy about how to billion now budgeted. station this 10-warhead, highly accurate The officials, who asked not to be identified, said that weapon so that it is not vulnerable to a once priorities are set, they might be changed as unfore- Soviet first strike, as Reagan contends the seen developments in research and development occur. U.S. land-based! missile force now now in is. The president's message that he wants Likewise, pursuit of such technology as anti-ballistic to rely more on defensive systems and less missile defense systems and laser- and particle-beam on offensive ones also plays to those who weapons might have a significant impact on U.S.-Soviet are concerned about the level of superpow- arms control talks. That could produce greater Soviet or nuclear weapons buildup, including willingness to reduce offensive weapons, and could elicit those in the nuclear freeze movement. Soviet offers requiring a reduction of the program Reagan launched in his nationally televised speech Wednesday night. It may have some limited impact on Reagan's proposal is merely a pledge to move the members of Congress who have expressed concern about Reagan's real intentions United States away from singular reliance on offensive regarding the Soviet Union. This includes weapons-such as land-based ballistic nuclear missiles- embers of the House, who voted late as the U.S. deterrent to aSoviet-launched nuclear attack. Wednesday for a much smaller defense It cannot be said how the president proposes to get the budget then Reagan wants. But until the country from here to there. But it is clear that by the details of the weapons program become time the United States gets there, Ronald Reagan will be available, it is hard to gauge such impact long gone. The effort is expected to take decades. The officials said the unexpected new The officials who briefed reporters Thursday also ac. emphasis on futuristic weapons technology knowledged that the defensive technology the president reflected attitudes held by Reagan long wants to pursue will be aimed only at stopping Soviet before he became president The proposal ballistic missiles, not nuclear-tipped cruise missiles- to make development of such technology a which are cheap, air-breathing missiles akin to the World priority was put forward at a meeting of War II buzz bombs. the Joint Chiefs of Staff about six weeks ago, said one of the officials. It served to Dealing with that threat "would take a follow-on trigger Reagan's long-held beliefs, said the effort," said one official. The implication of that remark official. is that the United States would continue to rely on offensive cruise missiles as a deterrent, while de-empha- sizing the importance of ballistic missiles. The Soviets already have charged that Reagan's idea would violate current arms Reagan's key political gain from the proposal is to treaties, including one that limits anti. illustrate his peaceful intentions, despite his plan to ballistic missile systems. spend an unprecedented $1.7 trillion on the military in The officials acknowledged that the re- the next five years. His Wednesday speech was the fist of strictions on development of such systems three addresses the president is to make in the next two could create a problem. weeks. One official at the briefing summed up The principal purpose of the speech was to persuade what may be the main practical impact of the public and Congress that Reagan's massive military Reagan's Proposal: When laser, particle buildup is justified given the Soviet military threat, which beam or microprocessor technology comes the president went into in detail. up in budget discussions in the future, Next on the agenda is a March 31 speech in Los money is more likely to be found for such Angeles in which the president is expected to discuss activities than before. Futuristic laser-beam weapons already in works in Pentagon By Charles W. Corddry Washington Bureau of The Sun Washington - Beam weapons. the brand-new forms of defensive weapons envisioned by President Reagan, al- ready are under extensive investigation in the Defense Department, and officials believe the first ones could be in operation in a decade. They already foresee "a constellation ofhalfspace laser platforms" that might be able to knock out the mis- siles in a large-scale Soviet attack, striking them soon af- ter they left their underground launch sites. Officials believe that they will be able to decide by 191$ to go ahead with what they call "on-orbit demonstra- tions" of prototype lasers with the potential for attacking targets at great distances at the speed of light. Moreover, they believe that another form of "directed- energy weapon" - atomic particle beams - eventually could be used to defend against bombers, law-flying cruise missiles and ballistic missile warheads reentering the atmosphere en route to targets. President Reagan broadly spelled out Wednes- day night his "vision of the future" in which the possibilities of defense against missiles would make possible a dramatic shift away from total re- liance on the threat of nuclear retaliation to deter an attack. White House officials emphasized yesterday that the president's decision had lifted the undertaking out of the bureaucracy, where it competes year-by- year with endless other projects, and given it top priority with a clearly stated goal - the develop- ment of defenses by the turn of the century. The officials said the president probably would issue a directive today putting the project in mo- tion. They did not look for increases in research spending for a year or so. The Pentagon's current outlay for research on exotic defense weapons is about $1 billion a year. While Mr. Reagan was preparing Wednesday to unfold his plan in his television address that night, the Defense Department's officer in charge of di- rected-energy weapons, Maj. Gen. Donald L. Lam- berson, was by coincidence describing progress and prospects for the Senate Armed Services Commit- tee. He cautioned that these were "brand-new weap- on forms,' never before developed or deployed, with no history of use or measurement of effective- ness. In developing the technology for eventual weapons, he said, the Pentagon was trying to learn how feasible such weapons will be and how cost-ef- fective. He left little doubt, however, about the depart- ment's confidence in eventual success, holding out that in another decade the first directed-energy weapons may become operational. In strategic defense - the aim specified by Mr. Reagan - the "payoff could be particularly high," General Lamberson said. Directed-energy weapons, he pointed out, gener- ate radiant energy or energetic particles, focused in a narrow beam on targets The beams of electro- magnetic radiation or atomic particles can deliver intense energy on targets almost instantaneously. Depending on what is learned about propagation of the beams through air, ionosphere or space, the general said in his prepared statement, directed- energy weapons may have as many applications as missiles and guns do today. Their reach could extend from 6 miles when used in the atmosphere to 6,000 miles or more in space uses. He said they could be based on the ground, the sea, in the air or in space vehicles. A single weapon, General Lamberson said could be designed to "negate" tens of targets in a short time "Negate" means, depending on the form of the weapon and the target, destroying the target. confusing the guidance system, wrecking the war head - in general, ensuring that an attacking mis- siles does not accomplish what it was sent to do. In a defense-in-depth, as the general envisioned it, a constellation of space-based lasers could de- fend other U.S. satellites and also negate 50 percent of a Soviet missile attack, engaging hundreds of missiles as they were being boosted in the first stage of flight. Those that got through would have to run other gauntlets. Particle beams appear less certain than lasers to become a reality and sure to take longer if they do. If they are developed, they will be more damag- ing than lasers. The latter will burn their targets, but warheads might be "hardened" to withstand de- struction The particle beams will penetrate to the innards of targets. In general, the Pentagon officer said, the direct- ed-energy program is intended to see whether de- fenses can "more nearly balance the offense-de- fense scale which has been dominated by the of- fense since the introduction of nuclear weapons " It is that intention that President Reagan has raised to high priority. WALL STREET JOURNAL 25 March 1983 Pg. 2 President Is Accused Of Trying to Scare Up Support for Military Democrats Say Speech Aimed To Frighten the Nation, Boost Defense Spending Boa WALL STREET JOURNAL Staff Reporter WASHINGTON - Congressional Demo- crats accused President Reagan of spread- ing false fears about Soviet military strength in an effort to scare the public into backing his proposed military budget in- creases. Responding on behalf of his party to the president's Wednesday night defense speech, Sen. Daniel Inouye (D., Hawaii) charged that Mr. Reagan "left the impres- sion that the U.S. is at the mercy of the So- viet Union." The president's aim, he charged, was to "instill fear in the hearts of the American people" and to "divert our attention from the dismal failure of his economic poli- cies." The senator said Democrats believe na- tional defense "must be strengthened." But he didn't offer any plan for a Democratic defense buildup. Sen. Inouye asserted that the U.S. still leads the Soviet Union in total strategic nu- clear warheads, 9,268 to 7,339, despite a So- viet lead in missiles. These figures, which the Democrats drew from private military analysts, differ sharply from the latest Pen- tagon count, released this month. That count shows the U.S. with just below 9,000 war- heads and the Soviets with 8,500 to 8,850 war- heads-nearly at parity. The senator rejected the president's call for exotic new antimissile devices, calling them "yet another generation of destructive weapons." In any case, he contended such weapons could only be deployed and oper- ated by college-educated soldiers that the Army lacks and isn't likely to attract. Democrats, like President Reagan, want "a stronger America," Sen. Inouye said. But he said "a defense budget which puts a crushing burden on our economy, which drives as closer to the precipice of economic collapse" makes the U.S. weaker, instead of stronger. Rejecting as "excessive" Mr. Reagan's request for a 10% rise in military spending, after inflation, Sen. Inouye predicted it would be defeated in Congress by members of both parties. He called instead for spend- Political dynamics behind Reagan's defense speeches By Richard J. Colloid Staff correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor Washington President Reagan has embarked this spring on a series of arms speeches and defense Initiatives, but he has yet to weld them into a "grand strategy." This is the view of arms and defense experts who are veterans of Republican administrations, including advisers to the Reagan defense effort. The President, they say, in largely reacting to separate stimuli, among them: ? The need to shore up political sup- port on the conservative right. This sup port brought him to office, and he will need It again if he runs in 1984. ? Foundering support for his defense budget In Congress. ? Pressure for a nuclear freeze at home. ? Ferment in Western Europe for an interim nuclear arms agreement with the Soviets. ? The need to build a case for a bas- ing plan In the US for the new MX missles. Add to this the President's inclina- tion, at times, to depict US-Soviet rela- tions In highly moralistic terms - cal- log Soviet ideology the "focus of evl," for Instance - and it is no wonder the pubic, America's allies, and even the experts are hard put to grasp the overall pattern of Reagan arms policy, the experts say. Reagan at times gets personally involved in phases of arms strategy decisions that catch his fancy, aides say. He is said to have seized, for Wednesday night's speech, on the idea of a futuristic "defensive" arms era. Here are the main Reagan positions on arms control and defense: ? In Orlando, Fla., on March 8, Reagan denounced Soviet ideology as evil, rejected the nuclear freeze movement as a fraud, and insisted in hawkish tones on "peace through strength." Reagan's immediate au- dience. was the National Association of stem the impact of Catholic bishops and, po- litically, firm up his base among the na- tion's conservatives. ? Reagan's Wednesday address under scored the Soviets' military buildup and their encroachment into this hemisphere. It was intended to help revive Senate backing for his defense spending plans, both in the GOP-controlled upper chamber and in nego- tiations with the House, which this week passed its own budget. a Next Thursday in Los Angeles, Presi- dent Reagan is expected to talk about a pos- sible interim agreement for talks on reduc- ing intermediate-range nuclear arms in Europe. American allies in Europe, as well as moderates on Capitol Hill, contend the Soviets are not going to go for Reagan's so- called "zero-option" proposal. They want some immediate promise of progress. Those who oppose an interim pact argue it will in effect become the new "bottom line" for the US, forestalling any later movement toward Reagan's zero-option position. ? The second week of April, Reagan will likely respond to the recommendations of his commission on MX missile deployment. Congress last year rejected a dense-pack basing scheme. Rather than risk defeat on the MX. Reagan withdrew his own proposal and appointed a bipartisan panel to study the MX further. The group's recommenda- tion is expected shhortly. Both hard-lice and moderate arms ana- lysts find disquieting questions arising as Reagan moves through this series of public explanations of policy. A conservative Reagan arms adviser points out that in speeches such as his Or- lando talk, the public was given "a genuine Insight" into the President's thinking and that of the people around him. "These speeches seem to be confrontationist, rather than concWatory," says a moderate defense analyst. "There is already some disquiet about the Reagan ad- ministration's defense and arms policies. But the speeches raise more questions. As a result, he's losing consensus - both at home and among the allies - not building caoeenms." "The only common denominator is Reagan's feeling of urgency that he has to get his separate message across - that be must convey the truth as he sees It," says another GOP arms adviser. "These [arms speeches) have the mark of things that spring from the heart, and not the result of ing more money on social programs the president has cut, saying "our national strength does not depend solely on the man- her of missiles we have." Selection of facts in Reagan's speech By Fred Kaplan Special to The Globe WASHINGTON - The news- making novelty In President Ron- ald Reagan's defense speech Wednesday night NEWS was his announce- ANALYSIS ment of a new pro' gram to build defen- sive weapons that can intercept en- emy missiles before they hit Ameri- can territory. However, the purpose of the speech was not to address the is- sues of the 21st century - when Reagan said those new weapons might be ready - but rather to urge the American people to tell their senators and congressmen that the President's $274-billion fiscal 1984 defense budget must be passed in full. To that end, he spent most of his network time trying to paint an awesome picture of Soviet military might. But very little of what he said was new, and much of it was only superficially scary. The most heralded moment was when he Introduced aerial photo- graphs, most of them secret until now," to illustrate Soviet military expansion In Central America. The photos revealed a huge spy facility In Cuba, a 10,000-foot runway in tiny Grenada and a previously re- leased picture of rather old Soviet military equipment In Nicaragua. Although photos from spy- planes or satellites are rarely re- leased to the pub- lic, there was nothing of substance In these pictures that was not already widely known. Comparing Soviet and American nu- clear arsenals, Reagan said the United States had not built a new ICBM since the Minuteman 3 of 1970, while since then the Soviets have built five new ICBMs and have upgraded those eight times. He did not point out, however, that the Minuteman 3 has been upgraded as well - its explosive yield doubled due to new warheads, its accuracy improved by roughly a factor of two, the har- dened protection of its silos more than tripled in strength. While they do not downplay the im- mensity of the Soviet ICBM buildup, some intelligence analysts believe Sovi- et production of so many different types of ICBMs reveals their Inefficiency as much as anything else. They probably could have achieved the same results by our methods - mass production of just one type. The President also noted that the So- viets have built more than 200 Backfire bombers, while we "haven't built a new long-range bomber since our 852s were deployed about a quarter of a century ago." This again is true. but the Back- fire is considered a medium-range bomber, with about half the range of the 652: most of the Backfires are de- ployed with the Soviet Naval Aviation Command. At the same time. Reagan said noth- ing of the 66 US FBI 11A bombers that the US produced In the 1970s. The FBIIIAs are classified medium-range. but they can fly 6000 miles compared with the Backfire's 5500, and they all have orders to strike targets Inside the Soviet Union in case of nuclear war. Reagan also did not mention that the B52s have been modified so many times - new bombs, navigational sys- tems, electronics and so forth - that they are not the same planes they used to he. The President also said the Soviets have 1200 intermediate-range missile warheads, including those on SS20s, while NATO has none. This Is true, but he left out of the equation 180 French nuclear missiles, roughly 1000 US and Allied nuclear-equipped planes well within striking range of the Soviet Union, and the 400 US Poseidon sub- marine-launched warheads explicitly dedicated to NATO's defense. Reagan cited many types of conven- tional weaponry - tactical aircraft, tanks, attack submarines and artillery launchers - In which the Soviets have led in production over the past decade. Again, his numbers were correct; left out was any consideration of where the weapons are deployed. The Pentagon has noted that the Soviets devote about 35 percent of their defense budget to the Chinese border. Soviet submarines provide mainly for coastal defense, and are divided among four fleets that, due to geography, cannot be joined togeth- er. Even with these considerations, the Soviets would be ahead in some cate- gories of weapons, but not by so dra- matic a lead as Reagan depicted. Many defense analysts find all such "static comparisons" useless. Anyone, they say, can pick a couple of dozen In- dicators that seem to reveal one side ahead of the other. Reagan showed only those that show the Soviets ahead. At the request of Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.). the Congressional Research Service re- cently compiled a list showing 24 mea- sures of military power by which the United States and its allies are clearly ahead of the Soviet Union and its allies. Reagan also made some misleading claims about his defense budget and about congressional criticism of It. As an illustration of the progress the mih- tary has made under his Administra- tion, he noted that, in contrast to the empty platters of the past. the United States is now building the BI bomber, one Trident submarine a year, the Ml tank, modernizing the Air Force and re- building the Navy to a 600-ship fleet. However, except for the BI and the 600- ship Navy, all these programs were in- herited from previous Administrations. Reagan compared congressional de- mands to cut the budget with the "kind of talk that led the democracies to ne- glect their defenses in the 1930s and in- vited the tragedy of World War II." This comparison seems to ignore the fact that If the House defense budget were passed by the entire Congress It would still allow for 4 percent real growth - less than Reagan's 10 per- cent. but still a high peacetime rate by pre-Reagan standards - and a $20-bil- lion increase over the fiscal 1983 bud- get. Aides Urged Reagan to Postpone Antimissile Ideas for More Study By LESLIE H. GELB se.a& efl.nwrat Tub., WASHINGTON, March 24 - Presi- dent Reagan went ahead with a pro- posal to develop new defenses ags'nst missiles eves though several white House and Pentagon aides suggested that the idea had not been carefully studied, according to Administration of hotels. The officials, who were involved it.. preparations for the speech Wednesda} night in which Mr. Reagan made the proposal, said a number of Ragan. aides had also argued that it would de- tract from the main point of the speec". - the growing Soviet military threat and the need for the 039 billion Reagan mllitaq budget to meet 'hat challenge Those officials also speculated, along with many on Capitol Hill, that Mr. Ragan decided to make his futuristic proposal as a way of diverting attention from the nuclear freeze movement. Reacting to the speech, the Soviet press said today that Mr. Reagan's plan for new antimissile technologies amounted to a new stye In the arms rare and that deployment of any such weapons could violate the 1972 :rusty limiting such systems. [Page A9.] Some American scientists said the President's proposal might never be technically feasible but would be strate- tically "dangerous" if it was ever made workable. Other scientists des fended the concep [Page AS.] Interest Rekindled $ Weeks Age Senior officials told reporters at it White House briefing that Mr. Reagan's longstanding interest in ideas for de- fense against nuclear attack was reig- nited six weeks ago when the subject came up at a meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. But because of the Whitt House's desire to keep this element of the President's speech a surprise, strategic experts within the Adminls- tration were not given an opportunity to review the proposal before he made his speech, a number of officials said. The senior officials were careful not to portray the President's all for a comprehensive and Intensive effort to define a longterm research and devel- opment program" as even a plan or a proposal. They said Mr. Reagan signed a for- mal directive today, calling for a first phase of intensive study of the Idea, fol- lowed by a second phase of rwormom- dations and possible Implementation of new programs. But emphasized that it was still only an t , not a pro- gram. One referred to it as a way of get- ting "attention, engendering a debate, posing of an alternative" to exclusive reliance on offensive missiles. The officials also made clear they were aware that the President's an- nouncement would lead the AdmWstra- Un into a debate about nuclear dater- rencesed arms control. They did not pretend to have answers to fundamental questions mised by Mr. Reagan's challenge to the scientific community to find a way of protecting the United States from a unclear at- tack. Among such questions are these: IWil the proposed strategy violate existing arms limitation treaties. in particular the 1977 agreement limiting Soviet and United States antimissile systems and their development? ICan a defensive system be devised that cannot be overcome by the of- fense? gWin deterrence be enhanced or un- dermined by such a system, which would Wow one side to strike first and limit the effects of a retaliatory blow? This fast is especially important be- cau se such ? ryetm cold theoretically be developed by the Soviet Union as well as by the United States. The senior officials responded simply that these questions would have to be explored and that them was time to do so. They stressed that they were talking about such technologies as laser beams and other forms of directed energy, which probably will not be ready for use as weapons until after the year 7000. They said Mr. Reagan did not envi- sion any action under his effort in the next S to 10 years that would rase ques- tions about American _ compliance with existing aftoontral ties. What Mr. Reagan was seating, they said, was not a crash program but ^ change In research am= from shooting mssliss with missiles to more advanced technologies. The officials also said the President's speech Wednesday night should be seen as pan of atrlI '. Re4mdWveran address in Los Angeles text Thursday deWog with arms control. In It, he Is expected to until a proposal for an In- terim agreement reducing, but not eliminating. interm.wtb[fnge mis. Wes tar$sted an Europe and Asia. A wait or so later, the officials said, he plane to outline new proposals for de- pbying iand-baead Intercontinental missiles. This, it is said, will reflect the results of a Presidential commission headed by Lieut. Gen. Brant Scowc oR, retired. It is expected that the Scow. croft plan for missile deployments will be accompanied by a plan for limiting Intetcmtlnental-range missiles. The senior officials said the idea pm started by the President Wednesday night called for no new funds in the cur- rent fiscal year and perhaps time in the fiscal year ISM. '!Le Pentagon now spends about $750 million on defense against ballistic missiles, they said. About mo0 million of this is on the tradi- tional program of scooting down mis- siles with missiles, and the remainder is devoted to advanced technologies. Democrats and liberals in Washing. ton have already attacked the proposal as a possible violation of the 1977 treaty, known as the Anti-Bal istic Missile or ABM Treaty, which limits the Soviet Union and the United States to one ms- slle defense site each. Article It of the treaty defines an anti- missile system as "a system to counter strategic ballistic mend Oigthht trjecmissiles tory. ~That s a ge- f merle definition that would cover taxer beans or any other mess to intercept and destroy Incoming missiles. Article V. Section 1 sates: "Each party undertakes not to develop, teat or deploy ABM systems or components which are sea-based, air-based, space- based or mobile land-based." This does not prohibit study or research. The con- tentious Issue is what constitutes re- search on the one hand and develop mat on the other. Both the Soviet Union and the United States have research programs to make weapons of lases beams and other forms of directed energy that could be used to Interce? missiles. Neither side has challenged the legitimacy of the other's program. NEW YORK TIMES 25 March 1983 Pg. 8 SCIENTISTS DUBIOUS OVER MISSILE PLAN By CHARLES MOHR Aria Y T. N.YetTw WASHINGTON, March M - Some scientists Bald today slut President Raga's proposal to develop a defense against nuclear attack may never be technically feulble, but that It would be strategically " Me us" if It was ever made workaber sdentists do. fended the concept. Dr. Wolfgang Paratsky of Stanford Untvenlty, who was Invited to dine at the White House with Mr. Reagan Wednesday night but declined, said M farad t e Preident's request that scientists join in an Intensiveeffort to build a workable defensive shield spirit ballistic missiles to be "some. what spiritually troubo a.' TM president made DL request in a speech later Wednesday night. Dr. Panofsky and a number of other figures in American science said they doubted that scientists could be mar- shaled into an effort resembling the Manhattan Project that produced the first nuclear weapon in World War 11. In his speech. Mr. Reagan said he was seeking a "vision of hope" that no. dear weapons could be made "Impo- tent" by the development of a practical defwlve shield. Aides said the Pres. dent was not en?ny single tech. nology but wanted tensified research both Nepee-based stations harboring directed-energy weapons that might shoot down missiles and land-based an- tlmwlle systems. The President said it ml t require decades to achieve work. able systems. Called 'Extremely Dangerous' Dr. Victor Weiskopf of the Mxera- chusetts Institute of Technology, one of the scientists who did meet with the President Wednesday night at the White House, said he believed the Prei- dent's goal would be "extremely dam- Serous and destabilizing." A number of other scientists and non- scientists took the same view. In con- trast to President Raga's argument that a nuclear warfare defensive sys- tem would make for a safer world, these critic aarrgguued that any success in developing antimissile defenses would undermine detemnce of nuclear Tear, lad to a stepped-up acme race and eventually to pre-0mptlve warfare In space to destroy the proposed defensive platforms there. Several of the scientists also ex- pressed the view that pr sent "sup Port" or "benign" military new of space that enhance United States mili- tary security would be endangered by an to place weapon and counter- measure devices in space. Such support applications now include the use of satellites for sensor stations to warn of we. t'r.u.t cacaos Mesa ~ olao~lp of ke. sloths u" w1th seva"of male, ppwtlo~o w Sea he so grawdy eEv as we brsLY~~ w ~sant Wow% a noodle. wail Is ow. e e - amrsy aa andi- Idraove! w OMM bidap -anrpYi err? Ydt. TTY asset Y amplified by rbren wfS coq. a.a It aarse hostile missile launches, highly detaueo rewrmUeance and s Soviet union and tM'rat of the world, and a complex network of commhnta. UM. Critics also asserted that the Pref. dent's plan would endanger the pros. pods for nuclear arms control agree. menu with the Soviet Union by under-limiting Ustm the missile d fences and aleraUpa a nos to achieve a workable ample o7 such defenses. 'Pie In the Sky' Jeremy Stone, director of the Federa- tion of American Scientists, said "the ABM treaty IN not only the most impor. tent treaty we have. but it is the founda- tion for future treaties on offensive weapons." He added: "If either side thought the other was going to withdraw from the ABM treaty there would be no way at all to get agreement on offensive arms treaties; each side would have to re- serve the right to build whatever wisp. Otis It needed to penetrate the defense. , As Secretary of Defense in the iaes's. Robert S. McNamara championed the view that it was against the national se. verity interests of both the United States and the Soviet Union to seek a nu- t oar warfare defense. In a broadcast r a peeeati ho or boon. The prtae Mr wadpee krtm silk neaaeo of eYtaesa at easada elm. T ey soot be sseaweted W Meet as Some see is weed by aspen MM not new eMesa r a pwtttW beau sat awed be aimed w t sney a ar apaLL Nest adesdos steslde, se laaa booo do saw, YraM of do tee sta.. Nw doeSts enwee aaWUU weer d are bear, et ear ,YelrN r ianaaaaed k tslisd . en Win bee s.saa Pis morning be ailed Mr. Raga's Proposal 'pie in the ft... Dr. Edward Teller, who led the effort to develop thermonuclear weapons, is one scientist wtdiscussed by his urged a much like thay the Presi- dent Wednesday nl4ht. Dr. Teller is dose to Mr. Reagan a science adviser, George Keyworth. Even the critical scientists said they approved of put and continuing to. search and development efforts to ex- plore ballistic missile defers and spay bused military applications so as to prevent "technological swprise" by the Soviet Ualon. "But," said Dr. Welaskopf, "I can't understand why the President put it on the front burner with so much fanfare wafts his purpose was political, to sell his military budget to Co tg ear." "I won't exclude that such a y dam odd It w Wd be practical for a vary Ions not b time. He said that H the Soviet Union developed a missile defense first, "we would be completely defenseless." He added, "Either side would have to show down what the other side had in spas- It would be the beginning of a nuclear war." NEW YORK TIMES 25 March 1983 Pg. 9 Weinberger Says ABM Pact May Ultimately Need Amending By JOHN DARNTON spc.wratN YfT,aa MADRID, March 24 - Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger said today that President Reagan's Proposal m Wednesday to look for new ways to defend against missiles "was fully con- sistent" with the antiballistic missile treaty signed with the Soviet Union in 1972. But Mr Weinberger indicated that the treaty might have to be amended when the proposed system was actually deployed. Mr. Weinberger made his statement in response to a comment by Tass, the Soviet Government's press agency, that a shift of American nuclear deterrent policy from massive retaliation to a new type of effective defense against missiles would violate the 1972 accord. The President is very clear that we would do the work we have to do fully consistent with the treaty.- Mr. Wein- berger said at a news conference. He said the treaty allowed research, Study and development of antimissile de- fenses and blocked only deployment on the scale envisioned by Mr. Reagan. Development May Be Drawn Out Mr. Weinberger indicated that the development of the new technologies was likely in be a long process and be expressed confidence that arrange- ments could ultimately be made with the Soviet Union on deployment. '-There is no violation of the treaty in- volved in the study, the research, the development, the examination of that. and the best evidence of that is that the Soviets themselves are doing it," he said. Mr. Weinberger said the proposed new defense system, which he said was technologically feasible although War out on the horizon," could ultimately eliminate offensive weapons and thus "offer one of the greatest hopes of man- kind if it can be realized." The effort to achieve it would not, he asserted, touch off a new kind of anus race, that of defensive weapons. '"!here have been a lot of people," he said,'-who have said we should not even look at the possibility of ballistic missile defense because it is destabilizing. a theory to which I have never sub- scribed.', Be said he was "excited and pleased about this initiative because it seems to me this is the one thing that cuts across all of that sterile doctrinal thinking and gets us to the real possibility of wine. thing towork on." Mr. Weinberger said the current thinking was to construct the system, if possible, out of nonnuclear weapons. "The goal is to destroy these missiles before they can impact on the earth, and if that can be done with nonnuclear weapons, so much the better," he said The 1972 treaty allowed the United States and the Soviet Union each to con- struct two antiballistic missile systems, one of them around the national capital. The Soviet Union is known to have in- stilled a system around Moscow The United States experimented with anti- missile deployment Grand Forks, N. D., but essentially scrapped the project in 1976, putting the missiles in storage. Mr. Weinberger said that the existing antimissile system was effective only in Protecting a small area and that the goal now was to construct a more exten- sive system, perhaps partly based in space, that would work "not just 5o per. cent or 6o percent of the time" but be certain enough to render offensive weapons ineffective. It was a much grander plan than any limited version that might be used to protect closely packed MX missiles and eventually, he said, it could perhaps be extended to cover Western Europe. Democrats Assert Reagan Is Using `Star Wars' Scare to Hide Blunders By FRANCIS X. CLINES SPWW W tie New York Tines WASHINGTON, March 24 - Con- gressional Democrats accused Presi- dent Reagan today of using a "Star Wars scenario" to stir fear of the Soviet Union among the American people and distract them from "the dismal fail- ure" of the Administration's economic program. The Democrats also accused the President of "selective declassification of information for political effect" in his release of Intelligence photographs to bolster his accusations about the Soviet threat. Delivering the Democrats' response to the President's televised address to the nation Wednesday night, Senator Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii contended that "the President left the impression that the United States is at the mercy of the Soviet Union." "Most respectfully, Mr. President, you know that Is not true," Mr. Inouye declared. "Our scientists, our engi- neers, our generals, are not dunces." 'Buck Rogers' Weapons The Senator said the President, in his description of Soviet and American nu- clear strength, "chose not to mention the superiority of the submarine-based missiles we have developed to counter the Soviets." "You could have, but chose not to mention, our superior, indeed our sin- gular development of cruise missiles which can penetrate all known Soviet defenses," Senator Inouye continued. Accusing the president of seeking to distract the public with talk of "Buck , Rogers" weapons and allegations of American nuclear inferiority, Senator Inouye said: "In your urgency to defend your de- fense budget, with its huge increases, against the more moderate proposals which have received bipartisan support in the Congress, we believe that you have failed to present an honest pic- ture." "Here it is," the Senator continued. "Soviet land-based intercontinental balistic missiles outnumber those of the United States. But the warheads on these missiles are more than offset by our warheaad advantage in sea-based submarine missiles, and our bombers and cruise missiles." Taking a cue from the President's speech, the Democrats had their own graphs on hand depicting information they chose to highlight. Mr. Inouye pointed to total nuclear warheads, not- ing that the Soviet Union now has 7,339 while the United States has 9,268. "Why did he suggest American inferi. ority?" the Senator asked, addressing the American public at this point. "I be- lieve he did so because he is afraid that his excessive defense budget will be trimmed by the Congress and because he wants to take our attention off of the economic disasters brought on by his policies." The Democrats, complaining that the President had already deeply slashed social programs for child nutrition and education, contended his defense pro- gram would put a "crushing burden" on the nation. dgrw rective oorrdde national Reagan Missile Plan: di defense technologies and the budget Impileations of pursuing each of there. Technology and Politics Reagan probably will not ask for WASHINGTON -Reviving a concept that has been in limbo for a decade. President Reagan's call for futuristic missile defenses to replace current nuclear deterrence policy appears to be based on a combina- tion of promising new technologies and pressing new political needs. On-board minicomputers and so- phisticated infrared sensors have vastly improved the potential for ground-based interceptor missiles, while directed-energy beams of lasers and subatomic particles hold out Buck Rogers-like possibilities for destroying warheads in space, according to defense officials. And the concept may undercut the efforts of Reagan political foes in Congress to slash the defense budget, impose a nuclear freeze and kill the MX missile by shifting the focus of debate from the arms buildup to its new strategy of replacing the traditional "balance of terror" with a high -tech umbrella. s Against Ballistic Missiles Drawing shows a system that would intercept enemy missiles with conventional anti-missile Officials working to win congres- donal acceptance of the MX said Thursday that they expect Reagan to reiterate his emphasis on missile defense in two weeks when he unveils the plan of the special UX commission for being the contro- versial intercontinental ballistic missile. "This will help sell the MX," one industry source said, "because it's bound to defuse some of the opposi- tion which saw MX as a destabiliz- ing, 10-warhead mega-monster." To the White House, Reagan's purpose was much broader. "The President's hope is to redirect thinking away from the strategy of depending on strategic (offensive) missiles to (a strategy to) reduce or even eliminate them completely one day," one aide said. The new direction emerged from discussions between Reagan and the Joint Chiefs of Staff that began six weeks ago and will be made significant additional funds for the pto~ect until the 1985 fiscal year, whidi begins Oct. 1, 1994, according to the White House. Roughly $1 billion a year now is being spent on researching the overall concept. But the program until now has been relegated to the "sub-critical" category by government planners, and Reagan's purpose Wednesday night was to elevate it to "a critical level," with corresponding time and budget priorities, another White House official said asking that he not lie named because of his role as a presidential adviser. Beyond that, he said, Reagan wanted to generate "a conscious, public policy debate on the issue invite consideration" That debate began immediately. Offering the Democratic response to the speech, Sen. Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii, a member of the Senate Intelligence and Appropriations committees, said "the President at- tempted to instill fear in the hearts CONTINUED NEXT PAGE warheads; President also proposed research on futuristic laser and particle-beam weapons. PLAN... Continued of the American people, to rate the specter of a Soviet armed nuclear attack and to divert our attention from the dismal failure of his eco- nomic policies." Sen. Alan Cranston ( D-Calif.) said that Reagan went on television to try to scare the American people and Congress into spending more money than is necessary to defend our country and our allies." "Ronald Reagan's hope is, in reality. a nightmare of mote and more spending that will make us more insecure militarily and weaker economically and increase the dan- ger of a nuclear holocaust," Crn- eton said. Beyond such political arguments, the ~eU-missile de? tense is itself Oldest of the current missile de? fense technologies Is the traditional approach of shooting down one missile with another. It is the closest to being made into a weapon, with the U.S. Army's Ballistic Missile Defense program spending about $500 million this year on it. Basically?It is a two-layer de- fense scheme, with one system to Intercept enemy warheads at long range (above the atmosphere, which ends at 3M.000 feet. or some 00 miles in altitude), and the other to kill warheads that escape the first defense line and descend to about 50,000 feet. Ten years ago, a similar two- tiered system was built and briefly Installed at the single anti-bwiatw missile site allowed to the United States under the 1972 Soviet- American anti-ballistic missile treaty. But the technical consensus was that it would not work and it was dismantled. Therewas also a political consen- " that both the Soviet Union and the United States were safer from a surprise attack if neither had an ARM system. Possession of such a system, however imperfectly it worked, would be more likely to leapt leaders to resort to war in a crisis, it was thought. the altitude interceptors to- ward warheads. Each intercep- tor would spread out as many as 24 Amending of ABM pact hinted by Weinberger Madrid block deployment." (Reuter) - Defense Secre- r He added, "We would certainly tary Caspar W. Weinberger yesterday hope that if we are successful in this suggested the 1972 U.S.-Soviet anti- in the decades ahead - it may take a ballistic missile treaty might have to long time because the technology is be amended for the deployment of the not here yet - we would be able to new ABM system proposed by Presi- work out an arrangement under dent Reagan. which this great advance could be But he said the proposal made by achieved. Mr. Reagan Wednesday night to shift "There is no violation of the treat U.S. defense policy to an ABM nu- clear involved in the study the and research deterrent did not violate the and development, and best evi- treaty, which limits each side to one ABM system. dence of that is that the Soviets them- Mr. Weinberger, at a news confer selves are doing it," he added. ence midway through a three-day Mr. Weinberger said a new ABM visit to Spain, said Mr. Reagan's pro- system might very well use nonnu- posal might help halt the arms race clear weapons, adding "The goal is to because it would create a way to de- destroy these weapons before they en- stroy incoming ballistic missiles. ter the atmosphere and if that could And he rejected a charge by the be done by nonnuclear weapons, all Soviet new agency Tass that Mr. Rea- the better." gan's proposal, which it said envi- Under the 1972 treaty, the Soviet sioned ABMs based on Earth and in Union built an ABM system around orbit, would violate U.S.-Soviet Moscow. America did not deploy its treaties. own system, though there were plans Mr. Weinberger said the proposal for one at a missile base at Great was to study and develop new ABM Falls, N.D. systems, and "the treaty goes only to small charges of conventional ex- plosives to destroy incoming war- heads with steel pellets or shrapnel. Surviving warheads would be attacked by the Low-Altitude De- fense System (LOADS) with a similar non-nuclear charge, accord- ing to one design described in a Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory study. Reagan's new emphasis on mis- sile defense is viewed primarily as a push for non-traditional defense !technologies, however, including laser and particle beams that coma Abe made into weapons. At present, some $250 million is budgeted for such directed-energy concepts (with another $250 million for so-called generic, or nonspecific research in the field). Lasers are considered the more promising of the two. However. a laser beam must dwell, or stay, on a target a measurable length of time to burn a hole in it or melt its internal mechanisms. It requires enormous quantities of energy and fuel to operate. If based on the ground, its beam would be dissipat- ed as it passed through the atmos- phere. lamer weapons would be initially moat effective against satellites, which are usually fragile. Incoming warheads, which are sturdier and protected against re,-entry heat, would be extremely difficult tc destroy with lasers, at least as they have been developed to date. Particle beams, which are akin tc machine guns shooting billions of subatomic particles, would be far more destructive. The problem with them is that such "machine guns" are basically particle accelerators or "atom smashers," which are huge installations demanding great amounts of energy. SPECIAL EDITION -- "STAR WARS" LOS ANGELES TIMES 25 March 1983 Pg. 20 Reagan Plan Won't Violate Pact,U.S.Says By OSWALD JOHNSTON, T ime$ Stall Writer WASHINGTON-A major re- search effort aimed at developing a future defense system against nu- clear missiles, proposed Wednesday by President Reagan, would not violate the 1972 U...-Soviet treaty on anti-ballistic missiles, Adminis- tration officials insisted Thursday. But that treaty, which is directed specifically at the 1960s technology of nuclear-tipped missiles designed to track, intercept and destroy in- coming warheads, would have to be revised if the proposed futuristic technology of lassie, particle beams and other space weaponry were ever developed to the point of actual deployment, officials concede. In one of a flurry of Soviet press reports Thursday denouncing Reagan's defense policy speech, Tess, the official news agency, said that "deployment of such systems of anti-missile defense would be a direct violation of the Soviet- American treaty on anti-ballistic missiles and its protocol." Adminis- tration officials basically do not disagree that the treaty, as now written, would prohibit deployment. 'No Ow Wants That' In his speech Reagan stressed that his project would be "consistent with our obligations under the ARM treaty" and he specifically noted the problem that the treaty was de- signed to address. "If paired with offensive systems," Reagan said, systems of strategic defense "can be viewed as fostering an aggressive policy and no one wants that." The ABM treaty, as initially drawn, would have limited each superpower to deployment of a single deployment of 100 antibal- listic missile launchers and missiles to protect its national capital area and a similar deployment to protect one offensive missile launch site. The treaty was amended in 1974 to allow only one deployment each. and the Soviets have subsequently LOS ANGELES TIMES 25 March 1983 Pg. 1 l Scientists Spt on Feasibililty of Missile Plan By GEORGE ALEXANDER, Times Science Writer President Reagan's proposal for sustained research to create a futur- istic shield against enemy missiles left many scientists skeptical Thursday, but others cheered the idea, saying it has merit as a defense and is scientifically feasible. 1 know of no natural laws (of science) that would have to be violated (to develop) a missile de- fense system," said one Southern California silent st who favors the President's idea but who declined to be identified by name. "Yet it doesn't automatically follow from that that such a system would necessarily be effective." Edward Teller, the physicist who has played a major role in the development of the nation's nuclear arsenal, was more positive. In a telephone Interview Thursday from scaled down the size of their instal- lation defending Moscow. T17tjte Unit- ed States unilaterally dismadtled its only deployment, at Grand Forks, N.D., in 1979. Advaoeed Taehaolaglsa The treaty forbids developing and testing of "ABM systems or compo- nents which are sea-based, air- based, space-based or mobile land- based" but the treaty also specifies that an "ABM system" is strictly defined as the kind of interceptor missile under development in the late 1960a and the radars and launchers associated with such technology. The treaty was signed in tandem with the 1972 interim agreement on offensive missiles, widely known as SALT I. On the question of advanced technologies such as the 21st- Cen- tury devices under consideration in Reagan's speech, the treaty is silent. And, in fact, the Pentagon for several years has been spending $1 billion a year on precisely that kind of research. According to Pentagon analysts, the Soviets are devoting many times that to similar research programs. his office at Stanford University's Hoover Institute, Teller saidi "There are good prospects far de- fending the nation. I'm talking about ingenious ideas by vmnw people (in the nation's military-in- dustry establishment) and I'm opti- mistic that these ideas can become reality." Teller would not discuss these ideas in detail, but he acknowledged that some were the same suggested systems he referred to last autumn in opposing Proposition 1Z Califor- nia's Nuclear Freeze Initiative, whit was passed by the voters. were most definitely in- cluded in the President's speech," Teller said, without elaboration, "But don't overstate them; he (Reagan) might have other things in mind that I don't know about." During the campaign on the initi- ative last fall, it was learned that the Lawrence Livermore Laborato= ry-operated for the federal gov- ernment by the University of Call= fornia-was exploring the possibility of an X-ray laser system that could shoot down an enemy's ballistic missile before those weap- ons could fall on American soil. There also were reports of studies on beams of electrically charged particles and the electromagnetic effects of nuclear detonations, a sort of nuclear flak screen, being used to blunt any missile attacks against the United States. But there has been no official confirmation that these ideas are under development or are being studied. Inge to Campfp The question of futuristic tech- nology came up in the campaign when freeze proponents argued that to build such systems would height- en the risk of nuclear war, while others such as Teller argued that they Were necessary to restore the East-West balance of power. The magazine Aviation Week sit Space Technology has reported, without attribution to sources, that the United States has been carrying out tests of X-ray lasers at the underground nuclear test station in Nevada. To get a laser (the name stands for light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation) to emit a beam of extremely powerful X- rays-of the sort that could inflict damage on a ballistic missile hun- dreds or even thousands of miles distant-requires an initially pow- CONTINUED NEXT PAGE CHICAGO TRIBUNE 25 March 1983 Pg. 8 Space defense plan hailed, hit RESIDENT REAGAN'S call for a' high-technology _missiledefense weapwvy was met with praise conservative group, but criti- wonder weapon" by a as a "" paottn ~~ Preslient Wednesday night pt'opbeed a long-term research giant to develop a "com ve" a4tiballlstlc missile [AB ] defense system by early in the 21st Century m an tp which he attached no pri p tag, wbuld take years and could be rever- add or altered by future Presidents. Tae Pentagon is spending $1 billion a r on ABM research now. On Thursday Reagan asked the National Security Council to begin laying groundwork to seek such a fo} Reagan's proposal came- from the Heritage Foundation, a conserva- tije think tank that last year issued almajor study on the issue of high- gy defense systems. MEAGAN'S PROPOSAL appeared parts of the Heritage k end Fa udation's .study, which calls for 41, satellites in space to defend the WS. against a Soviet missile attack. "We would have preferred a statement, but we can cer- cal the thrust of what the Ptm said: Let's turn to using ooyyr talents for defense " said founda- ti$n spokesman Jack Coakley. "The Important thing is, as op- ed to a nuclear freeze, it a J mething that can be done u aterally by the United States." some science and defense ex- rts criticized the proposal as un- SCIENTISTS SPLIT... Continued erful energy source to begin with. ' The researchers are considering small nuclear explosions for such energy sources. Located very close to the laser, a detonated bomb would flood the laser device with a range of X-rays. Those X-rays would excite the atoms in the laser's material, boosting them to very high energy levels and causing them to put out a sharply focused beam of X-rays. All this would take place in a few billionths of a second before the other effects of the nuclear detonation vaporized the laser device. feasible and heightening fears of war. Dr. Henry Kendall, chairman of the board M the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the desire for a de- fense against nuclear weapons is un- derstandable, but the Reagan pro- posal falls short. The technical weaknesses are considered so great that it is not reasonable to pose it all," he said, a t dding some scientists abandoned the Idea of space-based weaponry a decade ago as unfeasi- ble. "The likelihood is, It is techni- cally beyond reach." KENDALL CALLED Reagan's proposal "another wonder weapon," and said its benefits would be "an illusion." Robert Bowmbns, a retired Air Force colonel who is president of the Institute for Spa pcepeaarnsd Security propposal wads Isparrked by 'anew fascination with high-technology solutions." He said the proposal "would only Increase the fear in the Soviet Union that we were preparing for a first strike," which in turn would greati increase the chance for war initiated by fear, or an accidental war." White House officials tried to portray the President's speech as the beginning of a major departure from three decades of strategy that has deterred attack by threatening a nu- clear retaliation unacceptable to the Soviet Union. Reagan also urged public support for his record peacetime arms build- up now before a reluctant Congress. He showed aerial photographs of So- viet weaponry in Cuba, Nicaragua end Grenada and displayed graphs depicting what he said is the Soviet Feasibility Unproven Is this scheme scientifically feasi- ble? Yes, at least in theory, said a number of physicists interviewed about the plausibility of the Presi- dent's idea. But, they all added, this has yet to be demonstrated. And even if it is, it would still be a long. step-if ever-before that could be incorporated into a workable weap- on system. On this point, there is profound skepticism among many scientists. Wolfgang Panofsky, the director of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center in Northern California, said in a telephone interview, "I know of no developments, no technical ad- Union's "margin of superiority" in arms. EVEN BEFORE THE President went on the air, however, the Demo- cratictroMrolledy House g dealt him a budget that ut increase in his fiscal 1984 defense budget by more than half. But Reagan's a might have some effect in t Senate, where some Republicans are calling for cuts In the defense budget and Reagan is trying to hold his losses to a minimum. Edward Kennedy [D., Mass.] said the House Democrats' budget pro- posal "is a far more responsible answer to the real defense needs of our nation than the misleading Red- scare tactics and reckless 'Star Wars' schemes of the President." The Democratic leaders of the House and Senate asked the three major television networks for equal time to respond to Reagan. In Moscow, the Soviet news agency Taos said the proposal would violate the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaties. The White House received 1,204 telephone calls after Reagan's speech, 948 of them favorable, a spokesman said Thursday. THE JOINT CHIEFS of Staff, deeply concerned about the in- creasing capabilities of Soviet.offen- sive weaponry, recommended to the President in February that he com- mit U.S. resources to developing a better nuclear defense system, ad- ministration officials said. A senior administration official who briefed reporters at the White House said the President wanted to avoid picking any one technology. vances, that would change the pres- ent balance of terror (between the United States and the Soviet Union) to an umbrella of security for just the U.S. Unless, that is, arms-con- trol agreements bring the total number of missiles down to 100 or so on each side. Then, such a system might have a chance of doing what its builders hope it might do." Panofsky said that with the num- ber of nuclear warheads now in existence around the world-the figure is usually taken to be 6,000 to 10,000 of all nuclear-equipped na- tions-there is no way to defend against a determined, concerted, all-out attack. WASHINGTON TIMES 25 March 1983 Pg.1 MW10pnilent to be ordered for missile defense space and bill KI ngarren Howe M1H NOTOF1 TWES STAFF President Reagan plans to sign a national security directive today ordering a broad federal govern- ment program to develop highly sophisticated technology for defense against strategic missile attacks, an objective he first out- lined Wednesday night on nation- wide television. White House Deputy Press Secretary Larry Speaker said a tally of incoming telephone calls about the president's speech, as of noon yesterday, showed 1,768 "positive" and 514 "negative" - 77 percent in support of Reagan. A similar tally of telegrams to the White House showed 432 "for" Rea- gan and 82 "against" - 84 percent "positive" However, Democrats in Con- gress took a different view of the speech. House Speaker Thomas O'Neill, D-Mass., said, "The president ... suggested that our military com- mitments should not be related to overall economic considerations. The key to American military power is not just our strategic weapons but our economic power - and we must never forget that fact" Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., accused Reagan of presenting "an unbalanced view of Soviet military strength with his exaggerated rhe- toric and use of one-sided informa- tion;" referring to Reagan's decision to use top secret intelli- gence photos to support his argu- ments. Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., the chief backer of a nuclear- freeze resolution in the House, told his colleagues the president's Wed- nesday night speech offered new insight to the true Reagan philos- ophy. "The force of evil is the Soviet Union and they are Darth Vader:" Markey said, referring to the vil- lain in the blockbuster movie. "We are Luke Skywalker and we are the force of good." Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., attacked Markey's speech, "I think he [Reagan] held out an olive branch to the nuclear freeze advo- cates, and they threw it back in his face:' Rep. Ken Kramer, R-Colo., said he would introduce a resolution calling on the House to support the president's "bold new initiative:' and objected that some members were trying "to make fun of what is possibly the greatest hope for man- kind." The messages received by the White House seemed to reflect Kramer's view. "You can safely say that this is probably among the heaviest responses to any presidential speech and among the most favor- able reactions:' Speaker said. At a White House briefing yes- terday, senior administration officials said no additional funds will be needed for the program in the proposed fiscal 1984 defense budget. No dollar figure has been put on the president's program. One official told reporters that a request for more funds to finance the program "will first show up in a realistic way" in the budget pro- posed for fiscal 1985. It will be "a measurable increase" over the $1 billion a year the United States now spends on strategic weapons research and development "but it will not be a substantial Increase" in overall defense spending, he said. Envisioned in the program will be research into the possibility of such exotic futuristic systems as lasers, microwaves and particle or energy beams. They could be earth-based or stationed in space. Officials said that the program would not be a breach of interns. tional treaties and that, in any event, testable systems were still "five or 10 years" away. Reagan, himself, scoffed at Soviet charges that the proposed program would violate treaty obligations. During a White House "photo opportunity" with Repub- lican Hispanic leaders, a reporter asked the president about such an assertion from Tess, the Soviet news agency. "Well, I didn't expect them to cheer:" Reagan said. A State Department official was reported to have responded to the Soviet allegations by quipping, "They would've reacted badly if he [Reagan] had read a fudge recipe" One White House official, refer- ring to weapons that could shoot down a hostile missile in the boost phase before its separate warheads were released, said, "If they are not weapons of mass destruction, they are not a breach:' Some of the directed-energy sys- tems, such as lasers, could be based on the ground and use space- based mirrors to hit their targets, another official noted. The Outer Space Meaty, drawn up by the United Nations and signed by many countries, includ- ing the Soviet Union and the United States in 1%7, prohibits the space basing of weapons, "whether for attack or deterrence." It was a follow-up to the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963, also signed by both superpowers. The OST defines "principles governing the activities of states in the exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies:' It forbids "placing in orbit or on celestial bodiesany weapons, military bases or fortifications, or the conducting of tests or military maneuvers there:" Both superpowers have sim- ulated anti-satellite warfare, a related activity, by going through all the phases of destroying a space vehicle without actually destroying it. White House officials said the president's speech was based on a suggestion by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and was "not a new concept." It was an idea in which Reagan had ihown "an immediate interest:" Pentagon sources said that anti- missile defenses were regularly reviewed in studies of nuclear war- fare options and that the JCS had made no special plea for a new strategy. The White House officials said the president's aim was to "get off the nuclear buildup trail:' partly because of the growing interna- tional unpopularity of "building offense for deterrence." Said one official: "It [anti- missile defense] doesn't threaten other countries or their territories but at least protects us:' He cautioned, however, that "the country has relied fora generation on a doctrine [of offense] and has made commitments based on that doctrine. The Europeans rely on American offensive strategic power, which must continue for some time." Time for High Frontier Institutional inertia is a tough obstacle to overcome under any circumstance. When you try to redirect and refocus letng term mdti- billion dollar defense programs, however theproblemincrases,and the situation resembles trying to Stop a speeding car with a snowball. That's usually not a good bet - wiliest oourae,yWcanuseas ow- ball the size of the White House. In his speech to the nation Wednes- day, President Reagan asserted the need for a national defense system that would protect our population from a Soveet ICBM attack. He then announced a major project to develop such a system, and called upon American scientific genius to join this crusade for true peace - to help build a shield for America rather than just another sharp sword. Before he caught President Resgan's eye, retired Atom Gen. Dan Graham and his small staff at Pro- Jed High Frontier had been trying to attract attention to this proposal for some time. Their idea offers a reliable defense of the U.S. against a Soviet ICBM attack using known eschnology but no nuclear weaponry. promises implementation within five or six years, and all at a low price. If you think that sounds too good to be true, read on. The High Flintier concept in volves three mutually supporting systems that, together, promise toeffectively eliminate a Soviet first strike before it reaches its targets. The particu- lar hardware for two of these sys- tems would use off-the-shelf tech- nology, while the third is still in the research phase. Great can has been taken in all cases to avoid violating the ABM or other treaties. The first system, which would be the last to be used, would bee ground- based point defense of missile silos. It would consist of rapid-fire guns able to launch a cloud of projectiles n destroy incoming warheads before they reach their targets. This sys- tem could be in place within one or two years, and would cost about SIO million per silo, or SI billion for 100 MX silos. The second system would be a Global Ballistic Missile Defense (GBMD) consisting of 432 satellites, all hardened to minimize the effects Tbm Carhart, a Washington attor. ney, write often on defense-related issues. of nuclear explosions in space. They would constantly orbit at high speed some 300 miles above the earth, each armed with 40-50 intercept devices similar in concept to the air-to-air missiles with which our fighter air craft are armed. They would attack Soviet missiles in ascent, and would detonate over Soviet territory using non-nuclear explosives and causing no human deaths. GBMD can be in place within five or six years at a cost of under 515 billion. The third system would be a sec- ond generation GMBD. It might be simply an upgrading of GMBD I, or, depending on the solution to prob- lems of directed-energy beam weapons, could be based entirely on new technology. When President Reagan said that such a defensive effort might take us into the next century before implementation, this is the only portion of High Frontier for whick that's true; GBMD I and a point defense of missile silos can be in place, protecting America from ICBM attack, while he is still in the White House. ICBMs have been the "Dread- naughts" of our age, uniformly fared and from which it has always been thought there could be no escape. But the technological dis- coveries we have made in ventur- ing into space have shown how to build a mechanical mongoose with which to nail those Soviet cobras in their ascent phase, thus leaving the Soviets with billions of dollars worth of useless, obsolete hardware on their hands. High Frontier has been dismissed by critics with the superficial state- ment that the Soviets would never allow us to install such a "threaten- ing" system, and would either launch a pre-emptive first strike against us, or would take our GBMD satel- lites out as we put them in place. But a nuclear first strike is the highest risk venture possible, and it would require the Soviets to play all their cards at once. If we believed they would even consider such e move, then that would mean then is no way we could ever propose tt build any defense against them ICBMs without bringing Armaged don down on our heads. But the Soviets know the U.S. never seek a first strike capability-what would be the point? The Soviets have nothing we want, let alone for which we would go to war. And that's the clear. sim- ple reason that President Reagan now Saks to implement a defensive shield of the art for which High Frontier would answer-to change ouratioal defense system back to one that turly defends, rather than threatens. Neither would the Soviets attack our GBMD satellites, for such might create an "open season" on all satellites, and given our recognized technological edge, the Soviets could only lose. The far more likely probability is the least risky - that the Soviets would install their own High Fron- tier system - which be the first military move they have made in memory that we might applaud, for it would only add to stability and security. And the, once we both have our shields in place, we could begin to negotiate significant arms reduc- tions - why not? This is a dramatic new direction in national defense that puts the mili- tary back in the business of defend- ing America. And here is the common ground where left and right can join in promoting an unthrea- tened America, where nuclear- freeze doves can join arms with MX hawks in common pursuit of free- dom, for this is a realistic apprecia- tion of American survival into the future. In an age of political turmoil when the end of life on earth can seem just one button push away, the urgent commitment to this strategy could be Ronald Reagan's finest hour. Questions and answers about Reagan's new defensive strategy By John 131111m National correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor Offense vs. defense. For nearly 40 years - since the dawn of the atomic age - offense has dominated military strategy. Nuclear-armed bombers and missiles can easily overwhelm the best defenses. President Reagan, looking beyond the cur- rent "balance of terror," now wants to renew the emphasis on defense. Ieadfsg scientists say that Mr. Reagan's pro- poaal for more research into antimissile defenses could eventually tip the balance back in favor of those trying to defend their homeland from an atomic assault. The Reagan concept is already triggering de- bate. Here are some of the immediate questions his plan raises, along with answers from leading United States scientists and planners: ? Is an antimissile defense possible? No one knows. In the nearterm, the answer is "no." Cur- rently. there is only one method to stop an incom ing nuclear warhead. That is with a hypersonic missile armed with its own atomic warhead. The missile, using radar and computers, flies close enough to an incoming warhead to destroy it. Such a system, however. is easily over- whelmed by simply firing more enemy warheads at it. More offense is cheaper than more defense, so the system can be defeated. Long-term, however, the answer is less cer- tain. Scientists are looking into a number of op tone, including such exotic weapons as lasers, particle beams, and microwaves. lasers, for ex- ample, might be fired either from satellites in WASHINGTON TIMES 25 March 1983 Pg.6 Space-age weapons seen possible MADRID (UPI) - Defense Secre- tary Caspar Weinberger said yesterday US. know-how which put man on the moon can develop space-age defense weapons capable of destroying incom- ing Soviet nuclear missiles as envisioned by President Reagan. "If both sides can acquire the means of rendering impotent these deadly missiles, we would really have advanced the cause of peace and humanity very, very far," Weinberger told a news conference. He scoffed at suggestions the weapon was a "Star War scheme," saying it would be a "cavalier" description that displayed "a total lack of under- standing" of the new plan. Weinberger said the new super- weapon system to counter nuclear attack called for by Reagan in a televi- sion address Wednesday "would offer one of the greatest hopes of mankind if it could be realized." During his 48-hour visit, Weinberger urged Prime Minister Felipe Gonzalez to keep Spain in NATO as a full member. He also discussed the pending sale of 84 F-18A jet fighters and other American military equipment to Spain. space, or from ground-based stations, to destroy ? could an antimissile system make the incoming missiles. world more dangerous? ? How far are we from developing some of Maybe, and maybe not. Richard Betts, a these exotic systems? foreign policy specialist at the Brookings In- Probably more than a decade. Various scien- stitution, says it depends on the scenario. fists say that by quickening the pace of research, If only the US were developing such a the US could score a breakthrough. At the mo- system, for instance, the Sovietsmlght sud- ment, however, they don't see a workable sys- deoly wake up one morning to Bud that their tees before the year 2000. ? Is the Reagan proposal, then. "Just Politics"? Motives are difficult to judge. However, Albert Carnesale, a Harvard specialist in defense matters, says the Reagan Proposal probably comes at about the right time. For years, spending on defense against missile attack has either held steady or de- clined. Recently it's gone up a little - to about $1 billion a year. But missile defense has gotten little emphasis. Yet, says Dr. Carnevale: "The idea of relying forever on deter Hence Iby mutual destruction) is not good." missiles were ineffective. That would mean the US could launch a nuclear strike against the Soviets without fear of retaliation. If the US were in the process of installing an effective system, Mr. Betts observes, the Soviets might feel they were faced with a "now or never" situation and be prompted Into a preemptive strike. However, if each side Installed antimis- sile systems under a carefully draws timetable, the effect might be stabilizing, expetF may. a What are the Soviets doing? In the Moscow area, the Soviets operate the new Pushkin Antiballistic Missile R Weinberger gave no details about the new weapon, but said, "I think it would not trigger any kind ofarms race at all.,, _ Although "it may be many years, it may be decodes;' development lay within the potential of U.S. technology, Weinberger said. "We have done a great many things and the ability to walk on the moon was realized in a very short time:' he said. "Man had talked about it for centuries. "That is a very good example of how quickly America can achieve things that have been felt to be impossible when the full strength of our very con- siderable resources are deployed behind them" He said that researchers would look into space-deployed laser beams and other high-technology systems "more vigorously and with more direction than we've done in the past" Weinberger said the administration had not earmarked any specific budget requests for the next year for the anti- missile system. It could be financed "at the moment within the very large amounts we have already pro- grammed" for research and develop- ment, he said. der, which at present can guide 82 missiles (that will eventually be raised to 100) to de- stroy incoming warheads. The system is giving the Soviets some useful experience, US sclentistssay. The Soviets ABM system, however, could be easily overwhelmed by US missiles. It would be effective only against an acciden- tal US launch, or against smaller Missile systems such as the British or Chinese. Beyond that, the Soviets are deep into re- search on particle beam and other exotic weapons. Their progress is uncertain. ? Are there moral questions about anti- missile systems? Moral arguments are made on both aides. Some feel a US antimissile system could make the Soviets feel threatened. Oth- ers say it would be a positive step to put the 'US beyond the threat of nuclear weapops. It would, as one physicist noted, bring the US beyond the current world of Dr. Strangelove into the world of Buck Rogers. Rethinking America's strategic posture By Brad Knickerbocker Staff correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor Madrid President Reagan's dramatic proposal to build a new ballistic missile de- fense system brings to the public and political domain the growing debate among experts over how a nuclear war would likely be fought and why it may be getting increasingly difficult to prevent. It is an admission that intercontinental missiles are becoming (paradox- ically) so threatening, yet so vulnerable, that a first strike by one of the superpowers is now conceivable, at least among war planners and strategic theorists. It parallels the debate over the MX and increasing calls (most recently from Henry Kissinger) for the United States and the Soviet Union to move to smaller, mobile missiles while working for eventual deep strategic- arms reductions. The administration sees this as its equivalent to President John F. Kenne- dy's call to put a man on the moon' within 10 years. "That's a very good example of how quickly America can achieve things that have been felt to be im- possible when the full strength of our very considerable resources are deployed behind them," De- fense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger told reporters travel- ing with him in Spain. The administration in fact wants to spend very large sums on explor- ln new ballistic missile defense (BMD) systems. It has already di- rected much more money than its predecessor an development of ground-based BMD systems and air- borne antlsatelalte weapons as well as Lasers, particle beam devices, and other space-based offensive anc defensive systems. it is likely to shift funds within the already proposed 1989 Pentagon budget, and Secretary Weinberger predicts "alt sorts of changes in 1985 and 1156" in this regard. The Soviet Union was quick to charge that the President's proposal would violate the 1972 Antiballistic Missile (ARM) Treaty, which is part of SALT I (the first Stratigic Arms Limitation Treaty). But Washington retorts that the treaty addresses de- ployment only, not research and de- velopment, and notes that the Sovi- ets have been pressing ahead with such systems themselves. Sources say, however, that if new BMD systems are developed, the ARM treaty might have to be scrapped in favor of "a more comprehensive arms-control ems.., US officials deny that this is an effort to develop a "fortress America" and abandon Its European ass. In fact, they say. such touts protect allied countries from threat al fntermediate?range nuclear missiles aimed at them. Within Congress - and In fact within the US Air Force - there has been considerable debate over the effectiveness of ballistic missile defenses, particularly if they are based in space. Retired Army IA. Gen. Dan- iel Graham (former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency) has been pushing what be calls the "high frontier" concept. This In a combination of ground- and space-based nonnuclear antimissile defenses. it has been greeted with considerable skepticism, however. Some experts my the extreme amount of energy and the precision required for lasers to zap incoming war- heads are not attainable. One government source says he doesn't advocate General Graham's proposal, but "would like to see examination of a wide spectrum" of alternatives. While acknowledging that "much of the technology needed ... is not available to- day," he says, "the rapid rate of evolution of technology today In areas as diverse as elec- tronics, accelerators, lasers, microwave generators, optics, aiming and tracking sys- tems. Wgb band-width communications, and even advanced materials enable us to begin this effort now..' It is also noted that this fits In with the present effort to shift to long-range. precl- sion-guided conventional munitions to 69 lend against conventional attack. In the mad-IFft the Pentagon deployed a ballistic missile defense system employ- Ing Spartan missiles to Intercept enemy warheads to space and Sprint missiles to destroy those that had penetrated the atmo sphere. Both employed nuclear warheads. Congress questioned the cost and accu- racy of these systems (as well as their oe- esdty when nuclear deterrence was OW posed to sitace) and scrapped the program. Government Officials say this new effort dos not mean the administration is dasmphadsiog strategic modernization Pro, grams such as the MX missile and B-1 bomber. Rather they see the President's proposal as a possibility for the end of the century and beyond. Nodding to the nuclear freeze movement, efltclals stress that a new ballistic missile defense wouldn't mean a new type of arms race. They say it could lessen the likelihood of nuclear war, and ought to be "acceptable to all segments of our society." a[~ Pages 145-146 President Reagan is pushing ballistic missile defense in the belief that current billion- dollar-per-year BMD efforts won't amount to much without higher priority and, probably, more money, senior Administration officials said yesterday. Reagan sketched his BMD initiative Wednesday night at the end of a speech devoted mainly to promoting his FY 1984 defense budget proposals. He said he was ordering "a comprehensive and intensive effort to define a long-term research and development program" aimed at defending the U.S. and its allies from strategic ballistic missiles. Briefing reporters yesterday at the White House, officials said Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger will be responsible for an interagency study, with advice from outside the government, of what BMD technologies seem most promising and how they should be pursued. Completion of this study, expected this fall, will enable Reagan to decide on budgets, schedules and related questions on how to develop the chosen system or systems, they reported. $1 Billion-Per-Year Effort The Pentagon and the armed services currently are putting about a billion dollars per year into BMD and related work-about $750 million on "traditional" technologies like interceptors and about $250 million on more advanced concepts, chiefly directed energy weapons, officials estimated. One official commented, however, that this is no more than an "inertial investment" that will amount to little without the greater emphasis and policy debate Reagan now seeks. There is no clearly stated BMD goal and no strong commitment of the nation's scientific establishment to BMD, he commented. Today's BMD program is "subcritical," the official said, and Reagan is "trying to drive the program to a critical level" Officials gave no details on what changes are in store for BMD work-that is what will be studied during the next six months-but they left these general impressions: -Funding will increase. The current level is considered a "baseline." FY 1983 budget increases aren't expected, but FY 1984 amounts proposed last month are considered "open" and will be "a very early issue." Reagan will be reviewing the study as FY 1985 budget decisions are made. Although BMD won't be turned into a crash program, it probably will become "a stretched-out crash program." -Priority will be higher. Now, the Defense Department sometimes must pass up promising BMD proposals because of overall budget constraints. As BMD's priority increases, proposals won't drop out as quickly, and more will survive. -Work will broaden. Most of today's effort is aimed at systems that would defend specific sites-ICBM fields, command posts and the like. Reagan's aim is comprehensive defense, and "that means bold new technologies." Reagan's initiative isn't prompted by U.S. technical breakthroughs or fears that the faster-paced Soviet BMD program might steal a march on the U.S., officials commented. Though short of breakthroughs, "remarkable advances" have been made by the U.S. in recent years, including work in microprocessors, segmented optics and pointing and tracking systems, one official said. The Soviets aren't considered any more likely to field a BMD system in the near future than the U.S. is, officials reported, and the two nations might wind up developing systems at about the same time. It's too soon to tell when U.S. BMD work might violate the 1972 U.S.-Soviet anti- ballistic missile treaty, officials said, but this isn't likely for five to ten years. Reagan's desire for strategic defensive systems and a shift away from constant buildups CONTINUED NEXT PAGE BMD PROGRAM... Continued in offensive systems predates his presidency, officials said, but his BMD initiative was triggered about six weeks ago by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Officials said the chiefs raised the question as a non-agenda Item during a meeting with Reagan, who "showed immediate interest," ordered that the idea be developed further, and has been briefed regularly since. The chiefs were said to be "in total community" on BMD. Officials said Wednesday's speech was the first of three on national security. Next week he is expected to speak on arms control and the following week he plans to announce his decision on MX basing. In Wednesday's speech, Reagan said he realizes BMD "will take years, probably decades of effort on many fronts," and he warned that the strategic offensive systems he seeks still will be needed as BMD work goes forward. He also acknowledged fears, prominent when the ABM treaty was negotiated, that BMD capabilities could be destabilizing. "I clearly recognize that defensive systems have limitations and raise certain problems and ambiguities," he said. "If paired with offensive systems, they can be viewed as fostering an aggressive policy, and no one wants that." By contrast, Reagan said his BMD concept "could pave the way for arms control measures to eliminate the weapons themselves." Defense Daily PRESIDENT EMBARKS NATION ON QUEST FOR STRATEGIC DEFENSE First Year Will Define The Goal The President is expected to sign this morning a directive to embark the nation upon a long-term comprehensive study and development of a program of strategic defense which someday in the future would be capable of destroying missiles fired against the United States and its allies. "I am directing a comprehensive and intensive effort to define a long-term research and development program to begin to achieve our ultimate goal of eliminating the threat posed by strategic nuclear missiles," the President told the nation Wednesday night. Calling it a "vision of the future which offers hope," Reagan said he wants to util- ize in this goal "the very strengths in technology that spawned our great industrial base." He said "it will take years, probably decades of effort on many fronts. There will be failures and setbacks, just as there will be successes and breakthroughs." In briefings with senior Administration officials in the White House yesterday, the project was likened to the Apollo program to put a man on the Moon and there was fre- quent reference to an inexact timetable of accomplishment, possibly by the year 2000. The President said of the program, which by its very objective; to "intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies," could of necessity move the major focus of the program into space, that it "may not be accomplished before the end of this century. Yet, current technology has attained a level of sophistication where it is reasonable for us to begin this effort." 'Not Yet A Clearly Stated Goal' The senior Administration officials stressed yesterday that they do not yet have a clearly stated goal and that for the first fiscal year the plan is to "try to lay out a path to pick the test technologies," to outline "an encompassing R&D program." This first year, "the Phase I," will contract for studies and outside help to define CONTINUED NEXT PAGE the "promises, the risks and the cost," to prepare for the decision point of "making choices" and "cranking it all into the budget process, or Phase Il." The President showed "immediate interest" in the program when the idea was raised at one of the President's meetings with the joint Chiefs and members of the National Security Council. His interest increased as the idea developed and he is now deeply committed to the program, the officials said. In his address to the nation, the President said, "There will be risks, and results take time. But I believe we can do it." One of the President's senior advisers pointed out yesterday that, as of today, the President is "not confident that we can erect an impenetrable defense." However, the Soviets "are not likely to get there in the near future either," he said. "We are not looking for a silver or magic bullet," the official added, but "if we do succeed, even partially, the value to arms control is enormous." $1 Billion Seed Money The seed money for the program is approximately $1 billion currently in the BMD program. Initially, the study and development leaders in the program are expected to be the Army's Ballistic Missile Division, the Pentagon's Advanced Research Projects Agency and various service programs. One-fourth of that $1 billion would be used for generic R&D and about one-half for ballistic missile defense, one official explained. The program will probe "bold new technologies," an official explained, while the foundation technologies to be explored will be concerned with lasers, microwave devices, particle beams and projectile beams. 'High Probability Of Success' "We believe that the state of technology and all the supporting technologies from electronics to aiming and tracking systems to materials to guidance to data processors to communications has advanced so rapidly in the last ten years that it is possible now to define and begin an aggressive R&D program with a high probability of success toward the end of this century," one official explained. 'There is difference of opinion among leading Administrative officials about the relative positions of the United States and the Soviet Union in this field. One senior offi- cial conceded that the Soviets are devoting more resources. However, he said he did not think "that the lead--purported lead that the Soviet Union is claimed to have is an overwhelming one. They have a larger effort. The United States has a substantial effort also. Neither one of us possess today the technology to meet the requirements of the goal that the President" has stated. The officials stress a lack of specificity in defining the approach to be undertaken "because we wish the American scientific community and our entire broad technological expertise to apply itself to this problem and help us develop the strategic vision that the nation needs." Space/Earth Based Options Both space and earth basing are options. Also, while the program "is certainly not dependent upon" the High Frontier proposal, "there is one thing in common," and that is the High Frontier proposal began with the objective "of using American superiority in technology and in our industrial base to gain an adequate military capability and adequate defense capability," it is explained. The particular High Frontier "is a concept to look at but not the basis for the President's objectives." Not A Crash Program It was emphasized that the effort is not a crash program and it is not an accelerated effort to either develop an ABM system or an anti-satellite system. "Today, we spend a billion dollars in R&D across the full spectrum of what we call 'sight defense' to protect a small zone out through generic technologies. Until we can identify how many technologies are worth pursuing towards the system development, I don't think I could make an intelli- gent estimate" regarding direction, structure or funding of the project, one official said. Any future deployment of the strategic defensive system would be phased in with negotiations, in a transition phase, avoiding a situation where both offensive and defen- sive systems were in full deployment at the same time, setting up a possible incentive for a first strike. Open Door To Next Century "What the President is trying to do is open the door to the next century so we can get away from these hair-triggered missile systems," a senior official reiterated. The defense system would be phased in and "combined with negotiations on defensive and offensive systems. And an overarching strategic arms agreement could be the ultimate goal, so that both sides could get rid of these arsenals of missile forces that threaten their societies and have more stable forces against some residual ballistic missile force. "As we try to reduce strategic missiles in SALT and START, we recognize if we'd press the reductions further... some people begin to raise questions whether the deter- rence will become unstable. This is because in the present dispensation we depend on the threat of the offensive missiles. So at some point, the present approach gets in the way with arms reductions, more radical arms reductions. And the President wants to open the door to a new approach where we can eventually get rid of these missiles." Hits Congressional Defense Cuts Although the President's announcement of his plans to embark on a strategic defense program was the highlight of his address to the nation, he used the occasion, just minutes after the House had approved a budget resolution that slashed his request for real growth in defense spending by more than half, to warn again that his defense budget had already been trimmed "to the limits of safety. "Further deep cuts cannot be made without seriously endangering the security of the nation," he said. "The alternate budget backed by liberals in the House of Repre- sentatives would lower the (defense increase) to two to three percent, cutting our defense spending by $163 billion over the next five years." He criticized those who deal in numbers of dollars in determining how much de- fense the nation should have. "Those loud voices that are occasionally heard charging that the government is trying to solve a security problem by throwing money at it are nothing more than noise based on ignorance... Anyone in Congress who advocates a per- centage or a specific dollar cut in defense spending should be made to say what part of our defenses he would eliminate, and he should be candid enough to acknowledge that his cuts mean cutting our commitments to allies or inviting greater risk or both." An 'Offensive' Soviet Force Using graphs of Soviet weapons production and previously classified photos of Soviet or Soviet-supplied activity in the Caribbean and Central America to illustrate his warning of the continued Soviet military threat, Reagan emphasized that the Soviet Union "is ac- quiring what can only be considered an offensive military force. They have continued to build far more intercontinental ballistic missiles than they could possibly need simply to deter an attack." Their conventional forces are prepared not so much to defend against attack "as they are to permit sudden surprise offenses of their own." The President will give two more national security addresses in the next few weeks--the next in Los Angeles on March 31 on arms control, and the following week an address on his MX decision and related matters. USA TODAY 25 MARCH 83 JAMES FALLOWS Guest columnist Eliminate weapons with dubious value AUSTIN, Tex - President Reagan says that when he look off ce, he was "appal ed" by what he discovered about mW- n readiness. Manes MM not fly for of spare pares ships were held in port because the budget for "steaming time was too tight Unfortunately, the approach to military spending the presi- dent defended Wednesday guarantees a worse surprise for the next commander-in- chief. The most basic rule in the modem military is that the cost of new weapons goes up faster than anything else. Fast. er than the general inflation rate, and faster than military budgets - Including those pro jected by this administration. The prices of several impor- tant systems have gone up so fast that, even with larger mili- tary iu the Reagan ad- minlnstratlon will buy fewer of xrtaln ships, Planes, and mis- sies than Jimmy Carter pro- jected. The moment of reckoning comes when soaring weapon prices prom up against limited budgets. Then an adminlstra- tion must choose between buy- Ing fewer weapons, but main- taining them well, or searching for savings in the maintenance budget In the late'7os, the mil- itary whittled away at operat- ing cosh. The result was the shortage of fuel, spare parts, and well-trained soldiers that so disturbed President Reagan. In the late 1980s, the military will be forced farther down the same path because of the long- run contracts to buy equipment James Follows is Washing ton editor of The Atlantic and author of National Defense. the administration Is mating now. This is not a partisan point The staunchly conserve- live Heritage Foundation is the latest to express alarm about the cycles of unrealistic bud- gets that lead to deteriorating military readiness.. To illustrate the administra- tion's preference for buying new equipment, rather than building an effective force: To save $250 million in this year's budget, the Navy refired 22 ships, 19 of which had recently been overhauled. With the sav- 4ngs, it Continued building five new ships, whose ultimate cost will exceed $4 billion. Even if Congress voted ev- ery penny the president has re- quested, it wouldn't be enough to meet the full cost of the m ll- tary programs he has launched. That's why military leaders are begging to recom- mend that we face our budget problems squarely, instead of Ignoring them until It's too late. If we care about American mll- Itary strength, we must elimi- nate large projects of dubious value - two nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, the &1 bomb- er, and the MX missile - along with other expensive, Ineffec- tive systems, such as the DI- VAD anti-aircraft gun, or the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. That is our only chance of ensuring that American forces will be well-trained, and their equipment effective and ready for use. USA TODAY 25 MARCH 1983 WILLIAM RINGLE USA TODAY columnist Anti-missile plan may violate treaty WASHINGTON - Would the president's anti-missile pro- panel violate the ABM treaty? Yes, say armscontrol ex- perts. No, Insist Reagan admin- istration specialists, who asked that their names not be used. The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, signed in 1972, pre- cludes developing, testing or deploying of aesbased, land- based or space-based ballistic missile defense systems. Thomas Longstreth, of the pri- vate Arms Control Association, said on Its face, the proposal seems to violate the treaty. However, in a 1980 study that generally favored such proposals, Los Alamos Labora- tory said few of them would be "consistent with the limitations set by the ABM treaty." But the plan suggested by the president is so vague and far in the future that measur- ing it against the treaty is not possible. Reagan called for a system to "intercept and de st oy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies." The ABM treaty restricts the development and deployment of a ballistic missile defense system (BMD, the more recent version of ABM) capable of in- tercepting enemy missiles be- fore they hit their targets. By terms of the treaty, which was renewed for five years last year, both superpowers are limited to only one system. The William Ringle is chief cone spondent of Gannett News Service. Soviets elected to put theirs around Moscow, the United States around the missiles near Grand Forks, N.D. However, the United States never devel- oped its system because of the prohibitive cost. The Reagan administration has been flirting with such sys- tems almost since It took office. But BMD research dates back before that well over $1 billion has been spent on it. Although past ground-based systems employed 1-adar to identify incoming missiles and send missiles up to destroy them, new proposals envision BMD based on airplanes and satellites which would look down upon enemy missiles and shoot them down shortly after they had left the launch pad. A BMD system to protect missile fields was one proposal made in conjunction with the so-called dense pack deploy. ment plan for the MX micelle. Many argued that that would violate the ABM treaty. However, Secretary of Do- fense Caspar Weinberger has said that such a system, with present technology, is only about 50 percent effective. He says that betting .500 is not good enough. CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR 25 March 1983 Pg. 22 Euromissiles: a plan to satisfy the Russians - and NATO By Dennis M. Gc mley and De aatHart The Regan administration finally ap- of the cumber of emsmy targets in then pe- military needs Rack up against Moscow's re- Panes ready to alter a proposal designed to r%heral theaters. the nature of the targets, cart arms control Initiatives? Lad December break the deadlock In US-Soviet negotiations and, finally, the expected reliability of weep. Said leader Ymi Andropov proposed to re- aredclog lofamedlate-range nuclear m is- am to destroy their intended targets. duce the 55-2e farm arrayed against NATO to save In Li ope. Although comtluWtg to sup- pmcmtly. the Soviets have sane514 inter 162 mdsstis, to exchange for no deployment of the "aero-optlan" as his ultimate goal, medlate-raoge missiles trained on Western Pashings and cruise missiles. The rationale the President will likely propose an interim a ope. The RIO SS-es and SS." are rapidly for retaWng 162 missiles. an claim Soviet weasaW allowing both fides to deploy a Approaching obsolescence but are Probably writers, In Amply to balance British and limited number at mladls. alit they are being bald as bripdodng chips for the Came a Fah missile deployments of around the banned completely. talks. This leaves some 276 modern, mobile, same member. In fact, the Soviet choice of 162 Compared with Ike shoptldty of the Prsl- MIRVed SS-xe, the weapons of most comcem is mom Mostly derived from their basic mill- 's seoopttm plan, which calls for a ban to the US and its NATO allies. tary requirement for SS-20s. on over 666 Soviet missiles In exchange for US For SS-2e units capable of stAklmg Western With a better understanding of Soviet 55.20 ipenneot not to deploy 166 Pershing 1[ and Europe, Soviet defense planners mud coin- e~=, monvatles in mind, the US eN cruse missiles In Erope, arriving at an elder targets not only within the NATO area, ~~''"'!? c~a.~sWer eocmtering We Andropov pro- interim deployment level appears more corm- but the Near East and Middle East theaters P~ ~ a ceiling of around 160 missiles for ~ . Take is deployed espedallyspedally ao because each 0111100 as well. There are probably 1,000 targets of each side. Such a cap would reduce Soviet range missiles interest to the Soviets in these regions, addle numbers a comfortable percentage with different motivations in mind. roughly 300 of which are "time-urgent." Ac- below what they probably believe Is their Bow than should we view the choice of in- cording to Soviet military writings, time-ur- JeWmam essential need (125 missiles). te-r e deployment level ? Rather gent targets - nuclear weapons: installations To be sure. this approach requires further M cat selecting an interint based On pchtf- supporting nuclear weapons, and defensive study. But the method - viewing the problem Judg nods, a more meaningful military targets wch as enlace-to11r missiles or 'through Soviet cyan - Is Amdamemal to cr Wells that could Wall iterion should be used to arrive at missile party,ytgnning radgrs - must be destroyed achieving meaningful arms Control. Although suggest the maximurn become permanent. We immediately when the decision is made to es- a eamssm ceiling of 100 intereedlete range sdWb dnould be a comfortable of Soviet estate to nuclear warfare. Ballistic missiles, miadls glvs the Soviets a threesome war below what Russian stover reacting alrcrafi. are needed to at bead advantage. French and British nuclear mill planne as - ,their flainimuKu essential used. Why Is this approach Important and how )Ines me arrive at estimating baste Soviet reeds? First off, the Soviet approach to develop- ing and deploying 1Navaiate-range on, clear forces differs greatly from the US ap- preach. Aip g106o. rdlamer ;a6H'AVtg weapons like the Pershing 11 and the ground- launched cruise missile were driven largely by political mslderatlam. The most pra st- aad was the need for a concerted NATO re- spose to an Aggressive Soviet SS-20 deploy- ment. Indeed NATO's proposed numbers of Persbings and cruise missiles (572) bear on close relationship to military targeting feguifUnmtL . The USSR, In marked contrast, bases its mud for specific numbers of intermediate- to ge mink onan aseesement tithe unigme targeting demands in the various geographic e Sit arrayed along Its borders. Require- ments for missiles are band an a calculation Most of these time-yr eat targets wadd be - This propoW doss not address tine.prob- considered "soft" - not significantly less of refire missiles (either Soviet or US). hardened against the effects of a nuclear but rears have utility agatnR the deserver. blast. Being soft and mostly stationary, the chant targets that determine minimum deploy- vast majority could be effectively destroyed mat requirements. This method can also be with one warhead per target. For hardened applied to SS-20s based In the Far East to ar- and Large-area targets, nuclear-armed air- rive at deployment levels acceptable to Soviet perform follow-up milons. From American altos in the western Pacific region. a PIpe perspective, roughly 300 In the end, If the US can achieve reduc SS-2D warheads would thus appear essential lima to those levels, the merits would go be- to deal with just the highest priority time-m- yand a historic drop m Soviet intermediate- " targets- range missile levels to a more Important Pathetically, a Soviet military planner barometer of arms stability - that of inject- must assume some degree of unellabiity in tag uncertainty into Soviet war planning. And SS-2D operations. A safe assumption is that so such uncertainty lies at the heart of NATO's percent of the total can effectively reach and principal raisin d'atre - the deterrence of destroy their targets. The Soviets than need war. 275 warheads, or 125 SS-20 missiles (each with Dennis M. Gormley is an assistant three independently targetable warbeada), to viceprewent and Douglas M. Had is a ensure having Nan effective warheads for defense analyst working In the Waahing- ti meumea t tarsals- ton office of Pacific,Sierra Research Now do them calculations of basic Soviet Corparatlc. COLORADO SPRINGS GAZETTE TELEGRAPH 25 March 1983 Pg. 1 NORAD, Springs vital to proposed missile system don't staff and win reports 't have to simply rely on Operations Center. Once'there, good faith from the other side." The North American Aero- space Defense Command and Colorado Springs will play a vi- tal role in the development of the multibillion-dollar weapons sys- tem program that President Re- agan announced Wednesday night. In a nationally televised speech, Reagan called for the immediate "intensive" develop- ment of a long-term "com- prehensive" defensive weapons plan that could include the use of lasers, particle beams and space-based weaponry. He said the system will be designed "to achieve our ultimate goal of eliminating the threat posed by strategic nuclear missiles," and could, "pave the way for arms control measures to eliminate the weapons' themselves." In 1982, Col. Jerry May, NOR- AD's director of space opera- tions, confirmed that a com- mand post that would supervise laser satellite-killing operations was under construction in NOR- AD's underground complex in- side Cheyenne Mountain. But a NORAD spokesman, Col. Fred Watkins, said Thursday that he could not elaborate on just what the specific roles will be for NORAD and the newly formed Colorado Springs-based Air Force Space Command in the new system President Re- agan has proposed. According to Col. May, the satellite "negation command post," will fulfill one of three functions mandated to the NOR- AD Space Defense Operations Center. The center, which be- came operational Oct. 1, 1979, is tasked with providing satellite surveillance, satellite protection, and satellite destruction - when ordered by the president, May said. Currently, all space-related in- telligence and surveillance In- formation gathered by more than 20 radar and space sur- veillance sites worldwide is fun- neled through complex computer networks into the Space Defense May said it is analyzed and The Soviets already have a made available to military and laser anti-satellite system, which saeweor involved in experts estimate will be in full space-related U..S. . Rep. work. Ken Kramer, R- operational orbit by 1990. Colorado Springs, praised Re- The U.S. Air Force Weapons agan's plan, but other legislators Laboratory at Kirtland Air from Colorado were skeptical. Force Base, N.M., has been con- The development of a strategic ducting Its own research on an defensive capability "hopefully airborne laser laboratory system will bring an end to the threat of aboard a modified KC-135 nuclear warfare" and "can tanker. But in a 1981 test, the create an atmosphere for a new system was unable to shoot down industrial revolution," Kramer an airborne Sidewinder missile. said. Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy has But Pat Schroeder, D-Denver, been developing its own laser said the plan Reagan announced system and has successfully has been before Congress for tested it on a stationary target, several years. "The way I see It, according to congressional re- the president is finally support- ports. ing what we've been doing in the In the March 28 issue of Air Armed Services Committee for . Force Times, Richard DeLauer, more than five years. undersecretary of Defense for Schroeder, Rep. Tim Wirth, D- Research and Engineering, said Denver, and Sen. Gary Hart, D- actual laser weapons still are far Colo. each said the President off. DeLauer said, "We have an was really using his speech as a experimental device ... To turn political mechanism to get sup- it into a weapons system is going port for his defense budget. to take a long period of time." "As is so often the case, the In a recent report to a con- president has asked the wrong gressional committee, DeLauer question. The question is not whether the Soviets are threat- filed a request for $29.6 billion ening - they are. The question for research, development, tes- is will the President's proposed ting and evaluation of directed defense program effectively an- energy programs in fiscal year the Soviet military 1984. That's approximately 30 saver percent more than congress al- challenge. The answer is 'No,' " located for the programs this Hart said. year. Kramer said he thought "the Laser-directed energy systems president is right on target in artificially generate beams of calling on scientists to make the light, much the same way a contributions that will allow (the magnifying glass does, to focus defensive plan) to take place." onto and bum targets. Particle Kramer then reiterated his beam directed energy weapons own plan from a recent speech are made up of sub-atomic parti- in Colorado Springs to call for cles that violently bombard the creation of a unified space targets at slower speeds, but command and a directed energy which have impacts similar to systems agency so that "we can lightning bolts. focus on what has been a dis- organized, fragmented effort on Reagan Administration of- direct energy weapons." ficials said Wednesday that the Kramer also reiterated his be- United States now spends about lief that what is needed in terms $1 billion annually on anti-mis- of arms control "is a defensive site research, but said they could backdrop - an enforcement not estimate what Reagan's pro- mechanism that will allow us to posed stepped-up programs will enter into agreement where we cost. EDITORIALS LOS ANGELES TIMES 25 March 1983 Lost in Space? In trying to judge the significance of President Reagan's dramatic call for the development of a futuristic anti-ballistic missile defense system, the first question is whether the President himself is really serious about the new project. If the United States actually embarks on an all-out quest for an effective ABM system aimed at making offensive nuclear missiles obsolete, it will mark a profound shift in defense strategy-a shift that many experts believe is impractical or unwise. So it is strange that the President tossed in the announcement near the end of a television appeal for public support against cuts in his defense budget. The Administration, under the circumstances, should not be surprised if a lot of people wonder whether his proposal is a gimmick designed to distract attention from the nuclear-freeze proposal now before Congress, or to provide a face-saving rationale for backing away from the controversy- plagued MX missile project. The President, however, is certainly acting like a man who is serious. He gave the National Security Council its marching orders Thursday to press ahead with the development program. The idea of shifting the emphasis of this country's strategy from offensive nuclear missiles to a non-nuclear defensive system has its attractions. No one can be comfortable with the fact that, as things stand, the avoidance of nuclear annihilation depends on maintaining a delicate balance of terror between opposing forces of missiles on hair-trigger alert. It is nervousness over this situation that has given birth to the anti-nuclear movements in Western Europe and the United States. How much nicer it would be if we could render offensive missiles obsolete, and therefore facilitate their eventual elimination, through the development of an effec- tive anti-missile defensesystem. Unfortunately, things are not that simple. To begin with, the development of an effective anti-missile defense is an enormously difficult, possibly insurmountable, challenge because it would have to be virtually leakproof. If even 10% of an enemy missile force got through, the system would have failed. And. to the degree that an adversary thought that a new anti-missile defense system would work, the have-not power could be tempted to launch a preemptive strike before the system was in place. The ABM treaty, signed by the United States and the Soviet Union in 1972, allows each side ooperate one anti-missile defense complex, otherwise, such deployment is prohibited. However, the ARM treaty does not prohibit research and development on defensive systems. Both the United States and the Soviet Union have maintained R&D programs to guard against techno- logical surprise by the other side. It is safe to may that most defense scientists remain unpersuaded that an effective ABM system is feasible, now or in the future. But the argument is no longer as one-sided an it used to be, thanks to advances in computer and laser technology. Administration officials say that four ABM technologies, all of them involving non-nuclear approached, are in the running. But there isn't much question that space-based lawn are taken the most seriously. As envisioned by proponents, space-based lawn could destroy attacking Soviet nuclear missiles while they were still in the boost stage, over Soviet territory, by hitting them with highly concentrated beams of light. The United States has already spent $2 billion on laser-weapons technology, and the Soviets are believed to have spent several times that figure. The Soviets have been testing killer satellites for 14 years, and are now assumed to have the capability of destroying U.S. satellites by maneuvering their space modules close to oura and setting off conventional explosions. The Pentagon says that the Kremlin now is pursuing an yntstious program to put laser weapons in space soon. Congress had been a willing supporter of laser- weapons research, at timed giving the Air Force more money than it requested. A year ago, the General Accounting Office, an arm of Congress, issued a report calling' for acceleration of the laser-weapons progremt the GAO also suggested that consideration be given to creating a Space Force an a separate branch of service. Critics take all this with a huge grain of alt They contend that laser-armed space vehicles would themselves be vulnerable to destruction by nuclear explosives or by other lasers. The President was careful to note that the development of an effective missile defense system was a difficult undertaking that might take decades. It's noteworthy that even Maj. Gen. Bernard Randolph, the chief of Air Force space research, told a national magazine in November that, "when I look at the technology required for a laser battle station, I break into a cold sweat" It is essential to continue a sensible level of R&D work on lasers and potential ABM systems in general. But it is far from clear that the crash program proposed by Reagan makes sense. Razzle-Dazzle Reagan The president's razzle-dazzle defense of his military buildup needs to be played back in slow motion. To strategic space-age nuclear missile defenses, beat up again on the Russians, unveil pic- tures of Communist installations in Central Ameri- ca, present a slick slide-show on the Pentagon bud- get and deflect public attention from an admininis- tration drubbing in the House - to do all these things in a half-hour of prime-time television is be- ing Ronald Reagan. Let's start with the Buck Rogers part of his Wednesday speech. Mr. Reagan announced a change in U.S. nuclear strategy from retaliation against an enemy strike to one of intercepting and destroying incoming missiles with laser beams or other futuristic devices. Although such an active defense system is a current favorite among con- servative arms specialists, it would be wrong to attach an ideological label to the concept. It is, basically, a reversion to the ballistic missile de- fense proposals of the Johnson administration, proposals that were all but abandoned under the SALT I treaty because they were basically un- workable. Since then, technology has made such vast strides that Mr. Reagan could envisage an ef- fective missile defense by the end of the century. Although the president couched his strategy shift in words of peace, critics were quick to re- vive 1960s warnings that effective missile de- fenses might tempt a superpower to launch an of- fensive first strike. Why did the president speak up now about a sys- Reagan's request can't be defended Ronald Reagan wrapped himself in the presidential flag Wednesday and marched off to a drumbeat of peace and security, waving a blank check for defense as his standard. Whet the president left behind on his march is what's on everybody's mind: In the face of destructive deficits and worrisome waste, why should defense get a blank check while domestic spending is throttled? These are the Issues the president forgot to talk about on TV Wednesday. These are the issues that caused the House, just minutes before he spoke, to cut In halt the increase he wanted in defense spending. What the president forgets is that growthstrangiing defi- cits are dangerous, whether they stem from defense or do- mestic spending And the some waste de frequently cites in domestic programs fense spending, too. For two years now Defense Secretary Weinberger has allowed defense planers to push through some systems 90 top-heavy with technology they couldn't accomplish their missions Pentagon pence-pusher; have written TUIN On eunenmers pay. bidding that pushed costs way bey BALTIMORE SUN 25 March 1983 tern two decades in the future? His more immedi- ate objective may have been to increase the cur- rent billiondollar-a-year program for Star War re- search. But we suspect he wanted to break out of a sterile military budget debate, where he has been losing ground, in order to identify with a program likely to excite the public's imagination. The presidential slide-show purporting to prove that the Soviet Union is pulling ahead of the United States in a chilling array of weapons sectors was vintage Reagan - the kind of stuff that swung public support behind the president's impressive 1981 and 1982 boosts in defense spending. With Congress threatening to halve his 10 percent hike for fiscal 1984, Mr. Reagan put pressure on legis- lators by trotting out classified pictures of Soviet and Cuban military installations in Cuba itself and in Grenada and Nicaragua. This close-in look at the Soviet threat held an added bonus: It put more bite in administration requests for military assist- ance to El Salvador and other Latin friendlies. The president's purpose in all this is to get the country behind a military buildup he considers crucial to the nation's security. His goals may be laudable but his methods are something else. If his new missile defense strategy is as epochal as he says, it should have been the subject of a separate speech. H. the Soviet threat in the Caribbean is as pressing as he suggested, it hardly warranted be- ing paired with a partisan attack on Hill Demo- crats. Mr. Reagan, in short, may be overdoing it. Too much razzle-dazzle can ruin the best of shows. Defense Department critics found that a mreecent screw coats the Pentagon 91 cents. A two-bit knob goes for $23. And a $5 bolt brings 696. Too often, buying the biggest bang for the buck has given way to getting a bang out of the biggest buck. No wonder taxpayers are losing confidence in Pentagon planners. Many private businesses would welcome a 4 percent in- crease in revenues, after inflation - that's what the House voted for defense. Why not give the Pentagon an incentive? With real economies and better management, its planners ought to be able to make up most of the difference between what the president wants and the House approved. Yes, the Soviet menace the president described is real and growing. But our generals wouldn't trade our military strength for theirs. Those Russian weapons the Syrians tried to use against the Israelis in Lebanon last year were devastated by superior American arms To keep the peace, both sides must abide by the treaties they have signed, including the 1972 treaty to forego anti- ballistic missiles If there were an ABM system In place that could protect us from Soviet attack, we might all feel a little safer. But the president's challenge to science to protect us with a new ABM is somewhat simplistic: The system would take decades to develop and be dreadfully expensive. And it could start a new arms race in space, tempt one side to launch a first strike, and may violate an existing treaty. That's one more reason why giving the Pentagon a blank check would bounce right back to haunt us. Stop The MADness President Reagan's spirited and persuasive televised appeal for support of his defense pro- gram, while important, was over- shadowed by his visionary pro- posal that the United States begin moving from deterrence based on mutual nuclear destruction to prevention - a new national shield. The long-held American strate- gy for deterring a Soviet nuclear missile attack has been to have a sufficient number of U.S. missiles to threaten a devastating coun- terblow against the Soviet Union. By mutual assured destruction (MAD), both superpowers would thereby respect each other and keep the peace, as indeed they have for almost 40 years. But the refinement of missil- ery has made MAD an increas- ingly dangerous concept for man- kind. The strategic ice gets thinner with each passing year. A fatal exchange between the United States and the Soviet Union could, theoretically, be set off by a meteorite blast that was mistaken for a missile attack. It could be triggered by computer error, or even a Kremlin leader deranged by the prospect of world conquest. Whatever the cause, once launched, intercon- tinental nuclear missiles cannot be recalled. There has to be a safer defense in the nuclear age. What Presi- dent Reagan is proposing at last is just that. He would destroy enemy missiles by scientific, stratospheric defense before they could reach American cities. He would shield the American peo- ple from nuclear destruction through prevention rather than a deterrence that pledges nuclear death for millions of Russians. He would save millions of human lives instead of avenging them. Predictably, there has been a hue and cry. The Kremlin reac- tion was particularly violent and liberals in this country, led by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, have sought to ridicule the very idea of a high-frontier shield against nu- clear destruction as a sort of Star Wars fantasy. To be sure, some argue that U.S. efforts to develop a high- tech, anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system with some components in space, would only spur the Sovi- ets to install their own missile defense. But what's wrong with that? If both nations had a shield against nuclear attack, it would end the continual and expensive addi- tions to the nuclear arsenals. And, making shield technologies available to U.S. allies would end the fears of Western Europeans that their homelands could be- come a nuclear battlefield. Then there are those who argue that the Soviets would de- velop a new generation of weap- ons to pierce the American shield. Undoubtedly, both Soviets and American researchers would try this. But who knows how long it would take to achieve such a breakthrough? It took 10 years to develop the tank as an answer to the machine gun. Another 40 years were need- ed for an anti-tank missile. A few years of certain security against unimaginable nuclear destruc- tion would be worth the price. The Russians' ABM research, as well as their advances in satel- lite warfare, belie arguments that Mr. Reagan's proposal would lead to militarization of space. It's already happening. The Soviets, in fact, are ahead in planning exploitation of outer space. Thus, considering such So- viet research advances, the fail- ure to the United States to devel- op a nuclear defense would be more likely to tempt the Kremlin into an attack. A U.S.-U.S.S.R. treaty to limit missile defenses was signed in 1972 when ABM technology was still primitive. The treaty could be renegotiated, however, before perfection of the new technolo- gies that include lasers, mi- crowave devices and particle beams. Indeed, as futuristic ABM systems are designed, both na- tions could negotiate gradual re- ductions in their offensive nucle- ar arms. Meanwhile, the United States has been spending a billion dol- lars a year on ABM research. And, although the Russians are thought to be ahead in develop- ment of anti-missile hardware, this country is ahead in the vital areas of data processing and sen- sors. The cost of President Reagan's proposal is not yet known, but Congress should appropriate the necessary funds and point the United States to the new defense threshold Mr. Reagan has plot- ted. We must not reject this dar- ing initiative that could make the threat of nuclear war obsolete and bring a better hope for the 21st Century. Reagan's defense `vision' CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR 25 March 1983 President Reagan once again has drams- the future. What be would do as a matter of to a halt. But deployment of their results Used a televised speech with a call for no less pocky is to hasten that day might be controlled by ensuring that arms than a changed national outlook on a long- The debate now will have to include the control negotiations keep pace with the new standing national need. In his State of the, question of whether the development of "de- weaponry at every stage. Union address a year ago it was the concept of fmslve" arms would simply lead to a new Yes, arms specialists have long been New Federalism to meet the need for govern- rand in the arms race. Presumably Moscow, aware of what Mr. Reagan was talking about mend efficiency. In his national security ad- which is already said to be moving vigorously on Wednesday. But by introducing it to the drew this week it was the concept of "defen- on space weaponry, would seek to match any- American people as part of a "vision" for sive" technology in contrast with threats of thing the US did. If Soviet antimissile peace in the future. the President calls upon massive retaliation to meet the need for de- defenses became impregnable, the missiles of them to join in rethinking the concept of de- terring war. America's European aiiies would lose what- fence they want to have. Will the arsenal of Mr. Reagan's New Federalism was seen ever usefulness they now have. the future be Such as not to require a strategy by many as a diversionary tactic in place of No wonder arms controllers are looking of threats by people against people? To open effective response to the economic problems beyond whatever happens in the current nu- that possibility is no small thing. It might that were mounting at the time. Yet it jarred clear arms talks to the arms control of the even make people examine how the thought attitudes rendering war as some entrenched thinking on the Subject. The future. Quality as well as quantity will have to and conduct in their individual lives can Bove-ban, and public as to pact subject rcrarch a negotiation. Experts brought well as weapons obsolete. Washington, Bove-ban, the proper balance of state and federal func- tions and responsibilities. Similarly. Wednesday's presidential call to go beyond prevailing military assumptions was immediately pegged by some skeptics as another "New Federalism" tactic to enliven one more warning about Soviet arms buildup. Mr. Reagan can disprove such doubts by a vigorous follow-through with specific propos als. These could spark debate helping the na- tlon toward a valuable self-scrutiny on just what its long-term national security strategy should be. Such scrutiny is demanded not only by continuing Soviet nuclear buildup but by the whole range of new mega-weapons at hand or on the horizon. in simplest terms. Mr. Reagan was asking American scientists to be as effective in de- veloping systems to stop nuclear missiles as they were in developing nuclear arms to the first place. (These antimissile systems Pre- sumably could involve leers, particle beam generators, and other space-age weaponry on which research Is already well under way.) Thus the United States and its allies would be We from an adversary's missiles without having to deter their use by the present threats of retaliation. By raising the prospect of an alternative to deterrence-by-threat Mr. Reagan may have been speaking to a recently publicized issue: the questioning by religious and other dlssr moment advocates of the morality of a deter- rence based on a doctrine of massive nuclear retaliation. Suppose the deterrent failed and an enemy attacked, they ask, would it than be moral to carry out the threatened retaliation at the cost of global or near-global nuclear destruction? In theory, the question would not have to come up if America could physically deter any weapons from coming in - and thus not be presented with the decision of whether to retaliate. Mr. Reagan cautioned that the day of such defensive security would be far in PITTSBURGH PRESS 25 March 1983 'Wrong Nuclear Road ` President Reagents call for mas- Lve research into futuristic devices to knock out incoming missies mean a costly and dangerous nasals of the Soviet-US arms we now - unfortunately - are ached Into an offensive misile- Wing content with Rtwia. If Congress goes along with the resident's plan, which be an-ced wedmday night, we would dda de"blve our 'J1M Aesfagon already is spading bout $1 billion a year un anti- isile research, and the Kremlin more. The Soviets have made It clear ww not permit the United het to achieve strategic superior- pur ur j so ywould swppe&up answered by fem. * * * Mr. Reagan is confident that American technology would prevail in developing lasers, particle-beam welgpm and other exotic missile klllftk. Bit Russia excels in spying, so any breakthrough made by the Unit- ed States would be in Soviet hands within a few years. The end result would be stalemate at a higher level of weaponry. If Russia fears be- k behind by U.S. anti-sidle development, it could decide to build enormous numbers of addi- tional missiles mid warboaft to overwhelm any defensive system, That would be dafabillabkg and move the two nuclear eraaals infi- nitely closer to hair-trigger. The president's plan is flawed. It proposes to be able to destroy around the year 2005 missiles that threat= gs today. But the offense is now stalk, and by the time the defensive weap? an hfr. Reagan envisions would be in place they probably would be rendered useless by new weapons as yet undreamed of. Granted, there was something stirringly idealistic in the prsi- dent's plea to scientists to build a system to render nuclear missiles impotent and obsolete." But, realistically, the technology of death will always be a step ahead of the technology of defense. So sober good sense is needed more than scientific or technological mir- acles. Both superpowers are going to have to put as mach effort and ingenuity into reliable and verifi- able arms control as they now do into weapons development. Otherwise, both of us may disap. pear from the earth before Mr. Reagan's - or Yuri Andropom's - perfect defense materialises. Mr. Reagan's New Defense Idea T HE PRESIDENT'S new defense idea is pure Reagan: simple at first glance, complex at the second, running against the grain, sure to arouse a storm. It is the product of Ronald Reagan's peculiar knack for asking an obvious question, one that has moral as well as political dimensions and one that the experts assumed had been answered, or found unanswerable, or found not worth asking, long ago. In this instance, the question is: why are we and the Soviets basing our defense and survival on the terri- ble and incredible threat of mutual annihilation? Is there not a better way? To that question, a whole generation of strate- gists has said no. Defending against nuclear threat has been accepted as tantamount to announcing an intent to bring an offensive threat against the other side. Deterrence-carrying with it the threat of in- flicting and incurring mind-numbing damage-has come to be enshrined as the guiding strategic princi- ple. The effort of both Americans and Soviets has been, as variously interpreted, either to gain a mar- gin of superiority or to attain parity or stability. Deterrence has worked in the sense that nuclear war has been stayed. But the requirement to main- tain a usable and invulnerable deterrent, against the rush of technology and the fear of the other side's moves, is precisely what "arms race" means. It has led, in hardware terms, to such tortured constructs as putting huge missiles on a racetrack in the west- ern desert, running them around from one garage to the next, and occasionally opening the ceiling doors to let the other fellow's cameras peek in. That CHICAGO SUN-TIMES 25 March 1983 Defense deceptions President Reagan's speech Wednesday night to rescue his defense budget-with its call for a "new" Star Wars defense system-was an appalling disservice to the pub. lic's understanding of serious military issues and the country's real national security needs. The address was deceptive, lacking in fact and irrele- vant to the current important debate on appropriate levels of military spending. For example: ? The futuristic shield of laser and particle beams to destroy Soviet missiles in flight is not new, as Reagan tried to peddle it. Hard research into such systems had been proceeding under earlier administrations for some 25 years; the effort has yet to bring us closer to the development of a practical anti-missile deterrent. ? To inject such Buck Rogers technology into the defense debate at all is misleading. The decades-away system Reagan embraced has nothing to do with the debate on military spending for fiscal 1984. It was a ruse. ? Totally absent in Reagan's proposal was any useful particular scheme was shelved, but no matter what other scheme to maintain a deterrent is finally ac- cepted, it will keep alive the specter of mass death and destruction in a nuclear "exchange." Against this specter Mr. Reagan now suggests that we slowly start investigating whether in the next century technology may offer a solution to our security that does not rest on the prospect of mass and mutual death. Is it a good idea? Scarcely was it out of the bottle than it was denounced as an escape from reality to the nirvana of high tech ("Star Wars"), a step toward the militarization of space, a gimmick with which to distract the freeze movement, a calculated assault on the jewel in the arms control crown, the antiballistic missile defense treaty, and, last but not least, a reckless provocation to the Soviets, who could only be expected to take the proposal as a prelude to a nuclear showdown. Perhaps it is all these things. Perhaps, too, it is none of them. At this point it seems enough to say that President Reagan has given impetus to what is already a major gathering review of the strategic principles this nation and the Soviets have adopted in the last generation. These principles, keep in mind, were not written in stone. They represent merely the best guesses made by harried men grop- ing with the historically unprecedented circum- stance-the capacity to end the world as we know it -that technology had put in their hands. Their an- swers created the uncertainty and peril with which Mr. Reagan, not alone, is attempting to cope now. analysis of his over-all military strategy-if he has one. What does his proposed 10 percent hike in anus outlays- after inflation-intend to accomplish? How would that excessively rapid buildup be efficiently integrated, and to meet what threats? The president didn't say. ? To imply that spending less than he proposes will cut defense spending is wrong. Congress accepts the need for a stronger, better financed military. The serious debate is over the rate of increase in spending. The new House- passed budget calls for a credible 4 percent rise in military outlays, beyond the rate of inflation, not "2 to 3 percent," as Reagan said. ? His attack on nuclear freeze supporters was unfound- ed. The only freeze proposal that has widespread support in this country urges mutually verifiable" steps to prevent cheating. Reagan ignored that wording. There were other flaws. What emerged clearly is the chilling fact that Reagan is engaging in gross over- attention to spending for expensive war gadgets, while paying gross inattention to valid ideas for arms control and arms reduction. The country can only be dismayed that his speech continued such a reckless course. "Let me share with you a vision of the future that offers hope," said President Reagan in his Wednesday night defense policy address to the na- tion, a clear recognition that in a world threatened with nuclear devas- tation, hope is a pressing need. The president's proposal, a response to the rising public clamor for nuclear "san- try," was that the United States use its advanced technological skills to set up defenses against nuclear attack. It was an appropriate response, an assertion that even in a nuclear age, we can control our own destiny if we have the will and courage to do so. We do not solve such problems by paint ing our faces white and giving free play to our own fears in public demon- strations, but by using our wits to pro- tect ourselves. The old concept of mu- tual assured destruction (MADh, which has proved so troubling to ratio- nal and humane people despite the fact that the U.S. has never deliber- ately targeted Soviet population cen- ters, will be gradually supplanted with a policy that does not hold us hostage to a balance of terror, or at least so it is hoped. Of course, this will revive the de- bate that led to the signing of the anti- ballistic missile treaty with the Soviet Union in 1972. The argument then was that missile defense was "destabiliz- ing," giving one side the possibility of hiding behind a defensive shield while it obliterated the other. If that was ever true, It is not true today in this age of awesome offensive might, and it will be many years before it could become true. Nonetheless, Sen. Ken- nedy was quick off the mark yester- day criticizing the president's speech. He was joined by Moscow's Tass, charging that the president intended to violate the ABM treaty. In an era where the Soviets are clearly violating arms agreements, the biological weapons convention for example, this gets to be a bit ridicu- lous. There is even a possibility that the Soviets themselves are in violation of the ABM treaty, or nearly so, with a missile, the SA-12, soon to be in pro- duction that may have the capability of intercepting ICBMs. The Soviets claim that it is designed only to rs Reality STREET JOURNAL y 25 March 1983 Reagan's anti-missile plan imperils security and sanity "I am directing a comprehensive and intensive effort to define a long- term research and development pro- gram." President Reagan said Wednes- day night, "to begin to achieve our ultimate goal of eliminating the threat posed by strategic nuclear missiles." A bold new initiative on arms-control negotiations with the Soviet Union? No. "Our only purpose - one all people share - is to search for ways to reduce the danger of nuclear war," he added. A call to Americans and others throughout the world to put aside the fears of the past, the momentum of the present and the uncertainties of the future in order to concentrate the principal energies of civilization on reversing the ever-rising threat of a nuclear holocaust? No. If we stop in midstream," he insist. ed a few minutes earlier, "we will not only jeopardize the progress we have made to date - we will mortgage our ability to deter war and achieve genu- ine arms reduction" A recommitment of the full faith and force of the United States government to firm, prudent and skeptical agreement on mutual and verifiable weapons-development limitations? No. "I have become more and more deeply convinced that the human spir- it must be capable of rising above dealing with other nations and human beings by threatening their exis- tence," he said. "Feeling this way, 1 believe we must thoroughly examine every opportunity for reducing ten- sions and for introducing greater sta- bility into the strategic calculus on both sides. One of the most important contributions we can make is, of course, to lower the level of all arms, and particularly nuclear arms.... I am firmly committed to this course." A dramatic report on progress in the ongoing negotiations with the Soviets, nourished by a convincing reaffirma- tion of Mr. Reagan's personal commit- ment to putting that concern above all others in his and his administration's service to both the United States and the human race? No. Amid all that language, all that very sensible, persuasive oratory that came near the end of his speech on military spending and diplomatic relation. ships, Mr. Reagan announced a propos- al. If it is allowed to go forward, it will stand as the most ill-conceived and inflammatory act of imprudence by any government in the generation that has passed since nuclear war became a threat to human survival. That proposal is to launch a massive effort to develop a new system of de- fense against intercontinental ballistic missiles. That, and its immediate and predictable effect of goading the Sovi- et Union into doing the some, would begin a major new era of escalation of the nuclear threat. That proposal would repudiate the spirit, if not every letter, of the treaty signed by Richard M. Nixon and Leo- nid I. Brezhnev in 1972 in which the United States and the Soviet Union - for reasons of profound self-interest - agreed to forgo the full development of anti-ballistic missile (ABM) systems. It would put aside the delicate balance of terror that somehow has prevented direct military confrontation between the earth's superpowers for a genera- tion - and would replace it with a frantic, incalculably expensive rush toward a new and even more unpre- dictable balance of fears. Whether the Reagan initiative were to produce anti-ballistic missiles or other, more exotic devices for destroy. ing missiles in flight - such as lasers, particle beams or whatever - it would not guarantee an end to the Soviet Union's capacity to wage war upon the United States. To the contrary, it would establish a new plateau of mutual threat, at enor. mous expense to both societies. If suc- cessful, it would build the foundation for another level of escalation, and another beyond. Such has been the perilous course of the arms race. A year ago, Harold Brown, who had served as secretary of defense under President Caner, celebrated the 10th anniversary of the signing of the ABM treaty by calling it "the most impor. tant achievement among all the arms control discussions, treaties, interim agreements and other understand. ings." He could not be called self-serv- ing or partisan. It had been negotiated by Mr. Nixon and Henry Kissinger. Mr. Brown explained it well. "By forbidding the deployment of a nation. wide urban Industrial defense against STAR WARS REALITY... Continued counter tactical missiles. But that aside, research on ABMs, which both sides have been conduct. ing for years, does not violate the treaty, and that is all the president is proposing for the immediate future, alb&Twlth a higher priority than in the past. However, that misses the point, too. If the United States found itself able to develop a reliable anti-ballistic missile system it would want to de- ploy It. That possibility is some time away, as the president indicated in his speech. But when it comes, the ABM treaty will have to be reconsidered. That is long overdue. It was a dubious agreement to begin with, clearly in. tended by the Soviets to neutralize America's technical superiority while they plunged ahead with their mas- sive arms buildup. It may well be, of course, that the president has been oversold on the technological possibilities today. Space stations with laser beams to ballistic missiles in either the United States or the Soviet Union, the ABM treaty contributed, and contributes to. day, substantially to... stability.... To be sure, that is an uncomfortable kind of stability and an uncomfortable kind of security. But in the absence of a reduction of nuclear armaments to a zero or near-zero level, it is the best security we are likely to know, and it has worked for decades." And now, adding nothing new to the debate, giving no reason that was not overcome in the decade and more that led to the ABM treaty, Mr. Reagan wants to abandon that security, to cast aside that stability. Even by proposing that, Mr. Reagan has set others - In Moscow and else- where - to considering what to do in response. Inevitably, that has already wrought mischief, for it undermines the fragile foundation of trust - the perishable mutual recognition of mu- tual need - on which the ABM treaty and its principle rested. zap incoming missiles are not just around the corner. But the president's aim was not to pull a defense system from a hat, but to set a new doctrinal course, one that would give the U.S. greater flexibility In responding to the Soviet threat. There are some offen- sive possibilities, touched on only vaguely in the speech, that also hold promise as a deterrent to Soviet ad- ventures. Highly accurate conven. tional weapons to counter a nuclear- backed Soviet attack certainly de- serve high priority as well. And of course the president's offer of hope was part of a plea to the pub- lic to support his efforts to rebuild the nation's military capabilities in the face of opposition In the Democrat- controlled House. Judgments about how much military spending is enough differ widely, of course, and some of the congressmen challenging the Pen- tagon budget are no doubt honest in their belief that a smaller spending level would meet the nation's needs. But some, we fear, hold to the view that the Soviets will behave them- selves if we simply talk to them sweetly enough. Hope is fine. Blind faith is very dangerous. We ourselves have had some ques- tions about whether the priorities of U.S. defense spending are correct. But we are aware that part of the problem in establishing rational prior- ities lies in the arms agreements past administrations have signed. Ameri- cans have assumed that they were in- tended to limit arms. The Russians have negotiated agreements that they knew to have enough loopholes to en- able them to meet the arms buildup goals they had set for themselves. The results, in terms of Soviet superiority in numbers, were graphically outlined by the president. We think the U.S. should arm itself in a way that makes the best use of advanced technology and recognizes urgent needs. The underlying message In the president's talk was that he also would like to move us in that direc. tion, toward less costly but more ef- fective means of national defense. He is on solid ground both in a moral and military sense. There is indeed greater cause for hope. New nuclear path to where? In his address to the nation Wednesday night, President Reagan revealed his support for a drasti- cally new nuclear strategy aimed at "changing the course of human history." As broadly sketched, the bold initiative Is attractive, yet it Is also fraught with uncertainties and risks. The details need to be fully spelled out and exhaustively debated. In essence, Reagan proposed to abandon the strategy of nuclear deterrence that has prevailed since the onset of the nuclear era. That strategy Is based on the promise of retaliation: Each side knows that any nuclear attack would Invariably provoke devastating reprisal. Indeed, the topsy-turvy logic of stability in the nuclear. age requires each side to leave Itself ex- posed to the retaliatory power of the other. And, as Reagan noted Wednesday night, "this approach to stability through offensive threat has worked." Now, Reagan has proposed a futuristic program - remindful of "Star Wars" and evolving over 20 years. - to counter the Soviet missile threat with measures that are defensive rather than retaliato- ry. In other words, US and Soviet cities would be defended, not offered as hostages. The appeal of such a change, of course, is that US and Soviet mil- itary efforts would be devoted to the quest for more effective ways to defend lives, not destroy them. Under the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972, both Washington and Moscow agreed to abandon almost all measures to shoot down attacking mis- siles. Research on the kind of anti-balstic-misfile defense Reagan seems to have in mind is not pro- hibited by the ABM treaty. But If the two sides were to seek to deploy an ambitious ABM system, some renegotiation of the treaty would be re- quired. That would be a fateful step. The ABM treaty has been a key ingredient In a deterrence policy that has prevented nuclear war. Furthermore, the ABM treaty was negotiated largely because both sides had concluded that ABMs won't work. That mutual recognition raises doubts about the Reagan Initiative. The scientific problems associated with building an effective ABM system are immense, perhaps insurmounta- ble. Scientists tend to believe that, when it comes to nuclear war, the offense can always overcome the defense. The most obvious pitfall In the Reagan plan was recognized by the president himself. He acknowl- edged that if defensive systems are "paired with offensive systems, they can be viewed as fostering an aggressive policy, and no one wants that." What Reagan meant Is that US attempts to defend itself could lead the ever-fearful Soviets to con- clude that the US might be planning a first-strike and attempting to defend itself against the counter- attack, The Soviets might be tempted to pull the trigger pre-emptively. I Hence, the task would be to build defensive sys- tems while simultaneously dismantling offensive weapons, and to have the superpowers build and dismantle in concert, lest one side dangerously rat- tle the other and cause it to act rashly. Unfortunately, Reagan has shown too little will- ingness to dismantle offensive weapons. In fact, on Wednesday night he vigorously championed an arms buildup that Includes offensive weapons like the MX missile. Nevertheless, the Reagan plan deserves serious discussion. However elusive, Its goal Is one that all Americans can support: ridding the planet of offen- sive weapons that Winston Churchill once called the odious apparatus of modem war. 25 March 1983 Down-to-earth defense Escalating the arms race Although the remarks about developing "Buck Rogers" missile defenses in President Reagan's TV speech to promote his defense budget drew the most attention, they can be dismissed as the speech's gimmick. Presiden- tial speeches designed to go over the heads of the congressional opposition to the people have in recent years developed a form almost as rigid as the sonnet or the limerick, and one requirement is a catchy gimmick slipped in near the finish. Mr. Reagan's four short, gener- alized paragraphs on future "Star Wars" defenses hardly justify the headlines and reac- tions. The idea, in any event, was irrelevant to the subject at hand. That subject was defense spending policy in general and in the 1984 budget in particular. The president again made a detailed presenta- tion of the need to upgrade U.S. forces to face the threat of Soviet buildups. The basic case is still convincing. The Soviets have indeed accumulated a military establishment far beyond their needs for simple defense, and con- tinue to add to it. The United States is thereby constrained to mount a force strong and flexi- ble enough to respond to threats that could come anywhere. That we are not able to do so, particularly in conventional forces and arms, seems obvious. That our inability to do so gives the Soviets a worrisome latitude in pursuing their expansion- ist policies seems equally obvious. But defense spending policy is not exclusi- vely a military matter - it is also political and economic. The political problem comes from proposing hefty increases in defense spending while presiding over hefty cuts in spending for social programs that have broad constituencies and loud political champions. The economic problem comes from the contribution of defense spending to the enormous federal bud- get deficits that threaten to hamper recovery from a severe recession. The recession, despite the. Democrats' rheto- ric, was not caused by President Reagan's eco- nomic policies, and Mr. Reagan's attempt to control the bleeding of taxpayers by an ever- expanding client population is sound and, in principle at least, generally supported. Like- wise, the need for an effective national defense is generally supported. Since politics is the art Lift that peacekeeper mantle said only that he recognizes fkom President Reagan's newest "certain problems and ambigui- initiative "to free the world from ties .11 These include, presumably, the threat of nuclear war" and the fact that either superpower, tpere lies a very dangerous operating under the illusion that proposal. it could limit retaliatory damage In 1972, the United States and to accepjable levels, would be the Soviet union reached perhaps greatly encouraged to make a their most important arms-con- first strike. the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, limiting the deployment of defensive missile systems. It was difficult, given the technological momentum of defensive-weapons research, but the overwhelming sentiment on both sides was that an ABM system (1) could not work and (2) would encourage a first-strike mentality. Now Reagan wants to revive the illusion that a good defense can end the arms race. In answer to it-can't-work thinking, he offers the hope of new technolo- gy. Yet he offers it to a world in which one weapon can destroy a city and hundreds of thousands of people, a world in which only the perfect defense will suffice. What laser can provide that? As for the destabilizing effect of defensive weapons, Reagan Russians? If the United States were to achieve - or think it had achieved - the ability to shoot down retaliatpry Soviet missiles, wouldn't the men in the Kremlin have to consider that America might be planning a devastating first strike? Certainly the Pentagon would make that assumption about the Soviets if it were discovered that they had an ABM system. It is such fears that brought about the ABM treaty, a signifi- cant achievement that Reagan now proposes to violate in intent if not in word. With his speech, he has invited the Soviets to embark on yet another surge forward in the arms race, this one still more costly and more dangerous than the last. of the possible, the task before the national leadership, in and out of the White House, is to get the most defense for the amount of dollars that can be devoted to it without causing offset- ting domestic damage. In view of the Democratic-controlled House's passage of an alternate budget with far less for defense than the president wants, it seems clear that Mr. Reagan is going to have to com- promise. There surely is room to do so. Both sides should begin the process in good faith, for a bitter, prolonged wrangle on a matter of such fundamental national interest would give still further aid and comfort to adversaries who flourish on their opponents' indecision and internal struggles. Reagan defense plan comes under attack By Charles W. Corddry Washington Bureau of The Sun Washington - As scientific con- cern about President Reagan's mis- sile-defense goal began to build yes- terday, the president sturdily defend- ed it as promising an eventual end to the superpowers' confronting each other with cocked guns, ready to squeeze the triggers. The expressedconcern of some, in- cluding former Defense Secretary Harold Brown, a' nuclear physicist, and Hans Bethe, a Nobel physicist who worked on the atomic bomb, is that a defense system could produce a result opposite to that intended. U,Aer President Reagan's plan, the United States would rely on such weapons as lasers and atomic parti- cle beams to destroy attacking mis- siles in space, instead of continuing to depend solely on the threat of devas- tating retaliation to deter a nuclear attack. In defense of the plan, Gen. John W. Vessey, Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, contended in a tele- phone interview that international stability would increase if such de- fenses could be designed and the na- tion was "not locked forever into the offensive alone." As for worries that the Soviet Union might view the U.S. motive for developing such a system as wanting to be able to strike without being struck, General Vessey said: "The Russians know we're not going to at- tack them anyway." Mr. Reagan sought to make the same point, emphasizing American restraint during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 and throughout the peri- pd when the United States had un- otyAenged nuclear superiority. The president acknowledged at a brief White House news conference that "we don't know bow long it will take, or if, or ever," when it comes to Inventing the defensive system he has in mind. "But it is inconceivable to me that we can go on thinking down the future ... that the great nations of the world Will sit here, like people facing them- selves across a table, each with a cocked gun, and no one knowing whether someone might tighten their finger on the trigger," Mr. Reagan said. He thus described a new strategic direction under which the nation would add a search for missile de- fenses to its current reliance on the threat of retaliation as a deterrent. As defense secretary in the Carter administration, Mr. Brown approved research on exotic beam weapons. He indicated yesterday that he favored its continuation, notably because the Soviet Union is making such explora- tions. But dating back to his days as President Lyndon B. Johnson's Air Force secretary, Mr. Brown has had the strongest doubts that defenses can be erected against thermonuclear weapons. "The wont outcome," he said in a telephone interview yesterday, "would be a deployment, on either side, of a defensive system that was believed by the political leadership to be workable when in fact it was not." That statement did not prejudge the outcome of the quest the Reagan administration has started, but it ar- gued for great caution. Mr. Bettie, in an interview with The Washington Post, expressed doubt that what Mr. Reagan wants to do can actually be done, and saw in the plan the rudiments of a new race, a "star war, if successful," with anti- satellite weapons at the front of the competition. A former defense official, who did not want to be named, emphasized the enormous cost facing the United States if it pursues space age missile defenses, arguing that the defense would have to be perfect to be worth- while against nuclear attack. "It might produce the first trillion- dollar military system," this former official said. The Soviets would erect similar defenses, he reasoned. He was chilled by the thought that Soviet military men might be able to convince their political leaden in the remote future that they had an effective defense and that therefore a first strike was feasi- ble because the defensive system would sweep up the American retali- atory strike. The interest of the U.S. military high command, which strongly backs Mr. Reagan, is obvious to this former official. Military leaders have long felt frustrated by the bind that deter rence theories put them in. Security, under current theory, depends on the possible attacker's calculations of U.S. retaliatory capabilities. An at- tacker would need the ability to de- %troy the United States before Ameri- ca could destroy it in return. Thus, the official continued, there is a spiraling increase of nuclear arsenals, and diminished resources for more probable conventional con- flict. Naturally enough, by this rea- soning. military leaders want a dr fense - if one is possible - that will stop missile attacks. Mr. Reagan argued yesterday that there were two ways to get at the "cocked gun" problem - his arms control proposals, about which he will speak in Los Angeles next week, and his missile defense goal for the turn of the century. Mr. Reagan also entered a strong new defense of his choice to head the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Kenneth L. Adelman, whom the Senate Foreign Relations Com- mittee has recommended the Senate disapprove. One of the committee's charges against Mr. Adelman, which he has denied, is that he was misleading on the question of whether he intended a personnel shakeup in the agency if confirmed. He received a memo from Edward L. Rowny, the U.S. strategic arms negotiator, advocating a house- cleaning. Mr. Reagan said he thought inquir- ies about personnel were "perfectly natural." The "fuss" about Mr. Adel- man, he said, "smacks of people smaller than the person they are at- tacking." President Overruled Advisers On Announcing Defense Plan By David Hoffman and Lou Cannon W"a,lnrla, post stall Wr1Yn President Reagan personally over.- ruled objections from top Pentagon officials when he announced long- range plans this week to study a fu- turistic defense system that could destroy Soviet intercontinental bal- listic missiles in flight. "The quicker we start, the better," he said yesterday. Senior administration officials said the president insisted on mak- ing the announcement in his address Wednesday night, even though some officials questioned whether the tim- ing was right and whether Reagan should have brought the issue up at all. "I'd put it out now because, what better time?" the president said yes- terday in a 15-minute question-and- answer session with reporters. "I've been having this idea and it's been kicking around in my mind for some time here recently. And constantly I have thought about the fact that the nuclear missile seems to be one of the only major weapons systems in history that has never produced or brought about a defense against it- self...." He added, "And since we don't know how long it will take or if-or ever, that we have to start-the quicker we start, the better." Administration sources said that two Pentagon officials, Undersecre- tary for Policy Fred C. Ikle and As- sistant Secretary for International Security Policy Richard Paris, had questioned whether Reagan should even raise the issue in his Wednes- day night defense speech. The sources said Ikle, while sup- porting the general idea of a defen- sive system, was doubtful about the timing and format of Reagan's pro- posal. Perle, who led the internal opposition, worried that it would raise concern that the United States was about to adopt an anti-ballistic missile system and was drifting away from the NATO alliance, the sources said. The idea first came up the week of Feb. 7 in a discussion Reagan had with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the officials said. "When they first discussed it, the president immediately captured the idea and asked for a decision" on a closely held basis, said one informed administration official. Before and during the 1980 cam- paign, Reagan expressed interest in a high-technology solution to the "in- terminable" nuclear arms race, the official said. Reagan asked Ikle, among others, about it during the presidential campaign. Drafted by the National Security Council and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the speech text dealing with this high-technology proposal was circulated to other Defense and State department officials only last week, the sources said. It then drew objections from Perle and others, which had the effect of watering down the text, making it less specif- ic, officials said. But Tuesday evening, they added, Reagan decided he wanted to press ahead in this address rather than leave it for two other planned speeches on arms control and the MX missile. Reagan then rewrote the section of the address dealing with the missile defense system, in- corporating some of the objections and making the speech more general in nature, the officials said. George A. Keyworth, the presi- dent's science adviser, who favored inclusion of the futuristic system in the speech as did national security affairs adviser William P. Clark. said yesterday it was a "top down" deci. sion coming from the president, rather than being sent up by admin- istration officials. Most officials in the White House West Wing were unaware of it until the last minute, sources said. Some have since expressed concern that the high-technology defense system has obscured the larger point Rea- gan wanted to make in support of his planned rearmament. Yesterday, Reagan signed a direc- tive giving Clark responsibility for the new effort. Officials have been vague about the cost, but Keyworth said yester- day that the administration is talk- ing about something at least match- ing what he said is a $2 billion So- viet effort, about twice the current U.S. spending level. Keyworth also said he expects that a new office will be established within a few months to coordinate the effort, which is now scattered among various agen- cies. Although much of the speculation about such a defense system has centered on satellites, Keyworth said yesterday that it is more likely to emerge in the form of land-based laser systems. At the urging of Ikle and others, Reagan stopped short of outlining a more ambitious defense system aimed at Soviet bombers and cruise missiles as well, administra- tion sources said. Reagan said yesterday that he finds it "inconceivable" that "the great nations of the world will sit here, like people facing themselves across a table, each with a cocked gun, and no one knowing whether someone might tighten their finger on the trigger." The president said he would not violate the anti-ballistic missile trea- ty with the Soviets, which just un- derwent a five-year review. The trea- ty, he added, bare deployment of, but not research on, defensive weap- ons. Reagan also defended his nominee to head the Arms Control and Dis- armament Agency, Kenneth L. Adel- man, following charges from Senate Democrats that Adelman misled the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in earlier testimony. "You bet, I am sticking by Mr. Adelman," Reagan said. Science Adviser Sees Lasers and Mirrors As a Missile Defense By Michael Getter Wufllneten Pus staff Writer President Reagan's science adviser says that "a very promising" future concept for defending against missile attack involves using huge mirrors in space to absorb intense laser rays beamed from Earth stations and re- direct them to destroy Soviet mis- silee soon after launching. In an interview yesterday, George A. Keyworth, the atomic scientist who serves as Reagan's chief science adviser, stressed that such a system might be two decades away and that many technical questions would have to be resolved if it is to be made to work. But he cited it as the sort of idea that could grow out of the presi- dent's call this week for an all-out research effort to determine if an effective defense against enemy mis- sile attack could be developed. Such a development, Reagan said, could shift U.S. strategy from instant atomic retaliation to a more defen- sive posture. The laser-mirror combination was the only one cited by Keyworth in the interview around which some potential operational concept had developed. He also pointed out that, of all the new technologies that pos- sibly could be used in such futuristic defenses, lasers were the furthest siorlg? The mirrors, perhaps 100 feet in diameter, would be stored aboard space boosters and launched only upon warning that an enemy missile attack appeared imminent, Key- worth said. The idea, he said, is to keep these space boosters ready with an instant `pop-up" launchcapability so that the mirrors would not have to re- main constantly in space, where they could be knocked out in advance of an attack by Soviet anti-satellite weapons. To deal with a large Soviet missile attack, possibly hundreds of these mirrors would be needed, and hun- dreds of ground-based stations in which to generate the intense laser light beams, Keyworth said. The high-energy laser beams would be aimed at the mirrors. Their beams would be allowed to spread somewhat so that the mirrors could absorb their intense heat and energy without burning up. Then the mirror would essentially refocus the beam, reviving its intensity, and aim it at individual missiles as they rose from their launch silos deep inside the Soviet Union. Ground-based computer stations would tell the mirrors in space where to aim their beams, using informa- tion from data-gathering satellites that would sense the engine heat of the newly launched missiles and track them with radar. The United States already has such satellites, but vastly improved ones would be needed for such a defensive system. The mirrors could be repositioned quickly to shift their aim from one target to another, in hopes of picking off the Soviet missiles some 6,000 miles away within minutes of their launching. This would be well before the Soviet missiles could release the many individual atomic warheads each carries. Keyworth says it would also be necessary, using the same tech- niques, to pick off 'any Soviet mis- siles that got through the first at- tempt to destroy them, before they began diving to the U.S. mainland. Generally it would take a missile about 30 minutes to fly from the Soviet Union to the United States, and the individual atomic warheads would be dispersed during the last few minutes of that flight The times WASHINGTON POST 26 March 1983 Page 8 are shorter for missiles fired from submarines that are closer to U.S. shores. The advantages of such a system, if it could ever be developed, Key- worth said, is that the biggest and most complex component-the laser beam generator-would be on the ground where it could be serviced and defended. The system also does not involve putting weapons into space, and the pop-up technique would reduce vulnerability to a So- viet pre-emptive attack on the sys- tem. Keyworth stressed that there are many technical unknowns. He ac- knowledged that "we don't know how to build lasers today" with as much energy as would be needed for the anti-missile role. One of the problems that have plagued lasers for years is how to transmit them through rain and at- mospheric disturbances without weakening them. Requirements for handling massive amounts of elec- tronic intelligence and rapidly re- aiming the mirrors also go far be- yond today's capabilities. But Keyworth said extraordinary advances in micro-processor technol- ogy have been made in recent years that might solve agree of these prob- lems. And, he added, "in most of these areas" of potentially promising anti-missile technology "we have a substantial edge" on the Soviets. The president's proposal has generated considerable controversy in the scientific community. Prof. Sidney Drell, a leading phys- icist who is deputy director of the linear accelerator center at Stanford University and a former White House defense consultant, said, "I see no prospect of deploying on the ground or in space an effective de- fense." Transcript of Reagan News Session on Social Security and Missile Defense Fbliowfng Is a transcript of President Regent's news conference In Wash- aeon yesterday morning, as recorded by flu New York Times: OPENING STATEMENT Good morning. It's a short state- Gent. I'd like to thank the members of Gongress on both sides of the aisle for IpIN us address two Issues of great ficance to the American people. P r all our senior citizens who war. tied about receiving their Social Se- cerity benefits, and for ptsent? 'wncyworkers t syster I tealtheJc aedark rkmd hN been lifted.. Shortly after 2 o'clock this morning, the Congress completed action on the bipartisan social Security solvency p m. And by together in our W bipartisan tndi on, we have pissed reform legislation that brings us much closer to insuring the Integ- pty of the Social Security System. N you know, I've pledged repast. 451y that no American who depends an Social Security would ever be denied 1* or her checks. But I warned those who *am kng this Sue a political system did have real prubleme, and that only through hard work - not demagoguery - would we be able to solve them. For the sake of our peopl Is, I'm pltlfied that great good sense did Revaa over partisan concern. I was also pleased to sign last dvening a bill that guarantees contin- ued unemployment insurance benefits Na/1idYytthmhat provides funds to expand em. Pederall programs during the resent PedersI year. Now jpls bipartisan $gislatlon approves su lemental ap- propriations totaling $4.S billion for Various construction, renovation and dlpair activities, and it provides an. thority for humanitarian assistance through food d nations and other re- lated efforts. By accelerating various Gcvaxrn~ meet projects already budgeted for future years, this legislation avoids the costly error of creating a multibil. Ilon-dollar the son of exive job mistake program, the Fact. OM Government made too often in the pee. In fact, all of the employ. ment-generating activities funded under this bill will add virtually noth- spento the Federal ding in IM Is offset i by com sating reductions in future appmprla. tioN for that same activities. Let then be no contusion on one es- isentlal law, point as this bill be,- comes signs are clear that economic recovery Is already under recovery that will bring far more jobs to unemployed Americans man ttown ever be treated by new Federal lobs programs. Make-work jobs are Jug temporary, at ban, and we know that from pant eapnleaea. Governme t ~eod for sum Jobe will o ly paved at private bon to for private jobs, rate the des cif reveres our dramaticpragraea In bringing down inflation and interest rates. So I'm asking all member a the Congress m work with me m hold down and tar, In the same s great t on that's brought jobs and social Sea?Ity. W togeher, avoldhq a return to narrow paRIsanWP. we can insure recovery that's strong and loog-Sting. Butter for Peace REAGAN: And now, because I bo- bs" in the sanctity a contracts, Where Is Sarah McClendon? McCLENDON: Right here. REAGAN: Right then? Q. Thant you so much for recognis- pg me. Sir, you're about to embark on a tone and rnmplicated scientific ex- 6loratlon for wax and death. Why can. VA we have first as c centrated a Program an trying to slve the mess gy seeking Dotter human relations U, S.A -Style With the Soviet Union and ether countries? Why don't we sell for cash some of the 150,000 tone of buttes we pay to store dally and an daily adding o.- tie Soviets seek bitter des- perately; the starving babies in Af- rica can drink the milk we process Into butter. We have other surplus commodities. Why cannot we explore whether better Iiving thragh she ing of food and consumer goods will make people turn from tDefr warlords and bring Well, RSaMceI think that what you have been saving, literally, is being answered. First of all, we are going to continue - not only in the area of dls- armamst but every other way we can - to convince those who seem to be expansionist today that there is a better course, it re to come forth and join the family oiha- tias that want to go forward together in pedme and freedom. With regard to the food, the only te- straint on that - we are adding to the commodities that we've held stor- age under nor own laws and regula- e e we're adding to the num- ber of those, the amount of those that TRANSCRIPT.. Next Page ItEA At PI;A& ON MISSILE DEFENSE WILL PREVENT WAR By STEVEN R. WEISMAN Spnel to lee Net. Yon Ti me, WASHINGTON. March 25 - Presi- dent Reagan said today that he had de- cided to seek development of an ad- vanced missiedefense system because it was "Inconceivable" for the United States and the Soviet Union to continue indefinitely to threaten each other with nuclear destruction. Mr. Reagan, at a news conference at the White House, said the Soviet Union and the United States had become "like people facing themselves across a table, each with a cocked gun, and no one knowing whether someone might tighten their finger on the trigger." He acknowledged that the situation had prevented one side from attacking the other for decades. But he said he thought "there is another way" that peace might be preserved - for scien. tists to "turn their talent to the job of perhaps coming up with something that would render these weapons obsolete." A Fundamental Shift Mr. Reagan thus offered some insight into his recent thinking in choosing to embark on what would be, in effect, a fundamental shift from the doctrine of massive retaliation that has governed United States policy since the advent of nuclear weapons. On Wednesday the President pro- posed a stepped-up research program to develop new means for neutralizing missiles launched by others. Today, he issued an executive order calling for an "imeaslve effort" to ':define a longterm research and development program" for missile defense. He directed that it be supervised by William P. (lark, the national security adviser. White House officials said the new program might involve lasers, micro. wave devices, particle beams and projectile beams, which theoretically could be directed from satellites, air- TRANSCRIPT...Cont'd Is going to be Miller holed to the peo- pfa of wed. whether hen or world. wide. But the ace restraint that I man. tamed is we have to be on that in Awns that we dint just add further problems to the aaggrriicultural cmn- munlty by ta that disposing interfer- Ing with, or w141og out, their potential markets. So it a a How that has to be wand, and we've been very careful with that. We have Internationally gads soma of thw tthhiinnggss - and these dairy products avWable - but at each time wehave hd ta work very carefully eo as not ta either deprive our own farmers or deprive other allies and Meads of oars of their com- mar" markets. Nuclear Missile Defense Q. Mr. President, why did you make that proposal now? In the light of the arms rate that Is going on with the Soviet Union, so to speak and the ne- gotaNm over In Geneva. at a time when the b dget la being beaten up by tie Congress because of taw higher ds tense spending that you want, why did yte l A that proposal on, air? A. I put Icon now because what bet- tar time? I've been having this idea, is been kicking around in my mind for some time here recently. And ocn- otantly I have thought about the fact that the nuclear missile seems to be one of the only major weapons eye- tema in history that has never produced or brought about a defense against foalf. And I brought this up one day in a meeting at which the chiefs of staff were present, and others, and we talked about it and dis- cussed it. and than discussed it some more. And since we don't know how long it will take, or if or forever, that we have to start. The quicker we start the bet- ter. But It Is inconceivable to me that the future we can go on thinking life- - not only for ourselves in our time but for other erations - that the gnat nations oene world will sit here like people facing themselves across a table each with a cocked gin. and no one knowing whether someone might tight= the finger on the trig. Z. And there is one way, and the way to pursuing, which Is to we if we can get mutual agreement to reduce those weapons; and, hopefully, to eliminate them, as we're trying in I.N.F. There Is another way, and that Is it we could - the same scientists who gave us this kind of destructive power - If they could turn their talent to the job ni ppearrhahaps uupp with some- thing thatwould nedertheseweapons obsolete. Ad I don't know haw tang It's going to take. but we're going to part because I'm going th be signing an executive director very deny, when I get out of here. Helen? The Soviet View REAGAN ... Continued planes or land-based Installations to knock out hostile missiles after they had been launched. In Western Europe, Mr. Reagan's proposal for a new defense system against missiles drew cautious praise and considerable criticism, and many of the critics suggested that the plan could hinder talks to reduce nuclear weapons. [Page 4.) On another matter, the President de- fended Kenneth L. Adelman, his nomi- nee to head the Arms Control and Disar- mament Agency, and said Mr. Adel- man's Senate critics were "Smaller than the person they're attacking." [Page3.] Mr. Reagan also used his news see- aim today to hint again that be might soon modify the United States position in arms negotiations with the Soviet Union on medium-range nueledr mis- siles in Europe. The Administration has proposed that such missiles be banned entirely from Europe. But the President was re- ported by aides this week to have ds cided in principle to recommend new equal limitations, short of outright elimination, of such missiles deployed by the Soviet Union and the United States. Mr. Reagan, discussing his plan for a new missllaefanse system. dismissed charges made Wednesday In the Soviet press that research into such a system would violate the 1972 Ant -Ballistic Missile Treaty. Under the treaty. the United States and the Soviet Union Q. Mr. President the Saviste see It your way at all. They say that you are, to fact, accelerating the arms moo, that we an violating the ABM treaties, and that it's almost that you've thrown down tie gauntlet. A. Well, maybe they'm at is InaklndotamlrtorlmapI ha us think like they thtat. Flat of , It It violate the ABM treaty, we've just extended that for five years. The ARM treaty has to do with deploy. ment. There is nothing In it that pro calling resarchh,gwhich Is who we're what- ever time it would tats, and whatever President would be In the White House when maybe 20 year. down t e rend somebody doss come up with = an. soar, I thick that that would than bring to the fore the problem of. "all righpt, wwhy tot now d spose of all these an be renderedobsolete?" Mutual Deterrence . But the mutual daterrent has Qpt,othe than destruction for 40 and are you moving away n that? no fear of mutual destruction. A. Yes, but that's IL It's as l say, it's like those two fellows with the Loaded agreed not to "develop. test or deploy" missile defense systems. "First of all. It doe It violate the ABM Tresry," Mr. Reagan said of his proposal. "We've just extended that for eve yam. The ABM Treaty has to do with deployment. 7bere is nothing m It that prohibits research, which Is what we're calling for." Mr. Reagan's men- don of "five years" was apparently an alludm to the treaty's being reviewed every it" years, as it was last year. The treatyis detwiedurauon, Article V. Section I of the Ant-Batis- tlc Missile Treaty states that "Each party undertakes not to develop, test or deploy ABM systems or components which are sa-based, air-based, space- based or mobile-land based." This does not prohibit study or research. At issue is what constitutes research on the one hand and development on theother. Mr. Reagan added that he was "quite are" that whenever the defensive sys- tem became practical - "maybe 20 years down the road" - the Soviet Union and the United States would then be forced to "dispose of" their ballistic missile arsenals since they would be .'rendered otplete." Mr. Reagan was than asked to com- ment on the Soviet suggestion that his Administration had "thrown down the gauntlet" and escalated the arms race. "Maybe they're looking at us In a kind of mirror image," Mr. Reagan said with a smile. ' re having us think like they think." The President's proposal comes at a time when the doctrine of mutual deter- rence has been under challenge by REAGAN...Next Page gums cooked and ready. Yes, we have. I thick - but remember that for a grat part of that perbd we proved, I thick pretty definitely, that we an not mpeodaout, that we're not Mares- sire. Berate we had, to begin with, a monopoly and than, for a number at those 30 years, we had such a suberi- ortty, as witness the Cuban toilet's oriels. When they blinked, I think It's safe to ay it was because our su>perl. ority at that time was about S to 1. And, If you will recall, the Russian involved in time - or very high up in tha Politburo, Invdlved in that paRlmt. tar Incident - said In the hearing of his comtarpartson our We that they would never a be aught in that maticmWtaarrdupreed their tire So you with can't say fg of here, even wthe grant ama mt weapons that both sides have today, for time 30 years, for a long time - and, as I say again, we proved . -yeu have o ask urslf how many na- tions in the world could have had the thirt-WO II&A and not have tak vadvantage of it. And we didn't. Remember the room? wb I said about the back gottogo - you? Yes? .. . NEW YORK TIMES 27 March 1983 Pg. 1 SOVIET TOLD BY U.S. ABM PACT STANDS Officials Deny Reagan's Plan Seeks to 'Disarm' Russians By BERNARD GWERTZMAN spew taro, New Von nmat 'WASHINGTON, March 26 - Admin- Istratlon officials said today that the United States had notified the Soviet Union that the new research in missile defense announced by President Rea- gan would not violate or abrogate the Il-year-ld Soviet-American treaty limiting each side's antiballistic: missile defense. There was no official reaction to com- mems about the Reagan program by Yuri V. Andropov, the Soviet leader, but officials were reading them within minutes of receipt of the text. Speaking privately, they disputed the contention that the proposed United States program, which would be aimed at making offensive weapons ineffec- tive, was intended to "disarm" the Soviet Union. The officials said that there was no likelihood of any concrete results within 13 to 20 years, that the project was Mr. Reagan's personal idea and that prob- ably nothing would be done with any new technology without discussions with the Soviet Union on wing it to achieve radical disarmament. Some officials acknowledged that Mr. Reagan, in publicizing his plan without advance discussion with allied leaders or with the Russians, had probably raised more questions than he could an- swer. This. officials said, would prob- ably make it more difficult for the United States in what one State Depart- ment official called "the Propaganda war" with the Soviet Union over the whole issue of medium-range missiles in Europe. One American senior official, after reading the text of the Andropov inter- view, said he found it "fascinating" that the head of the Soviet union would accuse the President of the United States of lying about the continued de- ployment of SS-20's, the most advanced Soviet medium-range missile. A year ago, Leonid 1. Brezhnev, then the Soviet leader, pledged to halt the further deployment of SS-20's. Mr. Rea- gan, in his speech Thursday, said that six months after the pledge, the number of warheads on medium-range missiles had risen to 1,200 from 600. "Some freeze," Mr. Reagan said, adding that the number of warheads was now ap to 1,300. He said the United States had no such warheads on med. um-range missiles and would have them only when the first of 572 new mis- siles were deployed at the end of 1963. Mr. Andropov said Mr. Reagan "tells a deliberate lie, asserting that the Soviet Union does not observe its own unilateral moratorium on the deploy. ment of medium-range missiles." He did not develop this theme further. Officials Cite Satellite Data The American official said satellites had detected the continued construction and deployment of new SS-20 missile sites in the European and Asian parts of the Soviet Union. He said the United States had offi- cially advised the Soviet Union that Mr. Reagan's call for research into new de- fensive technologies against missiles should in no way be seen as questioning American commitments to the 1972 treaty onlimiting antiballistic missiles. In 1972, President Richard M. Nixon and Mr. Brerhnev signed a treaty limit- ing each side to two fields of antiballis- tic missiles, with no more than 100 launchers and missiles could be in ei- ther field. In 1974, they signed a proto- col amending the treaty to limit each side to only one field. The Russian have their field around Moscow, and the United States decided to dismantle the one it had around Grand Forks, N.D. In signing the treaty, the two sides ac. knowledged that modem technology had not devised a way of defending against an all-ant missile attack, and that the best way of deterring a war was by maintaining a parity of offensive nor clearweapons. One official whams involved in policy matters said that at first, he was un- happy with the President's decision to call for the research into defensive technology because he knew it. would inevitably raise doubts in Europe and in the United States about the direction of American policy. "But let me say," he added, "I have time a lot of soul-searching in the past 48 hours, and I think that when we are finished with this latest nuclear debate, we may find that Ronald Reagan has done us a big favor in making us think in different terms. Maybe he is right in saying that piling one offensive system on top of the other is good only up to a REAGAN... Continued church groups, such as the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. Ques- tinns also have been raised about the so- called counterierce concept in which the United States wotud have pre iurr- ably invulnerable mtsciles, such as the Mx, capable of sinning at Soviet mis- sile silos. Ever since th_ 1972 treaty limiting ballistic missile systems, both the United States and the Soviet Union have accepted, at least implicitly, the con- cept that defensive systems would de- stablize the deterrent balance by rais- ing fears that one side was preparing to attack and then defend itse:f against a retaliatory attack. This concept is now oeing qquestioned by the Pre.tdent'S sugges*Icm that the united States shoved develop. defensive systems that would make offensive weapons obsolete. White Fuse officials sought to em- phasize that the United States did not contemplate turning outer space into a new nuclear battleground between the superpowers. point and ways have to be sought to get off the treadmill." The Soviet side was told of the Ameri. can commitment to the ABM treaty in conversations here and in Moscow, the official said. Mr. Reagan said both in his speech and at a news conference on Friday that the research program would not violate the ABM treaty. The most weal nuclear issue now, officials said, is the carrying out of the plan td deploy the new American mis- siles in Europe. Under an allied policy decision of 1979, all efforts must be made through negotiations to make it unnecessary to have such a deploy- mat. The current Soviet-American talks are deadlocked, and Mr. Reagan is Planning a speech next Thursday in Los Angeles to discuss the situation. Officials said he had seat a letter to all heads of allied governments inform- ing them that he was lining toward modifying the current negotiating ap- proach to test Soviet intentions. ATLANTA JOURNAL & CONSTITUTION 27 March 1983 Pg. 1D 'Give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons obsoletJ High-tech `shield' just a Reagan trick? By Loy* Miller Jr. Newhouse News Service WASHINGTON - In the pre- radar days of naval warfare, when warships shot only at targets the gunners' eyes could see, the smoke screen was a most useful defensive weapon. When a ship was seriously dam- aged, it could lay a smokescreen (or accompanying ships could lay one for It) to obscure the enemy's aim while it made its escape. In early World War II, for instance, the Brit- ish battleship H.M.S. Prince of Wales used a smoke screen to keep from being sunk by the superior firepower of the German dreadnaught Bis- marck, after the Bismarck had blown up the H.M.S. Hood, largest battleship in the British navy, with one shot. Even though these are more mod- ern times, Washington these days looks somewhat like those geyser- marked waters of the Denmark Straits in 1941. The Reagan administration is under heavy bombardment from the Democratic Party's fleet, and often receives more than small arms fire from its own large-bore Republican congressional powers. Last week Reagan's flagship, the fiscal 1984 budget, received a direct hit right in the middle of its military nerve center. House Democrats, strengthened by their gains of 26 seats in the 1982 elections, adopted a Democratic budget alternative, which, among other changes, slashed Reagan's re- quested defense boost from 10 per- cent to 4 percent. It was the most severe legislative defeat of his presi- dency. Thirty minutes later, the U.S.S. Reagan ducked behind a protective smoke screen, only this time it was a space-age shield of such exotic modern-day phenomena as laser beams, microwaves and rays of highly charged protons and elec- trons. In a nationally televised speech defending his defense budget and issuing - for the umpteenth time - dire warnings about the Soviet mili- tary buildup, Reagan tried to get fresh attention by proposing, in a surprise conclusion to the speech, a big program to develop weapons of lasers and particle beams, all of which could knock enemy interconti- nental missiles out of the sky. He said the invention of such abso- lutely dependable defensive weapons should render nuclear ICBMs impo- tent, thus defusing the current frightening American-Soviet arms race. The whole maneuver was a good example of how presidents some- times get their plans and their execution all tangled up. Reagan is proposing a very radi- cal change in the nation's long-range military strategy, but he made the proposal as a tactical move in a skirmish of the moment. America's current strategy is called "deterrence," the theory that the United States deters the Soviets from making a first strike with ICBMs by maintaining such a potent ICBM force of our own that there would unquestionably be a retalia. tory American strike against the Russians. Now Reagan proposes that by, say, the year 2000 the United States should invent the exotic defensive weapons of lasers, or whatever, making ICBMs useless and the doc- trine of deterrence obsolete. Then, suggested the president, actual removal of American and Russian ICBMs could be negotiated. Conservative military thinkers, particularly retired Air Force Gen. Daniel Graham, have been pushing this scheme or variations on it (Graham wants ICBM defenses orbited on space platforms) for years. It may well be that Reagan would have embraced it eventually regard. less of his troubles with the current defense buildup drive. But from the way in which it was introduced in last week's speech, it's very clear that Reagan unveiled it now, and in that way, because he badly needed a smoke screen, hope- fully to shield his embattled 1984 de- fense budget from congressional at- tack. Most probably, it won't work. Even if it does, the nation's serious thinkers are left to wonder whether Reagan honestly wants re- placement of deterrence with Star Wars technology, or whether he frivolously threw out the idea to dis- tract everyone's attention from his short-term astronomical defense de- mands. No, Mr. Reagan, It Won't Work No technological magic will render nukes obsolete By Jon M. lodol I N HIS SPEECH last Wednesday night, President Reagan urged American scientists "to turn their great talents to the-cause of mankind and world peace. to give us the means of rendering ... nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete." The world would surely rejoice if such a feat were possible. Unfortu- nately, it is not. Following the presi- dent's proposed course would only create false hopes and, in all likeli- hood, intensify nuclear dangers rather than diminish them. 'there are, to begin with, serious doubts about the technical feasibility of developing a defense against ballistic missiles that the Soviets could not easily counter - doubts that were aired widely in the late '60s and early "70s. Our nation has overcome many technical challenges in the past, of murse, and we certainly should not shrink from another if it would end or seriously reduce the threat of nu- clear war. But the president's ap- proach has problems that go far be- yond technology. Consider just five: 1. Defending against bomb- ers and cruise missiles. Ballistic missiles are only part of the nuclear threat we face. For example, low- flying bombers and terrain-hugging cruise missiles could pass unaffected through a defense such as the presi- dent proposes. In fact, as unlikely as it may seem, defending against nuclear-armed bombers and cruise missiles is an ever greater technical challenge than defending against ballistic missiles. And if the defense against the bomb- ers and cruise missiles were not per- fect, the weapons that "leak through" could destroy the ground-based com- ponents of the ARM system itself. Unless a defense can keep out all types of weapons, it is useless in a nu- clear war. 2. Our allies. President Reagan said that our defense should destroy Soviet missiles before they reach "our own soil or that of our allies." But the Soviets have many ways to launch nuclear weapons against our allies in Europe that would be unaffected by an ABM defense. They could use air- craft, nuclear artillery or even ar- mored vehicles carrying "atomic demolition munitions" with an in- vading force. It is inconceivable that an effective nuclear defense could be developed for Europe. 3. Treaty commitments. The president says he will carry out his program "consistent with our ob- ligations under the ABM treaty." But. that treaty explicity prohibits not only the deployment but even the development of any system based in space - the most likely candidate for the technological breakthrough the president seeks. 4. Destabilizing the nuclear balance. One can envision a world in which the nuclear powers have limited offensive capabilities and ef- fective defenses. A small residual of- fensive nuclear force would still deter some wars, while the defense would eliminate threats from third coun- tries and concerns about accidental attacks, and perhaps even the threat of massive destruction should war occur. But how do we get from where we are to this Nirvana? Without a complete political reconciliation with the Soviet Union (which Reagan certainly does not an- ticipate), the initiation of large-scale ABM deployments by either side would be seen, as an attempt by the other to enhance its capability to fight a nuclear war successfully. The Soviets would understand this and undoubtedly respond with coun- termeasures to any ABM we de- ployed. The result would be a new es- calation of the arms race, greatly ex- acerbated international tensions, and increased risk of nuclear war. 5. Cost. A full-scale ABM pro- gram, carried out in combination with the other necessary elements of such a posture (defense against bombers and cruise missiles, civil de- fense, defense of our allies, and a buildup of conventional weapons to offset the reduction in nuclear deter- ence) could easily double our current $250 billion-a-year defense budget. The national could afford this if it had to - defense would still be only about 12 percent of our Gross Na- tional Product. But it would call for an overwhelming national effort, re- quiring all elements of our society to be involved in active preparation for the possibility of war. It is inconceiv- able that the American public would support such an approach. The president obviously is sincere in his concern about the risk of nu- clear war and in his desire to mar- shall our scientific strength to reduce or eliminate this risk. But, unfortu- nately, some problems simply are not susceptible to easy technological solution. There is no Way we can turn the technological clock back on the over- whelming power of nuclear weapons. Our best hope is to negotiate effec- tive arms control agreements that contain the risk and ultimately elimi- nate it. As we pursue negotiations, we must maintain strong and effective military programs that will deter Soviet aggression. But it is folly to pin our hopes on the chimera of a perfect or safe defense. Jan Lodal is a former senior staff member and director of program analysis for the Na- tional Security Council. Reagan's New Idea-What About It? President Reagan elerlrifitd the nations nuclear deddc last week by pngwsing to study whether an t ffective system might be detwloped in the next century to destroy Soviet missiles during their flight through slnre. 77se idea is that such a system would allow the current doctrine of deterrence, with its terrifying threat of vast mutual death and destruction, to be set aside. Wig incited three ranking defense experts to eouluate the Presidents proposed. Fred C. lode from the Reagan Pentagon, and Harold Brown and William J Perry, who served under Jimmy Carter. The Vision vs. the Nightmare Over the last two decades, two broad views of the future in the nuclear age have been con- tending in American strategic thought. Both views recognize that our own defense effort must be complemented by internationally agreed policies that will restrain and reduce the nuclear arsenals. But if peace is to he preserved, according to the first view, mankind must remain locked into per- manent hostile confrontation of missile farces poised for instant retaliation. The second view searches for ways to stop a nuclear attack, rather than relying exclusively on the threat of revenge, and seeks to harness science and technology to re- duce the role of nuclear arms. In the 1970s, the first view largely dominated our strategic policy. The first view is like a permanent nightmare; the second view is a vision of the future that of- fers hope. According to the first view, we most, for the indefinite future, rely on strategic forces that can revenge a missile attack but not defend against it, on weapons that ran destroy cities but cannot protect them, on forces forever poised to avenge but never to save lives. This view implicitly accepts a world of nations frozen into an evil symmetry two "superpowers' forever confronting each other with hair-triggered missile arsenals, letshedl precariously by the fear of "each side" that its society is threatened by devastating nuclear retaliation. This view of the world imagines that the U.S. and Soviet govern- ments act alike. Indeed, it is the hallmark of this strategic philosophy that "they" and "we" are al- ways interchangeable. If the United States has some legitimate fears about Soviet military poli- cies, "they" must have exactly symmetric fears about us. If we base our defense on a need to deter Soviet military aggression, "they" must he driven by a symmetric objective. Moreover, there is an room in this simplistic view for the fact that more than "two sides" control nuclear weapons, and more nations will yet acquire them. And little allowance is made for the risk of accident and irrational acts. If we continued to follow this nightmare view of the nuclear age, arms control would hit a dead end. Since "each aide" in this view must retain of- fensive forces able to ensure nuclear revenge, re- IKLE CONTINUED NEXT PAGE. Harold Brown It May Be Plausible- And It May Be Ineffective In .June 19*), Geng Biao; the senior defense official of the People's Republic of China, vis- ited the United States. On Geng's Sunday af- termon arrival, President Carter, who was then about to watch "The Empire Strikes Back" ii I the White Howse projection room, suggested bring Geng over to meet him. The group, in- cluding spouses, White House staff and their families, watched laser beams, death rays and spaceship destruction on the screen. Afterward, I told Geng that this equipment was not yet ready for consideration for U.S. forces, let alone transfer to the PRC. What a change three short years have made! President Reagan now "offers a new hope for our children in the 21st century," based on di- rected-energy weapons, including nuclear weap- ons, laser teams, particle beams and all the panoply of Darth Varier and Luke Skywalker. Like the nuclear freeze movement, the Presi- dent's approach is a slogan and a drama, not a program. But these are serious matters. For over three decades, the prospect of nuclear retaliation against the military forces and urban-industrial strength of a potential attacker has operated as a deterrent to prevent nuclear war, and even to prevent direct conventional conflict between the forces of the superpowers. Yet to rely on the threat of mass destruction to preserve peace is morally disturbing. And military leaders natu- rally see their functions as being able to prevent an attack, if it occurs, from destroying their country, rather than being able to avenge their country, after it is destroyed in an attack. For decades there has been a reaction to the destructiveness of nuclear weapons and to the strategy of deterrence, along the following lines. It has again become intellectually and politi- cally influential. This is the position that it BROWN CONTINUED NEXT PAGE William J. Perry An Expensive Technological Risk The president did not actually describe any specific technology underlying his hope of de- fending the country against nuclear attack. But administration officials in background briefings after the speech suggested that a primary em- phasis he Pfd on directed energy weapons, one possibility being apace-borne Imam re- fore, it may be illustrative to consider the pros. is of this particular technology for providing an effective defense for the country. A space-borne laser system is by no means the only approach to ballistic missile defense but, among the exotic technologies being con- sidered, it is the most mature and best under- stood. The Defense Department has invested some $1 billion in high-energy laser technology in the last decade, during which time substan- tial technical progress has been made. Even more technical progress may be confidently predicted in the coming decade, especially with the projected incre ase in funding. Still, the most optimistic forecast I can make is that this technology Hold produce an operational sys- tem capable of degrading a nuclear attack, but not capable of protecting the nation from devastation in the event of a massive nuclear attack. To understand this conclusion, it is in- structive to consider the operational concept of such a system. _ A space-based laser would he designed to at- tack an ICBM by burning a hole through the rocket during the period that the missile was still under powered flight. The ICBM would thus be destroyed, not only before it reached its target but before it even had a chance to release its multiple warheads. To hit the ICBM target with enough laser energy would require having the laser on a low-altitude satellite "battle sta- tion" that must be located over the launch area when it fires its laser beam. Because of the or- bital motion of the satellite, not one but a whole constellation of satellites-about 20-would be necessary to shoat down any particular ICBM PERRY CONTINUEQ.0T PAGE on nue at any given time that it might he launched. A few seconds would he required to detect, track, lock on, and dwell on the target long enough to Mum a hole through it. Therefore, any given laser is tied up for several seconds in this operation, which has to occur during the few minutes the ICBM is in powered flight. The 20 satellites required for continuous coverage of the launch area could attack in sequence per- haps a few tens of ICBMs that were launched simultaneously, but they could not handle a mass attack of even a few hundreds of ICBMs from one geographical area. Therefore, the base number of 20 satellites would have to he multi. plied by about 10 to deal with a mass attack. In other words, several hundred satellites continu- ally orbiting the Earth would be needed to maintain enough laser beams to deal with a mass attack against the United States. The necessary laser weapons in these several hundred battle stations would be immensely complex. The lasers would require an opera. tional pointing and tracking accuracy of a few inches at a range of a few hundred miles; that is, better than one part in a million accuracy, requiring a feasible but difficult and expensive development program. Once the beam is prop- erly pointed, it most have sufficient energy to burn a hole in the missile skin. This would re- quire a more than tenfold increase in power over what has already been demonstrated for high-energy lasers. Finally, the reflecting mirror of this whole system would need to be several times larger than any that has been built so far, even on the ground. I believe that these prob- lems would eventually yield to it determined and expensive development program, but this new generation technology would have to be demonstrated before we could begin to build the hundreds of operational laser weapon sys- tems and put them in space. A laser system with these capabilities would likely be too large to be launched) from the space shuttle. For each of the several hundred battle stations, four or five shuttle launches may be required to place its components in orbit for assembly in space. (During this assem- bly phase, the system would be extremely vul- nerable to attack or disruption.) My most opti- mistic view is that such a program would cost well in excess of 6100 billion in today's dollars and could not reach a beginning operation status until some time in the next century. If we spend two decades developing, testing and then deploying a system to defeat the Soviet ICBM and SLAM forces, they certainty have ample time to consider, develop and de- ploy a variety of countermeasures. Some of these are straightforward. Against lasers. for ex- ample, infrared decoys might be used to simu- late the heat signatures of missile launches. An- other countermeasure would be to rotate the ICBM in flight or coat the ICBM skin with the: same kind of heat-absorbent material already used on reentry vehicles so that still higher levels of energy would be required to burn through the skin, requiring increases in laser auctions in missile arsenals at some point become destabilizing. Indeed, some people of this person. man have criticized the arms reductions proposed by President Reagan as endangering the stability of the "mutual" deterrent relationship. If nuclear weapons must remain forever invincible, then am control could never lead to low levels of nu- clear or'ensive was since, in a world without de- fenses, a few hidden weapons could mean a deci- sive military advantage. Worse yet, according to some proponents of this nightmare view of the work), arms policy must rig our strategic forces so that they could only be used to kill civilians, not to destroy military targets. Consonant with this attitude is the belief that outer space, rather than the cities we live in, ought to be protected from military competition. Thus, the president's decision to pursue defenses against ballistic missiles is being criticized as "militarizing" outer space. What are the priorities of those who eschew possibilities for increasing the se- curity of the space we live in, just so as to pre- serve some pristine sanctuary in miter space? The president's decision to remove the doc- trinal blinders against strategic defenses cannot overcome our current predicament overnight. But it offers a new hope.'to travel the road now being unblocked will call for much careful choice and thoughtful change. Research and development priorities will have to be pursued; and as we realize the vision of a different and safer strategy, we must continue to include our allies in this development. The scope and opportunities have now been widened for arms control negotiations that can grapple with the fundamentals. There is evidence to suggest that over time the Soviet Union will become receptive to such a new approach. Six- teen years ago, at a U.S.-Soviet summit meeting in Glassboro, NJ., President Johnson argued that arms control negotiations should give top priority to curbing systems that could defend each coun- try against ballistic missiles. The Soviets disa- greed: "I believe," Kosygin explained, "that de- fensive systems, which prevent attack, are not the cause of the arms nice, but constitute a factor preventing the death of people." The nightmare view of the nuclear age has broader implications, going well beyond the ques- tion of missile defenses It becomes an excuse for not improving our conventional defenses, for a reckless reliance on nuclear escalation: "Any major war will 'go nuclear,' any use of a nuclear weapon will mean global holocaust, so why spend more money on conventional forces?" It is symp- twnatic of the incoherence of the nightmare strategists that they usually hold three incompat- ible positions: that we can safely cut our conven- tional defense budget, that we can safely rely on the threat of nuclear escalation, that any use of nuclear arms will mean the end of the world. The Reagan administration has emphasized conventional force improvement, precisely to reduce our reliance on the threat of nuclear es- calation. "We most take steps," President, Rea- threat produced by technology can be alleviated by a combination of determination and addi- tional technology--that nuclear weapons are simply another form of warfare and that an ef- fective military counter can be found to it, just as to other formsof warfare. There is a major flaw in this approach. It is that a millionfold in- crease (from tons to megatons) is extremely dif- ficult to overcome, even with the bast combina- tion of technology and determination. If a single weapon can destroy a city of hun- dreds of thousands, only a perfect defense (which, moreover, works perfectly the first time) will suffice. The extreme destructiveness of nuclear weapons is magnified by the concen- tration and fragility of urban society. To this most be added the availability to the attacker of the tactic of concentrating its forces to satu- rate and overwhelm any possible defense, even if an individual defensive weapon can destroy an individual attacking weapon. In these circumstances, the prospects for a technical solution to the problem of preserving modern society in the face of an actual thermonu- clear war-whether that solution calls for laser- antibalpistic missile systems in space, elaborate civil defense schemes or combinations of these with counterforce capability (that is, ways of dle- stroying enemy weapons before they are launched) seems to me very poor. The effort to attain such technical solutions cold itself be quite dangerous if it created an illusion that such a solution has been achieved or is likely to be. Deterrence must leave no doubt that an all. wit nuclear war would destroy the nation-and the leadership-that launched it. Realistically, we must contemplate deployments by bah su- perpowers, investing huge amounts in such de- fensive systems. If a clever military briefer, in a time of grave crisis, with such systems in place, can persuade the political decision-makers that the defensive systems, operating together with other strategic forces, had a reasonable chance to function well enough to result in even a ser- verely damaged "victory," the scene will have been set for the ultimate disaster. There are indeed new ideas for directed)-energy weapons aimed from space or from the Earth's surface, which could attack ballistic missiles dur- ing their powered phase, in flight, or during reen- try. Some of them have been funded by the De- partment of Defense for five years or more, and hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on them. Such weapons could involve nuclear ex- plosives, laser beans, charged or neutral particle beans, material pellets, or combinations thereof. Calculations and very preliminary experiments- some of them promising-exist, but these ideas are far (as President Reagan implies, decades) from the stage of deployed systems 't'heir physi- cal principles may not work. The combination of engineering needs-energy generation, target ac- quisition, pointing, etc.-may be not be feasible. Or the costa of such systems may be greater than the cost of countermeasures to defeat them. I believe that one or more of these defects will prevent all such active defenses against PERRY... Continued power or in the mirror size of the laser weapon. Direct countermeasures against the space sta- tion also might be possible, including spacb mines and anti-satellite satellites. The spece- Iased laser perhaps would he most vulnerable to an attack by ground-based lasers. Even if the technology development is suc- cessful beyond my expectations, the ultimate operational problems are a major concern. Whatever exotic technology we finally settle on, we must believe that, like every other weapon system, it will be subject to some countermeas- ures. And because of the measure- countermeas-ure contest, our defensive system will have some variable level of effectiveness at any given time. In World War 11, the bast air defense sys- tems achieved about 10 percent effectiveness. The program manager of the space-borne laser program has estimated that it might achieve 50 percent effectiveness. If by remarkable im- provements in defense technology we were able to deploy an antiballistic missile system with 95 percent effectiveness and during this period the Soviets made no changes in their present force of ICBMs, they would still be able to place a residual force of :0 ICBM warheads on our cities, each of which was :10 times larger than the atomic bomb that devastated Hiroshima. Therefore, we would still want some deterrence in addition to our defense; that is, we would still want to maintain offensive nuclear forces to threaten retaliation. So, unless a defensive sys- tem were perfect-which is as unachievable as the perpetual motion machine-it would not replace offensive, retaliatory forces, only sup- plement them, and the task of maintaining that deterrent would be made immeasurably more difficult by the existence of a Soviet missile de- fense built to match ours. This need for deterrence, not hoping for per- fect defense, is the the inevitable consequence of the enormous destructive face of the excessively large numbers of nuclear weapons possessed both by the Soviet Union and the United States. Maintaining our security through the threat of nuclear retaliation puts us in an agonizingly un- comfortable position. If we could find a safe way out, we should seize it But we should not delude ourselves. Pursuing the unattainable risks diver- sion from real prlxitis-better conventional de- fense (including using our technology as leverage), secure and stable retaliatory deterrence, and the search for arms control. It has always been.tempting to solve the problems posed by nuclear weapons by wishing them away. But we cannot uninvent the nuclear bomb-we cannot repeal E = MC'. ballistic missiles from proving practically effec- tive. Moreover, they will not work to defend against air-breathing systems (bombers and cruise missiles)-particularly than using "stealth" technology--that fly low in the at- mosphere. Air-breathing systems, however, take hours to reach their targets and thus allow more time for decision in crisis, In that sense , they are less dangerous than ballistic missiles. In any event, I could be wrong in my negative technical evaluations. Moreover, the United States peeds to know what defenses might be de- ploycd against our anon ballistic missiles. And a world in which nuclear destruction was not possi- ble would be a greatly preferable one to what we have now. I therefore support research and study of such defensive technologies, and thinking about the systems to which they might be ap- plied. Research and study-but not development, testing or deployment of space-lased systems- are permitted by the AMB Treaty of 1972. But these activities should be carried out in a spirit of skepticism sorely mining in the presi- dent's speech, and at a Level and pace consistent with their unlikelihood of producing the adver- tised technical and military revolution. There is di. 'rer of alienating our allies by what may net. in attempt at creating a Fortran Aner- ica. And we must remember to guard against the most dangerous outcome of all. That would The writer, managing director of Hambrecht Quist, Inc., an investment banking firm, was undersecretary of de- fense for research and engineering in the Carter administration. he the deployment of defensive systems on both sides (and we must expect that if one super- power does so, the other will emulate it before lag) that are incorrectly thought to be effective in preventing the success of a retaliatory strike. My concern is that the ideas presented to the president are likely when developed to fall into that category of the plausible but ineffective. Some of his words expressed such cautions. but the enthusiastic tone and especially the context of a major presidential speech will magnify public expectations To the extent that attention to far- out technological approaches to active defense against ballistic missiles detracts from programs to retain deterrence, or distracts from arms arn- trol efforts the results tarn be dangerous indeed. The search for technological breakthroughs is no substitute for political and negotiating skill, nor for competent military planning and strategy. The proposed defers against nuclear attack, which could well become the fast trillion-dollar defense system, would then constitute a night- mare rather than a hope we would leave to our children in the 21st century. The writer, secretary of defense in the Carter administration, is Distinguished Visiting Professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Stud- ies and author of a forthcoming book, "Thinking About National Security." gun said Wednesday night, "to reduce the risk of a conventional military conflict escalating to nuclear war by improving our non-nuclear capabilities. America does possess--now-the technologies to attain very significant improve- ments in the effectiveness of our conventional, non-nuclear forts." defense budget, we an improve and deploy an- ventional fees that would be effective. Such faces could discriminatingly repel an attack- without destroying ourselves or our allies. In this way, and in this way only, will we have an effec- tive deterrent to conventional aggression. As the president stressed, we face a formida- ble task and there will be failures and setbacks. But we can count on the common sense of the American people to reject the permanent night- mare and support the vision that offers hope. The writer is undersecretary of de- fense for policy. WASHINGTON POST 27 March 1983 Pg. 1 Study Raps Laser Arms Funding Lag By Patrick E. Tyler Nashingl on Purl Staff Writer A classified government study completed last year criticized the pace at which the United States was fund- ing the development of high- energy laser weapons for use in outer space and concluded that such a weapon could be ready for flight testing in 1993 with a total . system price tag of $30 billion. The Pentagon, through its Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, now has contracts out for all of the major components of a space-based laser system in a consortium that includes Lockheed Corp., TRW Inc. and Eastman Kodak Co. Many components of the project are highly classified and carry exotic code names such as Lockheed's "Talon Gold" system for optical pointing and tracking gear that enables the laser to spot and fire on pinpoint targets thousands of miles away. But many details of the laser weapon's three major com- ponents are known and have advanced to the engineering stage. A low-powered version of the laser similiar to the one under development by these companies destroyed an un- armed and stationary Thor nuclear missile in a still-se- cret Pentagon test last fall, according to knowledgeable aerospace industry and con- gressional sources. The test demonstrated that the radiant light energy from current laser systems is adequate to destroy missiles whose thin outer skin is vul- nerable to laser heat, especially when the missile is ascending under the stress of its booster engines. Though the aged Thor was among the first U.S. nuclear missiles, later generations of missiles, including the current fleet of So- viet liquid-fuel missiles, do not have outer skins hardened against laser attack. In a 1978 test, a similar laser design using sophisticated tracking technology fired upon and destroyed three TOW antitank missiles traveling at 500 miles per hour, according to public Pentagon reports. The classified study and these tests show that President's Reagan's vision of an ulti- mate anti-ballistic missile system may not be as far away as some critics have claimed. But even aerospace industry enthusiasts acknowl- edge that there are formidable technical problems to be overcome if such a system is to be deployed before the next century. And, if developed, such weapons still face the strategic and political problems posed by U.S.-Soviet treaties. They also may provoke preemptive Soviet strikes to block their de- ployment or countermeasures to render them ineffective, officials said. "I think this ... leads to war in space, not as an alternative to war on earth, but as a prelude to war on earth," mid Richard L. Garwin, a physicist and longtime Pentagon weapons consultant who helped develop the hydrogen bomb. "If I were a Russian planner," said Hans A. Bethe, one of the Manhatten Project physicists who was invited by Reagan to last week's White House announcement, "once I saw these ... lasers appear in space, I would challenge the United States and say, 'Stop doing that,' and if it didn't stop, I would shoot down all those satellites. I don't see anything else that the Russians can do in that case." President Reagan and his main defense and science advisers have avoided specific references to various laser weapon designs or concepts under study or development since Reagan announced Wednesday night that he would seek "the means of rendering ... nu- clear weapons impotent and obsolete." In a Washington Post interview published yesterday, George A. Keyworth, the presi- dent's chief science adviser said one "very promising" laser concept for defending against Soviet missile attack involved using a giant ground laser in tandem with large or- biting mirrors to knock down enemy mis- siles. Keyworth emphasized that the concept was one of many laser ideas and that it faces many technical obstacles which, if overcome, still would make development unlikely in this century. He added that the field of laser technology, however, was the most advanced for producing high-energy space-based weap- ons to protect the United States from Soviet missile attack. In response to Keyworth's remarks, a leading congressional expert on laser weap- ~ns, Angelo M. Codevilla, a physicist on the staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee, expressed doubt that the concept Keyworth mentioned would be the most desirable, or attainable, goal for President Reagan's pur- suit of a workable anti-ballistic missile sys- tem technology. "There are other missile-killing lasers [than the concept mentioned by Keyworthl Which are already well into the engineering case and which everyone knows can be ilt," Codevilla said. The classified study was conducted by a General Accounting Office scientist as a re- view of the Defense Department's 1981 as- sessment of laser weapon projects. The GAO report is classified secret because the Pen- filgon data it analyzed was classified. The Pentagon study concluded that the deployment of "moderate numbers" of chem- ical laser satellites with beam energies of five megawatts "would place at risk large num- bers of ballistic missiles and aircraft in the current [Soviet] strategic inventory due to their ... vulnerability." But the GAO report pointed out that the technology is available now to scale up plans for the satellite to 10 megawatts of beam power using a 40-foot optical mirror. Such a system, generating light energy equal to about 1 percent of a large nuclear power plant's output on earth, could be effective against several Soviet strategic weapons, in- cluding the high-altitude Soviet Backfire bomber, the SS20 intermediate-range ballis- tic missile, low-altitude Soviet satellites and limited numbers of Soviet ballistic missiles, the report said. An aerospace consultant who has worked on the sophisticated laser and tracking sys- tems, Gerald Oeullette, agreed with the stu- dy. "A reasonably good-sized space laser could inflict considerable damage ... [against Soviet strategic weapons," said Oeullette, who was one of four scientists who first briefed the Senate Armed Services Committee on the feasibility of space lasers in 1979. Details of the study first appeared last year in Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine and were confirmed last week by congressional and aerospace industry sources. Since the GAO study, the Pentagon LASER FUNDING... Continued has further delayed the development ached- tile for the laser satellite, postponing indef. initely the 1991 test flight date set by Pres- ident Carter. Defense planners say they will not make a decision on a test flight date until 1988. "Realistically, early generations of space- based laser weapons will not provide the im- portant military capability to achieve defen- sive dominance, but would represent steps toward developing such a system," the GAO study concluded. The study said a tripling of the current funding for the space laser program could produce flight tests for a scaled-up satellite system by 1993. The cost of the first satellite was estimated at $5 billion and for each ad- ditional satellite, $1 billion. At current levels of funding, the Pentagon's program will not produce an operational system before the year 2000. The report noted that the current developmental pace is limited not by re- search obstacles, but by funding. The goal of the chemical laser system that is closest to demonstration is to shoot down 1,000 Soviet ballistic missiles in the first 250 seconds of a surprise nuclear attack, accord- ing to the Pentagon study. The chemical laser system, which has yet to be given a name, includes: ? An Alpha laser powered by a chemical reaction of liquid hydrogen and flourine, under development by TRW Inc. ? A 40-foot-wide optical mirror that.fp- cuses the laser beam on its target, under de- velopment by Eastman Kodak, Corning Glass and Lockheed. ? The "Talon Gold" tracking and pointing system, under development by Lockheed. When integrated for test flight, this is how the system would work, according to congres- sional and industry sources: A laser satellite system capable of serious- ly blunting a Soviet first strike of 1,000 mis- siles would require at least 24 orbiting laser platforms arranged in three pole-to-pole or- bits. Such an arrangement would ensure that at least eight of the platforms were in range of the primary Soviet missile fields at all times. Infrared telescopes aboard each satellite could "see" enemy missiles seconds after they were launched and identify them by their "signatures" obtained by earlier satellites and stored in the data base of the on-board com- puter. The "Talon Gold" tracking gun would use a low-powered laser to point to the tar- get, still 3,000 miles away. The reflection from this tracking laser would direct the large laser mirror to rotate into aiming po- sition on the target. infrared laser beam across the vacuum of space and bathe the thin skin of the Soviet missile with intense thermal. energy. The missile skin would expand from the added heat, buckle and tear apart. Fuel tanks would explode and the missile's deadly nuclear warheads, still unarmed during the booster stage of flight, would fall to earth. The missile kill, from the moment the sat- ellite identified its target seconds after launch, to destruction, could take as few as four seconds. A second laser system under study by the Pentagon would be powered by a nuclear bomb in a still-theoretical design to focus the X-ray radiation from its detonation at doz- ens of rising Soviet missiles. The X-ray laser, as it is called, would be far more powerful than normal laser light and its ultra-high frequency energy waves would penetrate any missile skin and shatter the structure of the missile like glass. Another laser under study, the Excimer laser design, needs a large electrical power source and achieves a tigher light wave that could penetrate "hardened" missile skins of the future. A third system, called a particle beam weapon, would fire what amounts to lightning bolts at its targets. It would consist of a stream of atomic particles. While some technologies look more prom- ising than others now, all present formidable technical problems that could delay devel. opment at least into the next century. Even then, such weapons face what would be a historic debate on the wisdom of aban- doning the 20-year-old strategic doctrine that offensive nuclear arsenals are sufficient to deter aggression by both sides. Said Kurt Gottfried, a Cornell physicist and defense consultant: "If such a system can be constructed, it is the equivalent of putting all of the other side's ICBMs in the garbage can; therefore they are made naked; therefore they won't allow it to happen." ale There is one very vocal advocat-e there should be a simple, inexpensive radar-aimed gun defense of each U.S. lotercontfnental missile silo. These galling guns would have no area de- By Charles W. CCorddrv Now and again some mem- ber of Congress on the lib- eral side raises an alarm about the potential of space warfare, and Danny Graham is glee- ful. Maybe the attack will focus on him. He preaches up and down the land that America's best hope for safety against Soviet missiles lies in space-based defenses But his ideas still need the attention that comes from being assailed Danny is retired Army Lt Gen Daniel ii Graham, former deputy dr rector of the Central Intelligence Agency, former director of the Penta- gons Defense Intelligence Agency and present director of High Frontier. Inc. He broke a lot of crockery when he was in uniform, and a lot more as an adviser to the Reagan campaign pushing for a technological end-run of the Soviets in space. Now he is pester- ing the slow-moving establishment quite as much as he is any liberals worrying about weapons in space. His ideas perhaps got a boost from President Reagan's expressed hope in his speech last Wednesday night that one day U.S. strategy might be based on futuristic weapons that could in- tercept and destroy nuclear missiles before they reached their targets. The government establishment is not so much averse to weapons in apace as it is. seemingly, to General Graham's proposed brand. His come- back is that the Pentagon and the nu- clear-freeze advocates, so disliked by the Pentagon. actually come together on what ought to be an unacceptable thesis : That there is no defense in the nuclear age; that the prospect of as- Mr Corddry. a member of The Sun's Washington Bureau, covers the Pentagon. sured destruction by offensive weap- ons is the source of stability and pre- venter of war. The Soviet Union, judged by its of- fensive and defensive weapons de- ployments and its arms negotiating strategies, has never accepted the "mutual assured destruction" thesis. the former intelligence director told President Reagan's commission stud- ying the MX missile and other strate- gic weapons. Those attacking his High Frontier space-defense proposal on technical and financial grounds, he further con- tended, are in reality trying to fore- stall a change in American strategy. That change would call for a mixture of offensive and defensive weapon. ending entire reliance on offensive weapons for retaliation, along with such passive defense as comes from "boring holes and pouring concrete" to protect the retaliatory missiles. General Graham's proposal is es- sentially this: ? The United States should switch from "all-offense, punitive deter- rence" to a mixture of defense and of- fense that would "eliminate the effec- tiveness" of a. Soviet first strike against this country. "Assured surviv- al" would replace "assured destruc- tion." If the Soviets deploy the same sort of apace defenses, fine. ? In space, the United States would put up a ring of satellites filled with homing interceptor devices, resem- bling large can, that would seek out Soviet missiles within minutes of launch and knock them out. The inter- ceptors, using infra-red, radar or ultra-violet sensing methods to home on targets, would be "kinetic-energy kill systems," destroying missiles with their mass and velocity (20,000 miles an hour). The weapons system would be non-nuclear and "cannot kill a single Russian." -No claim is made that the satel- lite ring "can do everything but throw rocks at the bill collector." Some mis- out the two or three warheads headed for a missile silo at a distance of, say. 6,000 feet. All they have to do is en- sure that the missile could be launched, if it came to that ? Later on, a more advanced satel- lite system would be put aloft, equipped with beam weapons or more advanced kinetic-energy devices. As General Graham wryly observes, this is too far off to be contentious now. The gun - adapted from types used on aircraft and ships - is not much of a challenge to broad strategy either. It is the initial satellite system that "draws the heavy flak," the gen- eral says. Well it might. It tends to boggle the mind. causing National Security Council staffers to busy themselves with more familiar chores and De- fense Department technicians to fall into customary negative assessment of that which was "not invented here." Two things are wrong with High Frontier, says Richard D DeLauer. undersecretary of defense for re- search and engineering. General Graham underestimates the cost, and be is far too optimistic about when the system could be operating in space. Mr. DeLauer does not much fault the concept, but he says there is much to be done first to learn about control- ling objects in space and gaining pointing and tracking accuracies for space devices. He does not dismiss by any means the idea of kinetic-energy systems. General Graham says the initial satellite array could be put in orbit within five or six years at a cost of $15 billion - cheaper, he says, than Pouring concrete for MX missile shel- ters. This system would consist of 432 satellites In a 300-mile high orbit. each one carrying 40 to 50 of the kinetic-energy kill devices. The system could sense and track Soviet missiles, exchange data, deter CONTINUED NEXT PA? HIGH FRONTIER fit nue points and knock out at least 50 percent of a rocket salvo in the first seven minutes of flight, so says the general. In 10 to 12 years, the higher tech- nology. or beam weapon, system could be put in orbit, again with a 50 percent kill probability, he estimates. These satellites would replace the older ones as they wear out. Such defense capabilities, com- bined with improved U.S. offensive missiles, ought to ensure against any Russian notion of striking first with hopes of a knock-out. General Graham says. But the gun defenses at each silo would nail down the can, he thinks, having a 60 percent probabili- ty of killing the two or three war- beads that might seep through and be headed for a given silo The guns could be mounted in two or three . years Where General.Graham estimates $15 billion, the Pentagon estimates $50 billion. saying it would take 10 to 12 years to get up the satellites Gen- eral Graham and his staff have no ar- gument with this estimate. To them. it,just says the Pentagon would take twice as long as necessary in order to "accommodate bureaucratic inertia" and the cost accordingly would in- deed then be what the Pentagon estr mates. But this just reflects an "incred- ibly inefficient" procurement system -end ignores the probability that mass-produced satellites would cost much less than today s custom-made types. The nation that got to the moon in. seven years from the go-ahead and sent the first Polaris missile subma- rine to sea in 47 months, the general argues, does not need to spend an average of 11 to 13 years in develop- ing new systems. as it now does. The High Frontier scheme appears to have played well off-Broadway. but. as General Graham laments, he can't quite get the great controversy that be would like in Congress. High Frontier may never - a]- most certainly won't - be realized as set forth in the Graham concept If he gets no further. however. General Graham can count these suc- cesses ' - He has made people in govern- ment think. at least. about the posse bilities of defensive strategies; -And whatever the details of his proposal. he has made many people aware that there may be strategic ad- 1000 Defense? Hardly, CAMBRIDGE, Mass. - If Presi- dent Reagan gets his way, we will soon embark on a major effort to de- velop an exotic and technologically io- novative defense against nuclear at- tack-one that be suggests may be eo effective AS "to give n the mean of rendering nuclear weapon impotent and obsolete." As former scientific advisers for the Department of De- fense, we have to wonder about the basis for such optimism. "There Is No Defense." That was the title and conclusion of a remark- able paper published in 1015 by a die- tinguished physicist, Louis Ridenour - a key figure in the development of radar and later the Air Force's dust scientist. His thesis is valid still and seems virtually certain to remain an as far as we can see into the technolog- ical future - despite considerable progress in thetechnology fordeliver. tug and defending egalnst nuclear weapons. This follows from the simple fact that thermonuclear weapons give as practically unlimited power of de- struction, while cities and populations are extremely fragile. What this means is that a defense consistent with President Ragan's vision would have to be virtually 100 percent effec- tive. Unfortunately, there can be little prospect of this, however exotic the means of destroying ntls it or war- heads - be it with particle beams or lasers. 'Than technologies pose intriguing scientific challenges, but developing eve such weapons would hardly achi the President's goal of "eliminating the threat pored by strategic nuclear missiles." Much more would be need- ed: means for coping with the adver- sary's countermeasures, including discriminating between targets and other objects, means for protecting the antiballistic defense system Itself and mean for aiming beams, rays or projectiles. Most important, it would r rots in aammppllex system that could defend use just a few isolated points but the whole country against attacks that might tome at any time from any direction and that might include bombers, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. It is virtually certain that the Soviet Union would be able to offset our at. forts by improving Its offense - and would probably be able to do so at a lesser coat. We ate likely to on soother round of competitive escalation - an, other example of what happened when Washington decided to develop and cis ploy thousands of nucleararmed air. launched cruise missiles and a fleet of B-I bombers in reaction to the Soviet Union's upgrading of its air defense. The antiballistic defense effort Mr. Reagan proposes is more likely to lead to intensification of the arms race than to pave the way for what he called "arms control measures to eliminate the wapos themedve." Does this mean that we should forego research an such exotic sys- tems? Probably not. It may even be possible to develop defensive "stems that will be partly effective in defend. big a limited another of isolated tar- gets - command-and-control facili- ties or other military targets. But this is a completely different and far lea difficult problem than that of develop its an essentially 100 percent effec- tive defense of the notion's population. What troubles us is less the expend. Iture of a billion dollars a year on re- search than holding out a vision of hope - the hope of an infallible do- fuse - that is virtually impossible to achieve. It is not hard to understand why the Administration found this vi- sion attractive - just as a fountain of youth or a universal cure for cancer is attractive - but it is cruel and mis- leading to hold out such false hopes There is also something deeply trou- bling about an advisory team that can encourage the President to raise such hopes-false hopes that have been rs sited by recent predecessors, includ- ing Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon, when they made much more modest claims for the defenses theyadvaated in the late 1000's. George W. Rothjens, professor of political science at the Massachusetts lutitute director of the Technology, was; Defense Department s Advanced Research Project Agency- Jack Rdnm, professor of electrical eh- gtneering and computer advice at M I T Wks dbedorof/hengenty- vantages in space (some would say that there certainly are) - and that "Star Wan," maybe. was not just a very successful film. Reagan's strategic surpri - se And now, for something different: a bid to repeal 35 years of nuclear deterrence By Fred Kaplan first strike would be answered by a devas- ABMs. The DSB concluded that the ideas Special to The Globe Y W ASHINGTON taring retaliatory blow: given that fact. nn- were so farfetched they were not the end of his - Toward tential aggressors would be much less worth seriously thinking about. the end of his speech last prone to start a war. Pentagon officials agree that Reagan 's Wednesday, defense budget last Thus, If the United States trul could ideas lie well beyond today's technology. Wesday, President down every Soviet missile, we could but emphasize that the President was dis- claimed that he Ronald was "launching Reagan siden- n port rt destroy the USSR threat of retaliation - cussing a weapons system that could be g an effort e., its ability to deter attack. The United available two or three decades from now. which holds the course of human purpose Rather than de, the States could threaten nuclear strikes with This may be true, but analysts familiar ry' tamin impunity, knowing the Soviets were un- With the 0 8 study note many substantial taliale g anuclear gainst ainst war by threatening to re- able to effectively respond that problems that must be overcome if such ag aggressors with offensive attack the Soviet Union without cotlc ABM weapons, the United States would begin the we Soviet could ex programs are to succeed. The work on a new program of defensive weap Union's being able to strike back at us. If laser and charged-particle ideas require ons that can intercept enemy missiles long this scenario seems absurd at first glance. placi1ig a beam precisely on target; there is before they can hit American territory, consider what our reaction might be if the no tolerance for error. And there are sever- thus rendering nuclear weapons " Impy, Soviets announced that they were embark- at steps in this process: tracking and ac- tent and obsolete." ing upon a similar program. quiring the target, beaming and prope?st- Just what type of program Reagan had in mind was not so clear. At one point in the speech, he said that "current technol- ogy has attained a level of sophistication where it is reasonable for us to begin this effort." But later he said, "I am directing a comprehensive and intensive effort to de- fine a long-term research and development program...." How the level of technology can be deemed sufficiently sophisticated when the nature of the program has yet to be defined, the President did not explain. Pentagon officials say he was calling more for a general reassessment than for any specific program. Whatever it Is, Reagan did say it will take "years, probably dec- ades" to complete. It sounds good, but... Judging from background briefings and the Ideas commonly discussed by ad- vocates of exotic weapons schemes, howev- er. it can be surmised that Reagan was re- ferring to some sort of anti-ballistic-missile (ABM) system based in outer space, using infrared sensors, laser beams or charged- particle beams. There are two things to note about such programs: First. they will not be seen as purely defensive in nature: second, there is no reason to believe they will ever work. At first glance, an effort to protect cities and people from the ravages of nuclear at- tack seems benign. However, the essence of nuclear deterrence for the past 35 years has been the inescapable reality that a Fred Kaplan writes about military Is- sites.for The Globe and is the author of "The Wizards of Armageddon." a book about America's nuclear strategists, to be published in June. Beyond that, such a program Is prac- ing the beam, checking for error, refiring tically impossible. If the aim is to make nu- In case of a miss - and doing all of this clear weapons obsolete, the defense against a constantly and rapidly moving against them must be airtight. Yet nuclear target, or actually doing this hundreds of offensive weapons are so cheap to manu- times with hundreds of beams against facture, especially compared with the cost t?dreds of targets simultaneously. The of a defensive system, that the opposition coordination of these steps presents insur- will always be able to buy enough weapons to counter any defensive effort. The Idea of ABMs has been around for a long time; more than $10 billion has been spent on research and development over the years. There was Nike-Zeus in the 1950s, Nike-X, Safeguard and Sentinel In the 1960s; quite aside from his new idea, Reagan plans to spend about $1 billion a year on R & D for updated derivatives of these systems today. No widespread de- ployment was ever approved. One of the critical limitations was always the recognl- Bon that offense is cheaper than defense. that an offensive attack would thus satu- especially since everything must be han- ded through automation with no human monitoring. Moreover, betwc_n each step there is a time lag - just fractions of a second in some cases, but enout,:, so that the target has moved a great distance by the stan- dards of accuracy required. And If the ABM seeks to destroy the enemy missile as It-is being launched off the ground, there is apather source of error: the distortion caused by refraction and defraction of lghtwaves as the ABM's sensor stares down from space Into the atmosphere. rate the defense. - - Another idea is to use Miniature Hom- In short, rather than halting the arms Ing Vehicles (MHVs). which are guided to race, a serious effort to build ABMs could their targets by infrared (heat-seeking) In fact spur the arms race on to new and sensors. Since the Soviet missiles are hot greater heights. The sort of program that objects and outer space is very cold, they Reagan is now talking about will involve stand out as ideal infrared targets. radically different types of technology, but However, the coordination problems are the problems remain. itnmense.' Which MHVs are aimed at Moreover, this new technology may be which missiles? Moreover, the Soviets insuperably difficult. perhaps could fire up hundreds of hot objects along Impossible, to develop. Jack with the missiles. Perhaps releasing them MIT engineer who has served on weapons like chaff from the rocket now cones. The panels for 25 years, says, "There is zero MHVs would take off after these false tar promise for this system right now. To mis- gets as well, possibly exhausting the ABM lead, misguide the public - and yourself ' system, while many of the real missiles is;a tragedy." plow through the barricades. Two summers ago, a panel of the De- Even if they could finally solve the prob- fense Science Board (DSB) analyzed several ideas favored by the Pentagon's Advanced CONTINUED NEXT PAGE Research Projects Agency on space-based New space-age weapons system will help guide bombs to targets By Lonnie Siegel Pacific Naves Service SUNNYVALE, Calif. Even while President Reagan was announcing U.S. plang for dramatic new space. age defense systems, wort already was under way here on a futuristic military satellite communications system. Its chief purpose Is to ensure that American unclear weapons can be targeted accurately during and after en enemy attack Called MIL4TAR, or Military Strategic, Tactical and Relay, the new system is scheduled to begin operations in the late 191M, at a cost of over $1 biWon, and function throughout the 1990[ s of strategies envisiaed by Ragan admWstratkm planners to cope with p a war. Sa?yvale'e Loc Misdlee and Space Co. had been designated the major contrac- tor. One of MIISTAR'S selling points is that it will be "hardened" to with- stand the tremendous destructive force released by nuclear weapons, particularly the enormous burst of energy called electromagnetic pulse, or ES?. The electronic circuits in current systems probably could not survive EMP. In a report to Congress in Febru- ary, Defense Secretary Caspar Wein- berger said MILSTAR was "designed to provide survivable and enduring commaad and control communica- tions for those decision-makers who must be able to direct and receive information from their forces through all levels of conflict, including em- tear war." The Pentagon's priorities for strategic communications were de- scribed earlier by one of Weinberg- er'a deputies, Donald Latham, as in- cluding the ability to "continue operation over a protracted period of rnaflict" To make & protracted nuclear war "thinkable,' officials who survive the initial attacks must have a working communications hookup that can AM target enemy installations. MIISTAR has teen planned to fill that role. It will consist of eight satellites, with four in geostationary.orbits (circling the earth high over the equator at the same rotation speed), three in polar orbits and one orbiting as a spare. MI STAR terminals will be placed at ground stations, in ships, planes and elsewhere as necessary. In addition to "hardening" the sys- tem EIdP, plena call for MIL- STAR satellites to be able to maneu- ver in ===is space weapons. Tcontrol ao reduce their dependence on ground nd relay stations, they will be capable of limited au- tonomous movement and will relay information directly from one satel- lite to another. The network will operate in the ex- tremely high frequency, or EHF, with new elet, range, this, tronic hardware, is combined expected. to make it difficult to jam MILRTAR chao- neSince the Soviets know that ML- STAR is designed to help the United States win a protracted nuclear cow- fl ct, It Is believed that they already are working on amtermwura. The Pentagon is likely to fund programs to develop its own countermeasures against anticipated Soviet moves.. Neither 'MHSTAR am its Sovjet counterpart their ct~ deployment ~ will be foollobot. probably will strengthen the views of planners to look upon nuclear war, or the ability to threaten nuclear attack, as useful Strategic tools. REAGAN'S STRATEGIC SURPRISE... Continued these new ABMs. They would still depend walk and computer chips, scientists were lems, the costs would be mmense. XrWast on sensors that can be blinded or tricked; working with inanimate and unwavering 300 platforms for space-based ABMs they would be connected to command-con- principles of physics and engineering. would be needed to counter the Soviet trolcommuniations networks that are With the ABM, scientists must anticipate a land-based ICBMs alone. That part is rela- vulnerable to many nuclear effects. Some highly animate, purposeful anq adaptive tively easy; at last we know where those scientists calculate that one or two H- Soviet Union that will be very interested in missiles are. But what about the Soviet bombs exploded in outer space would re- developing counter measures to seduce the submarine-launched ballistic missiles? lease so much radiation and electromag- ABM's effectiveness. They could be launched from beneath any netic pulse that every military satellite in President Reagan appears to ~e indulg- partof the ocean surface. We have sonar orbit - including anything governing the Ing in what physicist and wen s scien- systems that can track their general l ca- actions of a space-based ABM - would be tist Herbert York once called "the fallacy of tions - but not their precise movements. disabled in minutes or hours. the last step." It is a recurrent delusion of ABM radar sysbms vulnerable still, science and technology do march the arms race - the dream of the new su- forward. Who could have guessed, a few perweapon that will finally demonstrate Another beg headache is protecting the decades before their occurrence, that men our side's superiority, only to be shattered ABM system itself. This has always been would walk on the noon, that a hydrogen when the other side builds someth g that an enormous difficulty in all the ABM.con- bomb could be built, that microcomputer equals or counters it. Reagan ma genu- ceps of the past. ABM radar systems chips could have advanced so rapidly? inely believe he has produced a vie n that have always been particularly vulnerable. Likewise, for $100 billion or so, an ad- "offers a new hope for our childreniin the If the enemy attacked the radar first, then vaned ABM system might be constructed . Vat century." In ffaon of the same )ay. ABMs were crippled. as well. ehttheeH-bomb, analogies t moon ar despair with which,we all live today. The same principle would apply to quite proper. . Wit Missiles and Moonbeams By ROBERT E. HUNTER In his televised address Wednesday night, President Reagan put his finger on the central dilemma of the nuclear age: "I have become more and more deeply convinced," he said, "that the human spirit must be capable of rising above dealing with other nations and human beings by threatening their existence." Yet his solution, advanced weapons to shoot down Soviet warheads hurtling toward the United States and its allies, patently fails to meet his own test. Bad nuclear doctrine, like a bad penny, has a habit of coming back. What the President has proposed is little more than an extension of proposals made way back in the 1990s to build anti-ballistic missiles to protect our cities and our Minuteman mis- siles from Soviet attack. After prolonged debate, we recognized that this idea would cause more problems than it would solve, and it was scrapped. The Soviets apparently reached the same conclusion, and the result was the ABM Treaty of 1972, the most successful arms-control agreement ever concluded, which severely limits deploy- ment of such weapons. In fact, we later dismantled the one ABM system that we had built around missile silos in North Dakota, and the Soviets deployed only one set of ABMs, providing a scant fig-leaf of protec- tion for Moscow. Technology has moved on, however, and the President now wants to have another go at an effective ABM system, presumably to be composed of lasers and particle-beam weapons based high in the stratosphere or in orbit around Earth, waiting to intercept any incoming Soviet nuclear warheads. Not bad, at first blush. After all, it is surely better to defend against attack instead of threatening to kill tens of millions of people on the other side in retaliation for an attack. But on closer inspection, prob- lems set in that will be there no matter how good the new technology is-and "how good" is itself hotly debated. To be sure, if a first-class ABM system really could knock out most Soviet weapons directed at our missile silos, we could expect a large fraction of our land-based nuclear force to survive. Hence, we would close "the window of vulnerability" that has plagued the last two Administrations-though this could not be achieved for many years. Cities, however, cannot now, nor in the future, be adequately defended against nuclear attack. Even a defense system that is 99% effective-and what technology has ever worked that well?-would still let through millions of tons of explosive power and leave countless people dead. Nor will Soviet technology stand still, but will be devoted to ensuring that some nuclear weapons could get through to attack our cities, if not our missiles as well. Hitting U.S. cities wouldn't be difficult, especially those population centers concentrated along three coastlines. Thus, unpalatable as it is, deter- ring the Soviets' attack on our cities by threatening to destroy theirs will have to remain a part of our nuclear doctrine. There is a further problem, one identified years ago, of trying to protect missiles with an ABM. The Soviets won't be able to tell whether it is also intended to protect our cities-however improbable-and thus is an attempt to shift the nuclear balance deci- sively in our direction. The resulting insta- bility could prompt the Soviets in a crisis to use their weapons before our ABM system is completed-a profoundly unsettling pros- pect. Or Moscow might simply ape our efforts-not, however, leading to mutual reassurances of safety, but to competing fears about attempts to gain lopsided advan- tages in defending cities. Note, for example, the ballyhoo created by the Pentagon only a few weeks ago over the fact that the Soviets have a single modern radar connected to their Moscow ABM system! In sum, the President's proposal should be seen not as a serious way to end fears of nuclear war, but rather as an effort to undercut the movement to freeze nuclear developments on both sides, by holding out the chimera of an alternative to deterrence to Americans who (rightly) fear the pros- pects of nuclear war. It also plays to the American penchant for believing that there must be technological solutions to political problems. Even if the proposal does not proceed beyond continued research and develop. ment, it can even now have serious implica- tions for relations with our West European allies. The President asserted that the new ABM system would protect them, too. But a cursory look at the map reveals that weapons that could destroy high-flying warheads wouldn't stop those that the Soviets can launch against Western Europe by a host of other means. Indeed, the new proposal goes directly against the Presi- dent's own commitment, in the debate on new medium-range missiles for Europe, to reassure the allies that their security is inseparable from ours. Proposing to defend the United States while Europe most remain almost totally vulnerable is no way to inspire confidence in our reliability-as we discovered the last time that we debated ABM deployment. There is, of course, a better answer-not to eliminate nuclear weapons, as such, since there is no way to uninvent them, but to halt the current arms race: namely, the vigorous pursuit of agreements on arms control and reductions. By contrast, advancing into the uncharted regions of missile defense offers the prospect of more weapons without relieving the nuclear angst that has been. with us since Hiroshima. Robert. E. Hunter is director of European' studies at the Georgetown University Center for Strategic and International Studies. He served on the staff of the National Security Council in the Carter Administration. NEW YORK TIMES 27 March 1983 Pg. 1 ANDROPOV SAYS U.S. IS SPURRING A RACE IN STRATEGIC ARMS By JOHN F. BURNS Sp.cwmluennYUnraes MOSCOW. March 26 - Yuri V. An- dropov said today that President Ra- gan's new proposal for an American de- tense system against missiles was "a bid to disarm the Soviet Union" that would bunch the two nations into "a runaway race" in strategic nuclear weapons and defense systems against them. The Soviet leader said the United States and the Soviet Union had agreed a decade ago that no progress in limit. ing offensive nuclear weapons could be made unless there was mutual re- straint" in the field of missile defenses. Mr. Andropov said that Mr. Reagan, by announcing Wednesday that be fa- vored a research program to find a do- fense system that could destroy mis. siles aimed at the United States. had shown that the United States intended "to sever this interrelationship." 'This Would Open the Floodgates' The Soviet leader added: "Should this conception be converted into reality, this would actually open the floodgates to a runaway race of all types of strate- gic arms, both offensive and defensive. Such is the real purport, the seamy side, so to say, of Washington's'defen- sive conception.' " Mr. Andropov's response to the Presi- dent came in the form of an interview that was prepared for publication Sun- day in Pravda, the Communist Party newspaper. An English text was distrib- uted in advance by the official press agency Terse. The interview cast the Soviet leader in an uncompromising mood, and con- tained time of the conciliatory tone that marked some of his initial remarks on United StatesSoviet relations after he succeeded Leonid I. Brezhnev in November. The atmosphere this time was caught by the Soviet leader's assertion that Mr. Reagan told "a deliberate lie" in his as- sertion on Wednesday that the Soviet Union had broken its unilateral freeze on the deployment of medium-range nu- dear missiles in Europe. Though cow- man in Soviet propaganda, such phrase- ology is unusual coming from a Krem- lin leader speaking of the American President. Mr. Andropov also spoke of "Impu- dent distortions of the Soviet Union's policy" in Mr. Reagan's speech and said it was unbecoming for those who scrapped the second strategic arms limitation treaty "to try to Mae as peacemakers." Mr. Andropov also de scribed Washington's attempts to im- prove the United States' ability to fight and win nuclear wars as "not just irre- sponsible, it is insane." Most of the interview consisted of a reply to Mr. Reagan's claim that the Soviet Union has for 20 years been developing a military might far beyond its defensive needs and that its gains in nuclear and conventional weapons have made it imperative for the United States to increase its own forces. Mr. Andropov mocked the notion that "the United States is inferior to the Soviet Union," citing figures showing that United States nuclear forces were substantially improved during the two decades of which Mr. Reagan spoke. But some of the harshest words were reserved for Mr. Reagan's proposal to launch the development of an antimis- sile system that would, in Mr. Reagan's words, "take years, probably decades" to perfect. Mr. Andropov said "laymen may find it even attractive" to hear the Presi- dent speak about an ostensibly defen- sive system, but he added that this was so only to those unfamiliar with the complexities of nuclear strategy. "In tact;' he said, "the strategic of- fensive forces of the United States will continue to be developed and upgraded at full tilt and along quite a definite line at that, namely that of acquiring a first- nuclear-strike capability." "Under these conditions the intention to secure itself the possibility of de- stroying with the help of the ABM de- fenses the corresponding strategic sys- tems of the other side, that is of render- ing it incapable of dealing a retaliatory strike, 'is a bid to disarm the Soviet Union in the face of the U.S. nuclear threat." 'An Extremely Perilous Path' Mr. Andropov aid the Reagan Ad- ministration had chosen "to tread an extremely perilous path" with its weapon programs, and added: "The issues of war and peace must not be treated so flippantly. All attempts at gaining military superiority over the U.S.S.R. are futile. The Soviet Union will never allow them to succeed. It will never be caught defenseless by any threat. Let there be no mistake about this in Washington." "It is time," he said, "they stopped devising one option after another in the search of the best ways of u leashing nuclear war in the hope of winning it. Engaging in this is not just Irrespooai- ble, it is insane." The Soviet leader said "all efforts" should be aimed at averting nuclear catastrophe. "We call vigorously on the United States to take this path," he said. 'Everything that the Soviet Union did and does is no evidence 'of its seeking military superiority,' " he said. "Tres. ties and agreements to which we went and are ready to go with the U.S. side are aimed at lowering the level of con- frontation without upsetting parity, i.e., without detriment to the security of both the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A." Upgrading of U.S. Arms Cited Mr. Andropov said that "only naive people" could believe Mr. Reagan's contention that the last two decades had seen an unremitting Soviet military buildup while the United States, in Mr. Andropov's phrase, "has been sitting cross-handed." The Soviet leader acknowledged that Moscow "did strengthen is datum capability." But he said this had been done to offset the "feverish" efforts of the United States to develop military bases near Soviet borders, to upgrade United States weapons and to opera the bmilitaryetretegic parity" between the twonations. As an example, Mr. Andropov said the United States had decided in the 1970'a to place multiple warheads an is strategic missiles, although the Soviet Union had,Proposed the mutual renun- elation of such a move. As a result, American strategic nu- clear warheads had grown from "4 to 10-odd thousmd." Be asked: "Can an increase of nuclear arsenal by a factor of 2.5 be referred to as inactivity? No, it cannot be called an in anyway." As for Mr. Reagan's description of the deployment of new Soviet missiles in Europe as a bid to gain military ad- vantage, Mr. Andropov said Mr. Res. gars "pretends" that the United States does not have "a 15 to 1 advantage over the U.S.S.R." in medium-range nuclear weapons systems in Europe. The Kremlin count Is based on air- craft that the United States says are ei- ther not deployed in Europe, not as- signed to nuclear missions or lack the range and sophistication to penetrate Soviet air defenses. "The President not only keep silent about all that, he tells a deliberate Is, asserting that the Soviet Union don not observe its own unilateral moratorium on the deployment of medium-range missiles," Mr. Andropov said. Excerpts From the Interview With MOSCOW, March 26 (Reuters) began discussing the problem of Followt a ---- ra re excer t g p s from an inter- view with Yuri V. Andropov, the Soviet leader, on President Reagan's proposal to develop a defense against nuclear missiles. The interview is to appear Sunday in the Communist Party doily Pravda and was distrib- used in translation by the Soviet press agency Toss. Laymen may find it even attractive as the President speaks about what seem to be defensive measures. But this may seem to be so only on the face of it and Only to those who an not con- versant with these matters. In fact, the strategic offensive forces of the United States will car ttnue to be developed and upgraded at full tilt and slang quite a definite line at that, namely that of acquiring a Mt-nuclearattike capability. Under iluese caditians the intention to secure Itself the possibility of do- the help W the ABM de- alloying with tits ~ syeysttea of dde,e, than m taderby it Incapable of dealing a re. taltatory strike, to a bid to disarm the Swig Union in the face of the U.S. tn. cheerthreat. One must am this clearly in order to appraise correctly the true purport of this "new catoeptlm ? Should this conception be converted into reality, this would actually open the floodgates to a runaway race oe all type of strategic arms, both offensive sad defensive. Off .Sys- ele sive Link When the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. Is an inseverable into-etelatiunhip be. twin strategic offensive and defen. sive weapons. And It was not by chance that the treaty an limiting ABM systems and the first agreement on limitintstrategic offensive arms were signed aimWtaneoisly between our countries in 1872. The sides rempdzed the fact that it is only mutual restraint in the field of ABM defenses that will allowprogres ring and reducing strategic sys. tarn. The United States intends to sever this interrelationship. The present Administration is con. truing to tread an extremely danger- ova path. The issues of war and peace must not be treated so flippantly. The question President's prompts itself: e stand. Y the - ards of ~~tusmnducting relations with All attempts at gaining military su- periority over the U.S.S.R. are futile. The Soviet Union will never allow them to succeed. It will never be caught defenseless by any threat. Let there be no mistake about this in Washington. It is time they stopped 'devising one option after another in the search of the ben ways of unleash. ing nuclear war in the hope of wimittg it. Engaging in this is not just farce- spomible, it is k=&. One should come to realize that the U.S. lenders are trying today to turn the European countries into their no. clear hostages. Washington's actions are putting the entire world in jeop- ardy. Andropov The Soviet leader did not elaborate. In his speech, Mr. Reagan said that all. though Mr. Brezhnev declared the freeze a year ago, the Russians were still adding an average of three war- heads a week to the armory, which had a total of 1,288 warheads. Mr. Reagan also ignored the fact that United States medium-range nuclear weapons "are literally at our thresh. old" in Europe, making them strategic weapons from the Soviet viewpoint, Mr. Andropov said. Referring to the aerial photograph Mr. Reagan showed during hhlissspeech of Soviet-supplied aircraft and egwpm?t on a Nicaraguan air- field, Mr. And opov said sarcastically that the President "did not show photo. graphs showing hundreds of rtmwa thousands of miles away from the United States, runways on which U.S. aircraft with nuclear weapons on board are stationed ready to take off at any moment." NEW YORK TIMES 27 March 1983 Pg. 1E Would a Space-Age Defense Ease Tensions or Create Them? WASHINGTON N the 1990 campaign, Ronald Reagan scored Points by ' attacking Jimmy Carter for zigzags in dealing with the Soviet Union. As President, Mr. Reagan himself has oscillated at times between hard-line and more moderate positions. But lately, in his crusade for a $239 on defense budget, he has given vent to his natural in- clination for tough talk, sounding echoes of the cold war. Last week on television, he used charts and decWsi- Bed intelligence photos to draw a stark and menacing Pic- turn o[ Soviet offensive ==in= facing United States. But he tine thinking from offensive arms to devhdM an esoteric system of lasers or particle beams that, by the next c en- could rander attacIring nuclear missiles , This was his"vWon important. of the future which offers hope In Congress, Democrats and some Republicans did not share that hope. Neither did some members of the scientific community. Several White House and Pentagon aides acknowledged that the idea had not been carefully studied and that they had opposed Presenting it Publicly. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Demo- crat, accused President Reagan of employing "mislead- ing Red-scare tactics and reckless Star Wars schemes" to revive support for Pentagon spending. The President's push for exotic new weapons was partly a response to the jittery feelings in the United States and Europe about growing atomic arsenals. But the tactic could backfire. In Europe, the prospect of more American weapons makes some people feel less, rather than more, secure. And some critics contend that his por- trayal of Soviet power may indirectly feed the nuclear Vulnerability of Missiles Underlies Search for New Ideas PRESIDENT Reagan's notion that there must be a better basis for American security than the nuclear '.balance of terror grows partly from apprehensions that the old missile technologies may no longer suffice. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have advised him that no land- based missile system - American or Soviet - would be invulnerable to at- tack. Lient. Gen. Brent Scowcroft was expected to say the same about the MX this week when his Presiden- tial commission reports on the puz- zling question of where to put the new experimental missile. But in ordering "a comprehensive and intensive effort to define a long- term research and development pm grain" of "defensive technologies" last week, Mr. Ragan opened the door to a long and costly process. Finding out whether antimissile mis- siles, laver weapons, military space stations and/or particle beams could be depended on to intercept attacking missiles may take the rest of the cen- tury, he admitted. And the $730 mil- lion a year now going to this kind of research would have to be increased. Then there was the question of whether the Soviet response would bring a new spiral In the arms, race. Before the missile-k hers of fu- ture were deployed, senior o lals ',romised, the Russians, not to~pneo- tian America's allies, would bCcw- suited. Moscow, promptly assailed "military hysteria" that it said would "undermirp everything positive that has been achieved in Soviet-Ameri- can arms control." Also unenthused were at least three of the American scientists the Presi. dent had invited to dinner at the White House in a bid to enlist their support for , antimissile research. Even if the system worked, said Dr. victor Weisskopt of Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "either side would have to shoot down what the other side had in space - It would be the beginning of a nuclear war." But another guest. Dr. Edward Teller, the father of the hydrogen bomb, re- portedly has been Promoting a pro- gram mach like the one Mr. Ragan P Back Square One at Geneva, American and Soviet arms-control negotiators were due home this week for their spring-breek. Ambassador Edward L. Rowny, the chief strategic arms envoy, had some explaining ahead at the White House and in Con- gress. The Reagan nominee to be- come Mr. Rowny's boss as director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Kenneth L. Adelman, was In trouble - partly because of a memo- randum he had Identified as "Ed Rowney's very confidential real views on people" at the agency. Sena- tors wanted to know why Mr. Adel- man had testified that he had given no thought "at all" to a personnel shaking-out. "Immediately after Ambassador Rowny handed me the paper," Mr. Adelman explained, "I looked at it in a very brief, cursory fashion; I never read it carefully." Supporting his choice, President Reagan wondered "how someone can be hung out to dry for having re- ceived a letter from someone else." "The issue," said Senator Paul E. Tsongas, Democrat of Massach setts, "is not whether what he did was wrong but why he misled the committee." freeze movement by increasing tun of mutear war. Congressional and scientific critics were fearful that Mr. Reagan was reopening a debate settled a decade ago - on the -basis of forswearing nuclear defenses and achieving deterrence in the knowledge that attacking power would be exposed to awesome reprisal. Some ex- perts contended that such weapons were unattainable or would destroy the 1971 agreiments banning missilede- fense, a cornerstone of arms control. This was also the reaction in Moscow, where Yuri V. Andropov, the Soviet leader, said yesterday that Mr. Reagan was treading "an extremely dangerous path" and was seeking to make the Soviet Union "defenseless." Mr. Reagan seemed to many experts to be tryrtng to project himself as a man of peace while pushing for a big. ger arsenal. For all his militancy, the President has spoken of meeting this year with Mr. Andropov. And offi. cials have looked word of an imminent new proposal to break the deadlock in the Geneva negotiations on Inter. mediate-range missiles in Europe. These moves reflect the inevitable political dilemma of American Presidents as the technology of the arms race outruns diplomacy.. In a variation the Carter a? perience, Ronald Reagan has found that be must con. stantly prove his dedication to arms control while he presses for new weaponry to offset the Soviet buildup. Mr. Reagan, more than most recent Presidents, has turned up the rhetoric. With evangelical fervor in Orlan? do, Fla., this month, he summoned Americans to resist "the aggressive Impulses of an evil empire." He derided a nuclear weapons from as "a very dangerous fraud" The President's Fantasy BOSTON - "A vision of the future which offers hope," President Reagan called it. He foresaw space devices that would "intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil." Instead of rely- ing on the fear of retaliation to deter a Soviet nuclear attack, than, we would be safe behind an American techno- logical shield. "Would it not be better to save lives than to avenge them?" the President asked. 'Is it not worth every invest- ment necessary to free the world from the threat of nuclear war? We know it isi" The vision is so reassuring that it seems a shame to spoil it with facts. But Mr. Reagan's talk of missile de- fenses in space is fantasy-a mixture of wishful technology and muddled strategy. It is a dangerous fantasy, because it distracts attention from the hard realities of the arms race. Far from ending the threat of nuclear war, it introduces new threats. Mr. Reagan's own advisers, seem- ing embarrassed at his enthusiasm,. told reporters that be was speaking of ideas many years from the possibility of development. But the technical problems are not only a matter of time, as I learned when I spoke with one of the most respected scientific figures in the field of nuclear arms control, Jerome B. Wiesner, former president of M.I.T. and adviser to Presidents. "Most technical people doubt that antimissile devices in space will work," Professor Wiesner said. "But even if they do, it's wishful thinking to believe that they would provide im- penetrable defenses. "There are 10,000 or more nuclear weapons on each side. A defense sys- tem that would knock out 90 or 9Sper- ant would be a miracle-and the re- maining 5 or 10 percent would be enough to totally destroy civilization. Even if you could make an anti. ballistic missile system, cruise mis- afles would make it obsolete. The idea is to hit ballistic missiles high in the atmosphere or in outer space - Buck Rogers warfare. But the cruise flies at low levels. You'd have to develop an air defense system against it, which we don't know how to do and would be hard. "And in the air defense game the Soviet Union has Important advan- tages. So many of our cities are on the coast and hence more vulnerable than theirs, which are mainly inland. That's one of the reasons we aban. loved the Idea long ago." Loose talk about won9er weapon in space reflects an fill on that has hurt Am,!ricans ority he}brenotr, ThaIs the belief that the Russians cannot match American technology. The Johnson and Nixon Administra- tions went ahead on MIRV's in just such a belief. Henry Kissinger, writ- ing recently in Time, conceded that he and others had doubted the Russians' ability to make multi-headed missiles accurate enough to threaten ours. But they did, and the net effect of the MIRV race was to make us feel more vulnerable. The United States would have no patent on antimissile weapons in space either. If we plan an intensive research and development program, as -President Reagan ordered, the Russians will, too. Professor Wiesner put it in one blunt sentence: "It's really a declaration of a new cycle in the arms race." Weapons that have not yet been de- veloped are the very ones that ought to be outlawed by treaty - because It is far easier to negotiate agreements be. fore a race has started. Difficulty sets in, once each side fears that the other is ahead. The illusion that one of the super- powers is on the way to making itself invulnerable is particularly danger- ous. At some point in the future it may encourage a reckless leader to risk using nuclear weapons - or the other side to strike first, before it is ton late. Futuristic weapons have already been prohibited in two treaties: against nuclear weapons in space or at the bottom of the sea. And in fact the Soviet Union in 1981 proposed a treaty to ban "weapons of any kind in outer space." Is the United States now going to be in the position of pushing that new arms race while the Rus- sians offer to stop it? There is no doubt a political point in Mr. Reagan's talk of stopping the mis- siles in space. It gives Americans the idea that we can assure ourselves peace and safety if only we goon in- creslng odrmilitary expenditure and developing new weapons systems. It is an argument against the proposal for a mutual freeze on testing and do- ployment of new nuclear weapon. pating the folly that has brought us to the point of massive, ingenious over- kill on both sides. The only hope of reducing that danger is the hard way of negotiation: to stop new systems, not add them, and if possible to cut the numbers of existing weapons. SPACE-AGE DEFENSE... Continued (though rot a SSovletdomtiuted movemem'tte F..B,I aid last week). Later, he pictured Soviet proxies on the March in Central America. El Salvador, he said, "will join Cuba and Nicaragua as a base for spreading fresh violence to Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica" and beyond. The predatory Soviet design, he said, is "to tie down our form on our southern border and so limit our capacity to act in more distant places such as Europe, the Persian Gulf, In- dian Ocean, Sea of Japan." As House Democrats passed a 1981 budget providing only 4 Percent growth in military spending, rather than the 10 percent he requested, Mr. Reagan warned that the reduction was "a dagger straight at the heart" of rebuid? ing American security. "Nothing could bring greater joy to the Kremlin," he added. Clearly, one objective was to persuade the public and Congress to give him new weep. oa as bargaining levers with Moscow. Beyond that, he conveyed geenulne alarm at what he sees as Soviet strate. gic superiority. Aida say Mr. Reagan has drawn haunt. ing parallels with the Allied failure to arm adequately against Nazi Germany in the 1930's. Washington Is uneasy about Central America and the Soviet arms challenge. But mat Congressional Demo. crate and a fair number of Republicans are considerably less alarmed than Mr. Reagan. In El Salvador, some ad. vocate more emphasis on political negotiations; others contend that Mexico's financial troubles are a more im- mediate worry than falling Latin dominoes. They view Russians in Afghanistan and Poland as bogged down ratherthan newly aggressive. There is broad agreement that the Soviet buildup has put American land-based missiles under threat. But many doubt Mr. Reagan's view that Moscow has nuclear superiority. Giving the official Democratic rebuttal, Senator Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii said the President had glossed over American advantages in submarine. launched missiles, bombers and cruise missiles. He rock. oned that Washington was hardly at Moscow's mercy, with 9,788 nuclear warheads to the Rusians' 7,989. Respected prodefenes Democrats such Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia amt the Administration ut has put Its military needs far too loosely and broadly. Past plan. ning prepared for fighting I yea wars, but some Reagan planners want to cope with 9 yr - a land war in Europe, another around the Persian Gulf, a third in Korea and a possible naval war in the Pacific. "I think we have too many strategic p~mbram"," grNtmnwe. "Wedoett for a 000ablp Navy or in Others question the naiad !a a expanded strdefenseforme. "The question is not, 'Do you modernize our forcsr but 'At what pea do yon modetns rhea?? ?? adds Repass eentatlw I.a Arykn, the ynsconsir Democrat. "If year think there's a likelihood of war or confrontation wRh Moscow in the next three years, then probably the Reagan budget isn't enough. But if you don't, then our own eco. nomic situation would dictate that you slowdown." Senate majorr ty leader Howard Baker, tacitly agree ing with that view, predicted the Senate would pass a mill. tang budget well short of the President's target, but above the House figure. Mr. Reagan also took a moderate dlren. tlon and played on earlier leaked suggestions that he would announce a new interim proposal this week on mis- siles in Europe, limiting each side to 100 missiles and 300 launches. When reporters asked, he avoided a hard-flea annwAq*dgp "Tuneinnextweek.1- Arms control ngptiatltaa are grind. ingly difficult at best. They require a certain minimum confidence on each side that the other is serious. What is one to think of the seriousness of an. American President who offers his peo- --- pitfanteawestlepan40as/dy? SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS 27 March 1983 Pg.7D A physicist's response Reagan space umbrella: another layer of weapons LAST Wednesday, President Reagan made a speech on military spending and a new defense direction. It is this latter subject that has drawn national and International attention. When one reads the actual speech, It seems long on hope but p no definite new initiatives. What did the president actually say? The key phrase was, "Would it not be better to save lives than to avenge them?" In other words, he would like, if passable, to protect the population of the United States yb unfolding an "impenetrable umbrella" over the population, rather than by maintaining the balance between the United States and the Soviet Union through mutual deterrence (that is, preventing nuclear aggression by the threat of unacceptable retaliation). If it were technically possible, this would be a dramatic reversal indeed. But what the president actually said about his plan was this: "I am directing a comprehensive and intensive effort to define a long-term research and development program to begin to achieve our ultimate goal of eliminating the threat posed by strategic nuclear missiles." This means that he does not now know how to convert what he admits to be a "vision" into reality. The problem is that you cannot coerce technology by a policy decision. It will not do to invoke the analogy with going to the moon, or building a nuclear weapon, where Presidents Kennedy and Roosevelt, respectively, undertook those great initiatives. In both of these cases these decisions were preceded by exhaustive and careful studies indicating these pro} ects to be feasible, albeit at large effort. No study has Indicated the feasibility of a massive, impenetrable defense to protect the population of the United States against the combined nuclear threat of missiles, both ballistic and air-breathing, airplanes and other means of delivery. What Is the technical situation? The fact that today the protection of our country from the nuclear threat depends on the balance of terror is not a matter of choice or of policy but Is simply technical in nature. It Is based on the extreme destructive power of nuclear weapons. The attacker can choose where to place his nuclear weapons, and by what means to deliver them. Thus effective defense of the population has to be complete against all means of delivery and has to be massive everywhere. For these reasons, anyone who has ever studied this problem has always concluded that, however repug- nant he may find the present balance of terror, no technical choice beyond mutual deterrence exists as long as the arsenals of the United States and the Soviet Union, which by now contain more than 50,000 nuclear weapons, remain as enormous as we have permitted them to become. What are the technical opportunities for defending the people of the United States? Ballistic missiles can be shot down from the ground after being detected by radar by various forms of interceptors, including some which may use nuclear weapons. We have learned, starting from the 1969 Anti-Ballistic Missile debate, that such systems cannot possibly protect the entire population in an effective way, although they may be of some use to protect a few selected local targets. The president seems to be relying instead on suggested apace-age weapons such as satellite-borne lasers or sources of particle beams, or on the type of X-ray lasers that are fed by nuclear explosions, as recently publicly advocated by Dr. Edward Teller. In principle, such weapons can be designed and built so they shoot down Individual incoming ballistic mis- sile boosters or warheads. But does that constitute the type of impenetrable defense that the president envi- sioned? Can one build such a defame system at afford. able cost? Even more important, how easy would it be raise its offensive power in for the other order to defeate the simply to system? All previous studies of such questions have led to extremely pessimistic can, clusions about whether such a defense Is feasible or advisable. Its costs would be enormous; the possible counter-measures are manv-. the opponent could increase his offensive power and leave the U.S. popu- lation in just as much danger as it was before. The president's proposal, although currently asking only for intensive study and not for an immediate increase in the $1 billion per year that now goes into developing "directed energy weapons," could lead us In an extremely dangerous direction. The danger stems simply from his public advocacy of such a program, not from the technical reality of these weap- ons. It is dangerous because such a "new technology" initiative may well lead the Soviet Union to match or follow what we do, as it has done in the past. Even more serious, the Soviets may be led to increase their offensive power even further because of the possibility that the president's initiative may lead to at least some limited form of protection. Let me add that we would do precisely the same had Yuri Andropov given the speech that was delivered by President Reagan! There is no foreseeable technical means to elimi- nate the mutual hostage relationship that now exists between the people of the United States and those of the Soviet Union. The large arsenals of nuclear weap- ons have brought this situation upon us. If a nuclear war starts, under any doctrine, in any theater of war, through the first use of nuclear weapons by either the United States or the Soviet Union, then a grave risk to the future of civilization as we know it will exist. This risk will not be ameliorated but will only be increased if we add another layer of weaponry, rather than reducing what we already have. The president has agreed that reduction of nuclear weapons is the primary goal of his administration. But how to reduce? The answer is through negotiated arms control, but the president implies that Increased CONTINUED NEXT PAGE ATLANTA JOURNAL & CONSTITUTION 27 March 1983 Pg.2D Jock Germond/Jules Witcover President's new defense plan is an old offense WASHINGTON - With the bark off, President Reagan 's proposal for a massive re- search effort to develop a foolproof defense against Soviet missiles is a diversion - an at- tempt to change the context in which his de- fense budget is being considered in Congress. It is highly unlikely, however, that the strategy will succeed. It is no longer 1981 and even the Republicans in the Senate are no longer willing to blindly approve a budget that would raise military spending a full 10 percent above inflation. Anyone of minimal so histication in de- fense policy understands that a program to develop such a defensive capability would be extraordinarily expensive if approved. So what the president's new initiative represents, more than anything else, is an effort WEAPONS...Continued armament is needed first to "bring the Russians to the bargaining table." But we are already at the bargain. ing table with the Russians In the START and Inter- mediate Range Nuclear Forces talks. In fact, the Soviets want to be at more bargaining tables than we do. At the end of the previous adminis- tration we had signed the SALT agreement and started the INF talks. We were also engaged in negoti- ations with the Soviets on means to terminate the threat of anti-satellite warfare, to end all nuclear tests and to thrift conventional arms transfers. None of these negotiations has been continued by the present administration. The Soviets introduced into the United Nations in late 1981 a request for the beginning of negotiations to eliminate all weapons from outer space, but we have not yet reacted to that initiative. The use of space has been a boon to mankind, both commercially and to enhance security. Communica- tion satellites are in worldwide use, and the use of outer space for reconnaissance has made this a more open world by permitting all nations to see what others are doing and to verify compliance with arms control agreements. Introducing the threat of making space a battlefield will endanger these achievements. The Soviets have attacked the president's initiatives as violating the existing Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which has been of great service in enhancing the security of both the United States and our allies. The Soviets are wrong in this charge: The type of research and development now going on both in the United States and the Soviet Union on space ballistic-missile defense is fully permitted under the treaty. The presi- dent's initiative, however, does contain the seeds for future abandonment of not only the ABM treaty but also other existing treaties; including the ban on nuclear weapons in space as well as the Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1963, which bans nuclear test explosions defense budget. What he was saying, in effect, is that if Congress will only go along with him now, sometime down the road we might have the assurance of a drfense system that would make such spending tin offensive weapons un- necessary. Nor is this Reagan's first attempt to alter the debate. In a highly controversial speech to the evangelicals in Orlando this month, he argued that the Cold War was a "struggle be- tween right and wrong, good and evil" - sug- gesting that his critics were on the dark side of those juxtapositions. But that backfired, to the point that the president felt obliged later to explain that all he was trying to do was identify basic differences that might otherwise be sweot under the rug in CONTINUED NEXT PAGE 1 space and the atmosphere ana which has been so successful in reducing radioactive fallout levels world. wide. The president expressed the desire to "render nuclear weapons obsolete." It does not advance that laudable goal to embark upon a path that may lead to yet another level of armaments on top of what we already have. I believe, rather, that the right road is to work toward arms limitations and reductions by direct confrontation of the nuclear threat. The best way to reduce nuclear arms is to reduce nuclear arms, not to say that we must build more arms in order to reduce them. The costs of adding another layer of defense are many: The financial costs are enormous and there are grave risks to present and future arms control agreements. There is one additional grave risk inherent in the president's announcement. If the concept of a secure defense umbrella proposed by the president were to receive wide credence, then the question of sustained nuclear war fighting could be viewed in a different manner. Specifically, should a secure defense umbrella against nuclear weapons over the entire country be accepted as a realistic concept, then this could support the view that nuclear war fighting under the cover of that umbrella might become acceptable. For all these reasons I consider the presidential initia- tive to be ill-advised. . Wolfgang K.N. Panofsky is director of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center at Stanford University. He was on the General Advisory Com- mittee at the White House during the Carter administration on the advisory committee at Brookhaven National Laboratory from 1968 to 1972; and a member of the high energy physics advisory panel to the Atomic Energy Commission from 1967 to 1970. He wrote this column for the Mercury News. CHICAGO TRIBUNE 27 March 1983 Pg.6 Reagan cries wolf on In his address to the nation last week, President Reagan used an old debater's trick: If you're being an argument, change the subject. Having h Stephen Chapman make his case are seriously mislead- Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact ing. Consider the following. countries. American defense spend- ?"The Soviet Union built 200 new ing, far from declining, is ae high now Backfire bombers [since 19693, and as it was in 1970, when we were their brand new Blackjack bomber is fighting a war in Southeast Asia. re- now under development. We haven't American soldiers are to fat yore- built a new long-range bomber since g r as far superior our B52s were deployed a quarter of For all his effort to achieve Chur- a century ago." We haven't done so chillian heights, Reagan's speech was only because strategic bombers are irrelevant to the prosaic issues in- rapidly being made obsolete by ad- volved in writing a defense budget If vances in air defenses-as the a min- the President can defend his istration concedes . Instead we are proposals only by deception, he is deploying the cruise missile, which nd eventually to see his deceptions the Soviets don't have and whose exposed. And then, like the boy who military value will far exceed that of cried wolf, he may find that lying their new bomber. And, in any case, about the danger is the most danger- we have eight times as many nuclear we course of all. e a. trouble justi ying t peacetime military buildup in Ameri- warheads on bombers as they do. can history, Reagan tried to distract ?"The United States introduced its his audience by talking of exotic new last new intercontinental ballistic defensive weapons. But that "vision missile in 1969 ... Since 1969, the of the future which offers hope," as Soviet Union has built five new he called it, has little to do with the classes of ICBMs, and upgraded these debate over how much to spend on eight times." The Soviets were years defense and how to spend it. behind us in 1969, and had to build What Reagan suggested was a re- rapidly just to attain parity. Our exis- jection of the strategy of deterrence, ting Minuteman III missiles are more which whatever its flaws, has pre- accurate than their best ICBMs. venter] nuclear war for 38 years. De- Given the growing vulnerability of terrence rests on each side's knov'l- land-based missiles, we have also put eeddgge that the other can destroy it; so half of our strategic force on sub neither side is tempted to use its marines. The Soviets, lagging behind, weapons. have only 25 percent of their "But what if free people," asked warheads at sea. Reagan "could live secure in the *"over the same period, the Soviet knowledge that their security did not Union built four new classes of sub rest upon the threat of instant U.S. marine-launched ballistic missiles retaliation to deter a Soviet attack; and over 80 new missile submarines. that we could Intercept and destroy We built two new types of submarine strategic ballistic missiles before they missiles and actually withdrew 10 reached our own soil or that of our submarines from strategic in Ions," allies?" But the U.S. hat a huge edge in A fine idea, but impossible anytime submarine-based warheads-about soon. Reallan acknowledged that the 5,000, compared to their 1,500. task "may not be accomplished be- ?"When we look at attack sub- fore the end of the century." Obvious- marines the United States has pro- ly we always ought to be looking for duced 27, while the Soviet Union has better ways to counter Soviet prodtsced 61." But, says the Center weapons and deter their use. But that for Defense Information, "our attack doesn't answer any of the questions submarine force is vastly more cape 1[ee raised by the current battle over de- bfe than the Soviet force, which it tense spending. more heavily on diesel subs than ours Trying to salvage a respectable does. The overall U.S. anti-submarine share of his Pentagon budget, Reagan warfare (ASW) capability is far recited his familiar litany of warnings ahead of Soviet ASW. about Soviet power and American Reagan didn't mention some other weakness. But his view that the crucial facts: We have 19 percent enemy has a "margin of superiority" more nuclear warheads than the has few adherents among defense ex- Soviets. The combined military perts, even conservative ones. And sndiknugt of the U.S. and its NATO many of the facts Reagan uses to allies eubstentiall exceeds that of the defense DEFENSE PLAN... Continued the debate over defense policy. The episode demonstrated once again that it is unwise fur anyone in politics to claim to have the high moral ground because the implication of a lack of morality on the other side inevitably hardens the opposition. So now Reagan has returned to more con- ventional politics. His proposal has some obvi- ous political value as another gesture to the Far Right. His plan has some clear similarities to a proposal by the Heritage Foundation, a con- servative think tank, for what it calls a "High Frontier" system of building in space a defense against missiles. But the White House strategy embodied in the new plan is a misreading of the concerns of both parties in Congress now. They are looking at a federal budget and deficits that they con- sider has its priorities out of whack. This doesnt mean that they disagree with the thrust of the presidents attempt to strengthen national defense. He has clearly cop- vinced most in both parties that this is essential But they are not persuaded that this mans they must fund every weapons system Ragan wants to build or spend every dollar Caspian' Weinberger believes can be justified. In his television speech the other night, Reagan said the choice was "between the hard but necessary task of preserving peace and freedom and the temptation to ignore our duty and blindly hope for the best while the enemies of freedom grow stronger day by day." But the president's opponents in Congress are not simply a bunch of soft-headed liberals. They believe that (1) there are limits on how much we can afford to increase military spend- ing and (2) there are legitimate questions about whether some of the weapons systems Reagan would finance - the B-I and the MX are two examples - make any sense, whatever the cost. In those glory days of his first year in Of- fice, the president was able to overcome many. similar reservations in Congress. Those wele days when his appeals generated instant and irresistible pressure to go along. But he has gone to that well too often.-(c1983.) Despite 1967 U.S.-Soviet Treaty, Drive for Space Weapons Goes On With Nuclear Arms Banned, Superpowers Pursue Research on Yet-Unproven NonatomicDevices After the United States and the Soviet Union in 1967 ratified a treaty outlawing nuclear weapons in space, most of the world relaxed under the assumption that its newest frontier was not likely to become a battleground. But military planners and weapons technologists on both sides, never relaxing, quietly pur- sued visions of space wars fought with nonnuclear weapons. They have designed and in some cases tested satellites to hunt and de- stroy other satellites. They have con- ducted extensive research in space- based laser and particle-beam weapons - reality catching up with the deadly rayguns of science fiction. Even though the feasibility of such nonnuclear weapons has yet to be proved, President Reagan called atten- tion to them last week in a speech urg- ing American scientists "to turn their great talents" toward developing powerful advanced missile-defense sys- tems that could protect the United States against nuclear attack. He did not specify the weapons he had in mind, but White House aides acknowledged that they involved earth-based and space-based lasers and particle-beam technologies. Spending Is Up Sharply Nor did Mr. Reagan call for any im- mediate crash program for their devel- opment and testing. Spending on such systems has already increased sharply, from $200 million for laser work in 1980 to $1 billion annually for laser and parti- cle-beam projects. And this is only part of the growing budget for space mW- tary operations in general. In the next five years the Reagan Administration plans to increase military space spend- ing, now about $8.5 billion a year, by more than 10 percent a year, a greater rate of increase than for the rest of the Defense Department budget. Almost from the beginning of the space age, in 1957 when the Russians launched the first Sputnik, space has been a realm of considerable military activity, but of the passive kind. The United States and the Soviet Union both use satellites for such applications as early warning against nuclear attack, intelligence gathering, navigation, weather forecasting and long-range communications. More than 40 Ameri- can satellites now in orbit perform these functions. Thirty seconds after a Soviet inter- continental ballistic missile lifts out of a silo, for example, American satellites with infrared sensors are supposed to be able to pick out its telltale heat trail. Data on the missile's speed and course are transmitted to communications satellites that relay the information in- stantly to computers and display termi- nals in an Air Force command center buried in Cheyenne Mountain near Colorado Springs. Further tracking of the missile is also reported by satellite communications. In addition, Vela satellites 60,000 miles out in space watch for nuclear detonations. Several satellites with' highly sensitive cameras are continu- owly transmitting photographs and other data disclosing military disposi- tions by friend and potential foe. Satel- lite reconnaissance, it is generally agreed, has had a stabilizing effect on global politics because it has enabled each adversary to verify the other's conformance to the first strategic arms treaty. The satellites presumably mini- mize the chances of surprise and mis- calculation. The Space Treaty In 1967 the Treaty on Principles Gov- erning the Activities of States in the Ex- ploration and Use of Outer Space, In- cluding the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, commonly referred to as the Outer Space Treaty, was signed by 107 nations, including all of the countries active in space. The treaty, which was drafted by the United Nations Commit. tee on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, governs all activities in the exploration and use of outer space. One provision bans the stationing of "weapons of mass destruction" in orbit or on the nation. One reasonthe Soviet Union and the United States were willing to agree to the treaty was that they did not see any advantage to having nuclear weapons in space and had determined that orbit- ing nuclear bombs seemed much less practical than ballistic missiles: The common definition of "weapons of mass destruction" is nuclear bombs or warheads, and the research, develop- ment and deployment of the kind of non- nuclear weapons now being discussed for placement in outer space would not appear to be restricted by the terms of the Outer Space Treaty. While reaffirming a commitment to peaceful uses of space, President Rea- gan said in a directive on space policy last July, "The United States will pur- sue activities in space in support of its right to self-defense." What the Administration apparently had in mind was outlined last year in a five-year plan, a document known as a Defense Guidance. Space operations, the document said, "add a new dimen. sion to our military capabilities." The document further ordered "the proto- type development of space-based weap- ons systems so that we will be prepared to deploy fully developed and operation. ally ready systems should their use prove to be in our national interest." Concern About Soviet Efforts This reflected a growing concern among American military analysts over presumed Soviet advances in space weaponry. Since 1968, the Rus- sians have been testing a nonnuclear antisatellite system, or ASAT, which they have used to intercept target vehi- cles they have sent into space. Small satellites are sent into orbit to hunt a target satellite, hover near it, then ex- plode, shattering the victim craft with shrapnel. The Air Force has countered with an American ASAT that is scheduled for its first tests in late summer. By all ac- counts, it is expected to have more ca- pacities and flexibility than the Soviet version. The American antisatellite weapon is a small homing missile, launched into space from a high-flying F-15 aircraft. It seeks out its target with infrared sensors, then explodes near the target or collides with it at high speeds. The Pentagon has directed that the first antisatellite systems be ready for use by 1987. The impending tests are a point of contention between arms-control advo- cates and the Administration. Forty- five members of Congress recently sent a letter to President Reagan calling on him to "refrain from testing this ASAT until we have tried in good faith to ne- gotiate a ban on such weapons." Hope for Mutual Restraint Dr. Richard Garwin, a physicist at the International Business Machines SPACE WEAPONS... Continued Corporation and a longtime Govern- ment adviser on military matters, has said the Russians "show every sign of being willing to give up further testing of their ASAT's" if the United States agrees to do the same. Perhaps the most effective weapon against the current generation of satel- lites is in hand. It is an ordinary nuclear warhead that can be exploded in space. Such an explosion generates an electro- magnetic pulse that damages or de- stroys unprotected electronics in satel- lites at great distances. The problem is that the pulse might wipe out a nation's own satellites as well as the enemy's. But President Reagan's "vision of the future ," as expressed in his speech Wednesday night, extended to technolo- gies that are not yet in hand and, ac- cording to many scientists, may not be feasible until well into the next century, if ever. These are the technologies of laser and particle-beam weapons. The earliest potential space applica- tion of lasers, conceivable in the next 5 to 10 years, would be to attack enemy satellites or defend friendly satellites. Harold Brown, Secretary of Defense in the Carter Administration, wrote re really that a system of space-based lasers to intercept ballistic missiles, which Mr. Reagan was talking about, =pro bably not be feasible before the next century , if ever, and would cost on the order of $100 billion." Countermeasures Expected Moreover, Mr. Brown said, "by the time it was deployed, countermeasures against it would be possible, at lower cost, to prevent the system from operet- ing as a successful ballistic missile de- fense." The most advanced laser under con- sideration is one that works by combin- ing fluorine and hydrogen to produce energy in the form of light. This light is concentrated by mirrors in the weapon until it emerges as an intense, highly fo- cused laser beam. A brief pulse of 200 billion watts, which might be possible, 'could vaporize metal and produce de- structive shock waves. Dr. Garwin, the longtime Govern- ment adviser, said there was "no indi- cation" that "you can make a big enough laser and point it accurately enough." He is sure, he said, that "I cab destroy the system of concentrated large laser satellites and if I'm going to have a war in which I undertake to at- tack the U.S., I'm certainly going to have arranged space mines next to the laser satellits to destroy them pre-emp- tively." Report on Soviet Effort Particle-beam weapons are at a more rudimentary stage of development than lasers. Such weapons would use streams of charged or neutral atomic or subatomic particles, accelerated to In- tense energies, to disable or destroy spacecraft or ballistic missiles. The rays of both weapons would reach a tar- get at or near the speed of light. 1977 article in Aviation Week and Space Technology, a respected trade weekly, reported evidence that the Rus- sians had built a giant particle-beam projector on the ground. The Pentagon, however, said it doubted that the Soviet Union was even close to developing a weapon that could disable missiles. The atmosphere has a scattering ef- fect on a beam shot from the ground into space. And a major obstacle to de- ploying a particle-beam weapon in space is the problem of generating enough power to produce a deadly beam. One shot would consume tons of chemical fuel. The only possible practi- cal alternative, scientists suggest, is to operate the weapon with a controlled thermonuclear plant, and this fusion technology is apparently many years away from being operational. Because of the many uncertainties about laser and particle-beam weap- ons, scientists generally felt that Presi- dent Reagan was raising false hopes by suggesting the possibility of their serv- ing as an effective missile defense. Dr. Wolfgang K. H. Panofsky, a Stanford University physicist, said experts in these exotic technologies may be em- barrassed by suggestions that the time is ripe to accelerate research, saying, The practitioners in the field are not anywhere near as gung-ho as the Presi- dent's speech implies." Teea..vonnm.imerr, uo Theorists say beam weapon orbit. tag 1,000 miles above earth would attack warheads In their first eight mimes of flight-Guided by radar or sensors, the bum would be aimed at the warhead, In the case of a laser, by a mirror (leaf). But many scientists who criticized the speech nonetheless said they so- proved of continuing research and development efforts to explore space- based weapons to prevent a "technolog- ical surprise" by the Soviet Union. Reagan 's' call fora Pac-Man defense I s would be long term, that it might take until the next century to develop and deploy a workable system "to intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies." 'T'hat sounds comforting, but wait a min ute. One military and intelligence specitd ist, who offered enthusiastic support for the president's Pac Man thesis, said after the Reagan broadcast that he was confident - in fact, he knew - that "75 percent or more" of the Soviet missiles could be inter- cepted and destroyed with such a defense system in space. Let's see now Supposing the Rus- sins launched 1,000 missiles at us and our Pac-Man intercepted and destroyed 750 of them That looks like about 250 missiles, with who knows how many multiple war heads, would elude Pac-Man and land on us ('0 nIortrig" Still another thing wrong with the Rea gal) order for a "comprehensive and intew site effort" toward the Pac-Man space de fense was what he didn't say. He didn't say, for example. that he was asking for a spe wind funding of the effort. 'Thal could be because of something else he didn't say, that such research has been going on for decades, both among U.S. and Soviet scientists, and it's calculated that on ,,in effort we've been spending about $1 bil lion a year Larsen is associate editor of The Denver Post based in Washington. D 0 FUR Wit A'IRV KR purpose he had In mind. president Reagan did little to bolster his own credibility as an hon- est broker in disarmament negotiations with his televised secret picture show of Soviet armaments and his call to scientists to get cracking on a I'ac-Man defense sys- tem in space. Several things were wrong with the pres- ident's warning that the Russians Are Com- ing. not the least of which was its question- able assumption that world peace and safe tv from nuclear attack would be achieved by an antimissile defense system in space to make the Soviet strike force 'impotent and obsolete." Oh yeah? Turn the thing around and say that the Russians have just declared their national defense goal of establishing a space de- fense network that would seek out and de- stroy U.S. missiles after launch, that would render our strategic nuclear attack strength "impotent and obsolete." Would President Reagan - or any other ti.S. president - then announce that the old ballgame is over, scrap our nuclear missiles and sue for peace' Not likely. Ile wquld do what the Snvlel, could he expect- ed t,, do. order unprnvenumts fit the U.S warhead delivery sstenis to counter and evade the Soviet space defense and make sure our own nuclear missiles could still he dehvervd un target It's a pail of the lethal game. and always has been. that as we and the Soviets detect improvements in the weapons of the other side, scientists work at counter improve- ntents. It's a part of armaments race as certainly as the stockpiling of the missiles I hemselves Another defect in the president's Par Man li,cluu' nn armalnenls to eliminate ar i tmoents is the prospect that it's not actu- ,illv ilo able, nqt all the way 1resident Reagan (bit acknowledge that the space defense system dpvclopmenl WHATEVER IT WAS he was doing by parading a Red scare on national televisiug and calling for a space defense system that has already been years under study, the president seemed less intent on informing than he was on exciting. His recommended defense budget, with a call for a 10 percent increase in Pentagon appropriations for next year, has been no. jected by majority Democrats in the House and is threatened by iiaajority Republican. in the Senate. That's why he urged the listening pub4c to "tell your senators and congressmen that you know we must continue to restore our military strength." And while he pays tip service to "neguti- at tons with the Soviet Union to bring about a mutual reduction in weapons," the presi dent's real stress on disputed new military spending and preparations for space war fare technology into the next century dots little to advance peace and security - ours or the world's. Defense Watch: DEDICATED TO A STRONG FOREIGN POLICY AND NATIONAL DEFENSE General Graham Calls on U.S. to Deploy High Frontier Program Active Missile Defense Needed to Protect American Deterrent On January 28th, Lt. General Daniel 0. Graham, USA (Ret.), President of the United States Defense Committee, appearing before a meeting of the eleven member bipartisan Commission on Stra- tegic Forces appointed by President Reagan issued a clarion call for the United States to take a great step forward and immediately begin construction of a work- able active missile defense system to safe- guard America's future. In his testimony before the Commis. sion, General Graham pointed out that in light of the huge Soviet advantage in often sive missiles the United States should move immediately to take advantage of American technological superiority to end-run the growing Soviet threat to America's land-based deterrent and install a three-layered nonnuclear ballistic missile defense system. Over the past twenty years the United States has sat on its hands in terms of strategic defensive systems, and in the last ten years has let our offensive systems wither as well. Even twenty years ago technical prob- lems in the development of a space-borne missile defense system were believed solvable in much the same way High Frontier would solve them today. However, 20 years of improved tech- nology now makes the job much easier. With the rapid development of missile technology and American entry into space, a missile defense that would stop incoming Soviet missiles before they reach American soil is not only possible, but mandatory. Soviets Push for Superiority in Space Yet, today while Congress delays action on any kind of basing for the Peace- keeper MX or an active missile defense, the Soviets have moved to grasp control of the new frontier of space through the introduction of advanced weapons sys- tems designed to achieve decisive military superiority over the United States. All areas of the Soviet space program including research and development, test- United States Defense Committee, President. U. General Daniel Graham USA IRet.), in offi- cial testimony to President Reagans Commis- sion on Strategic Forces called or the immed- iate deployment of both space and land-based non-nuclear strategic defensive systems to safeguard America's land-based deterrent. High Frontier con. from pp 1 ing, production and launch facilities are experiencing a relentless build-up. The Department of Defense in a 1981 publication, "Soviet Military Power," states, "The Soviets have a vigorous and constantly expanding space program. In the past ten years they have been launching spacecraft at over 74 per year, a rate four-to-five times that of the United States. The annual payload weight placed into orbit by the Soviets is 660,000 pounds, ten times that of the United States." Soviets Test Space Weapons Already, the Soviets have the only tested space weapons and have developed an anti-satellite co-orbital interceptor (ASAT) designed to destroy America's ability to command, control and commu- nicate with American forces around the globe during time of war. America can counter this threat only by developing new strategies of warfare which will emphasize U.S. superiority in the technological arena. The threat of Soviet domination of space and the vulnerability of America's nuclear deterrent is the reason why General Graham has argued so forcefully for a missile defense. Missile Defense Needed to Protect Land-Based Deterrent Taking the initiative in reviewing strategic alternatives for the defense of the United States, General Graham and a group of the best scientists and aerospace engineers in the country have studied the possibility of an active missile defense, and have concluded that there are no tech- nological obstacles to deploying both space and land-based non-nuclear strate- gic defensive systems which could safe- guard America's land-based deterrent. Ominously, Soviet technology has advanced so rapidly in offensive missile technology that any American land-based missile without an active defensive system is presently vulnerable to destruction. Currently, the United States has no ballistic missile defense and is exposed to the full devastation of a Soviet first strike which would destroy over 95 percent of America's land-based missile force. The ever - improving ability of the Soviets to track America's sea-based nuclear deterrent and the questionable ability of the aging &52 fleet will pose a grave strategic vulnerability for the United States unless something is done to install an active missile defense. The Soviets have also a reload capa- bility at their hardened missile sites. Within hours of a first strike against the United States, Soviet missile silos could be reloaded with stockpiled war- heads for second and third wave attacks. In addition to an active missile defense, it is vitally important that the United States deploy the land-based MX missile. Only the Peacekeeper MX has both the size and accuracy to destroy hardened Soviet missile sites before second and third wave strikes could be launched by the Soviet Union. The High Frontier program will protect Amer- ica's land-based nuclear deterrent stationed in Titan and Minuteman silos, by deploying both land-based and space-based non-nuclear de- fensive systems designed to intercept and de- stroy Soviet missiles before they impact on American soil. Non-Nuclear Missile Defense Can Be Quickly Deployed Fortunately, work on a missile defense can be started immediately because the technology is off-the-shelf or nearly so - already purchased by the United States taxpayer. In fact, the technology underpinning the work pioneered by General Graham and his High Frontier project is the pro- duct of previous advances pioneered by National Aeronautic and Space Adminis- tration and the Air Force. The systems involved would be purely defensive and non-nuclear, and their effectiveness as a deterrent to nuclear war is independent of Soviet concurrence in an arms control agreement, and far more effective than our current posture. In addition, a system of strategic missile defense would broaden America's options for retaliation against Soviet attack because a large portion of Amer. ica's land-based strategic missiles would survive for a well directed counter-blow. General Graham Outlines New Missile Defense Program The "High Frontier" program detailed by General Graham would consist of two layers of missile defense: the first a satellite based system able to destroy Soviet mis- siles before they reach North America and second a ground-based system deployed around American ballistic missile silos. The satellite based defense would be the first layer of the High Frontier program and would destroy the Soviet intercon- tinental ballistic missiles in the early stages of flight as they are leaving the atmosphere and entering space. Complete coverage of the Soviet Union would be achieved with 432 satel- lites circling the earth at an altitude of approximately three hundred miles. Each armed satellite will be cylindrical in shape and house 40 to 45 self-propelled missiles targeted by advanced computer systems capable of independently com- manding and controlling the- launch of each of the missiles to intercept an attack against the United States. Each missile would have two seg- ments: one a booster, and the other a kill vehicle. The kill vehicle would be propelled towards its target by the booster, and then released after the kill vehicle has estab- lished optical tracking of its target. The satellites would thus have the ability to lock onto Soviet missiles in the initial boost phase of the missile trajectory while its exhaust still appears hot against the cold background of space. A ground-based point defense would be the second layer of the High Frontier program, and would be designed to destroy incoming Soviet missiles which might leak through the space defenses. Each Minuteman and Titan silo would be defended by fast firing guns or launchers firing waves of small non-nuclear rockets capable of killing almost all Soviet war- heads at a sufficient distance from the silo to prevent its destruction. High Frontier First Layer Defense FIGURE 1. The illustration left por- trays just one of 432 armed satellites in orbit to provide an active mink defense of the United States. A web of 432 satellites would con. stantly circle the globe with some 100 of them in position over the Soviet Union at any given time at an altitude of three hundred miles and would provide a de- fensive blanket for America against all Soviet missile sites. The aimed satellites would provide America a new layer of defense by inter cepting and destroying any offensive Soviet missile that has a trajectory into space, and do that over the Soviet Union. The offensive Soviet missile would be spotted by infrared sensors while its exhaust still appears hot against the cold background of space. FIGURE 2. The illustration left shows an armed satellite positioned over the Soviet Union detecting the launch of an offensive Soviet missile. Each armed satellite will carry fuel and be able to maneuver itself in space. The armed satellite will be cylindrical in shape and house 40to 45 self-propelled missiles attached to the satellite by a coupling mechanism designed to release the missiles into space so that they can also position themselves and then lock onto their targets. Each satellite would have advanced computer systems, capable of inde- pendently commanding and controlling the launch of each of its 40 to 50 missiles in order to intercept an attack against the United States. FIGURE 3. The illustration left shows one armed satellite destroying several offensive Soviet missiles in the early part of their trajectory. Each of the 40 to 45 missiles carried by each satellite would have two seg. ments, one a booster, and the other a kill vehicle. The kill vehicle would be propelled towards its target by the booster, and then released after the kill vehicles infra- red guidance system has locked onto the Soviet missile. The kill vehicle will be non-nuclear, and capable of obtaining a velocity of 3,000 to 6,000 feet per second. The interceptors would impact the Soviet missiles at such incredible speed (almost 20,000 miles per hour) that even the impact of something as small as an ice cube could destroy the warhead of a ballistic missile. High Frontier Second Layer Defense C: M FIGURE 4. The illustration left dhows the active ground-based point defense of an Amnion strategic baistic rt i I ago. Each Minuteman and Titan silo would be defended by fast firing guns or launchers firing waves of small non. nuclear rockets capable of killing dmost all Soviet warheads at a sufficient dis- hrce from the silo to prevent its destruction. A ground band missile defense would be deployed quickly (in 2-3 years) around Minuteman and Than silo to destroy most Soviet missiles that might attempt to destroy our deterrent on the ground before our space-borne system sdepic !d fin 54 years). After that, the job of the point de- fense becomes very easy - destroying warheads that leak through the space defense. FIGURES. The illustration left shows the radar up range from the missile silo detecting an incoming Soviet warhead which has leaked through the satellite based first layer of our active missile defense. The missile defense system consist etg of either rocket firing launchers or fast firing guns are targeted by radar positions stationed down range from the strategic ballistic missile silo. The radar system would have two arrays of dish antennas, one located approximately fifteen thousand fast from the silo, and the other approximately twenty-four thousand feet. The radar would than detect, track and calculate the intercept point for the "steel curtain" to be raised against the incoming Soviet warhead. FIGURE 6. The illustration left shows a Soviet warhead being destroyed by either rocket firing launchers or fast firing guns, that are themselves protected against any nuclear blast by concrete bunkers or steel shells. , Soviet warheads would be destroyed at approximately 4,500 feet from the strategic missile silos by a swarm of projectiles, which would form a "steel curtain" to protect our land-based deterrent. "Mob Front,, coOt rlom pg. 5 Combined, layers of space and ground defense would absorb up to 95 percent of all incoming Soviet warheads, and thus preserve America's nuclear deterrent and our cities and people from destruction in a Soviet first strike. High Frontier Would Defeat Soviet First Strike Most important, the High Frontier strategy will destroy any confidence the Soviets could have in a nuclear first strike. Currently, Soviet military planners using a straight-forward arithmetic would be quite sure of the results of a disarming strike against the United States. The planner's problem is simply to insure that he can deliver two warheads of current size and accuracy against each item of U.S. strategic weaponry, either missile silos, airfields for B- 1B bombers, or submarine pens for the nuclear fleet. If, on the other hand, the Soviet plan- ner must consider the effects of a strategic defense, especially a space-borne defense which destroys a portion of the attacking missiles in the early stages of their trajec- tories, he is faced with a problem full of uncertainties. He does not know how many war- heads will arrive in the target area and even more crucial, which ones will arrive over which targets. This changes the simple arithmetic problem into a complex calculus full of uncertainties; such uncertainties are the essence of deterrence. High Frontier will Regain U.S. Superiority Henry Walther, Executive Vice Presi- dent of the United States Defense Com- mittee, stated that "the importance of the High Frontier program is that it would defend against any first strike attempt against the United States by intercepting and destroying Soviet missiles and alerting the President of an incoming attack. Furthermore, if deterrence is the ability to prevent an attack by making its outcome uncertain, then High Frontier is an invaluable key to the future security of the United States. America needs to boldly implement new offensive/defensive strategies and space-borne systems to regain military superiority. We Americans have always been successful on the frontiers; we will be successful on the new High Frontier of space. We need only be as bold and resource. ful as our forefathers." WASHINGTON POST 1 APRIL 1983 James J. Kilpatrick Futuristic -And Impressive I seem to he in a relatively small minority, but for the record: I thought President Reagan's speech last week was a first-rate effort. He laid out the dis- turbing facts on Soviet military expansion; he de- fended his own defense budget; and in his closing few minutes he touched upon the stuff from which "Star Wars' are made. I found it impressive. But the reaction around here ranged between ho- hum and h o-hwo. House Democrats rushed to approve a budget that would make hash of Reagan's defense proposals. Media critics cried "politics!" On the day after the speech, 20 senior correspondents were in- vited to one of thyse not-for-attribution briefings at the White House.'fheir questions curled across the table with a little spin on the ball: "If you were the Soviets. wouldn't you regard the 'Star Ware' stuff as an escalation of the arms race?" We have head so many statistics in recent months on comparative levels of U.S. and Soviet arms that most of is have heen pretty well numbed, Even so, ac- cepting the prewlent's figures as accurate, we have to regard the situation as deeply disturbing. The apostles of pxxoh-pxrh may be correct in say- ing that when the forces of our allies are put on the scales, the apparent imbalance is less dramatic. Still, Dear United States Defense Committee Member: For more information on High Frontier, write to me personally at the United States Defense Committee or at Project High Frontier, 1010 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20005. 1 really need to know how many of you under- stand and support this vital effort to get this country defended again. Lt. Gen. Daniel 0. Graham USA (Ret.) Pg. 15 the Soviet threat to'peace in the world is plainly omi- nous, and the Soviets' deployment of so many inter. continental missiles is especially disturbing. Reagan's concluding "vision of the future" thus struck me as especially appealOig? 'Would it not be better," he asked, "to save lives then to avenge them?" He proposed stepped-up research en bold and far-out defenses against the ballistic mass, The two experts who briefed us confirmed that the presi- dent is thinking of powerful lasers andof particle physics-devices that would intercept and. destroy ballistic missiles before they reacfied.their targets. Such a program makes great good ,sense. Our anti-ballistic missile agreemefi ? with the Soviet Union prohibits "development" arid 'dkplhytnent," but it does not her either nation train `bddc:fe- search. We were told at the briefing 0* it could take "decades" for the research to math a-point at which actual development and assembly. ryt+ld begin. Meanwhile, our intelligence agendas are car; tain that the Soviets, for all the. bluster of their re- Ofbmealves'ett- sponse to the president'o speech, the gaged in the identical Sic ieeear'ht^ When you consider the breathtaking t.bgdda thro ghe of recent years in geretia, coniputs s4iiber optics, satellite communications and the like, with' ! seems impossible in the realm oftechnolaWpyy We ought almost to welcome a race with the Soviet:Ugam in these defensive systems. If the means could tif per- fected by which their missiles and our werehend~drieedd equally impotent, atlaely we wokd have dehB*d a dap back from the brink of catastrophe. amet.ia*MnW gway,uerpt U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT 4APRIL 1983 Pgs. 29-31 Behind Reagan's Star-Wars Strategy The President Is out to stop more than Soviet nuclear missiles. He also has his eye on the freeze movement. President Reagan is challenging America's scientists to achieve a tech- nological miracle that would make the successful race to the moon child's play by comparison. He is calling on them to produce a futuristic weapons system that can guarantee absolute defense against an all-out Soviet missile attack. In making this move, the President has four objectives: ^ Enable the U.S. ultimately to aban- don a strategy of massive retaliation to deter the Russians and shift instead to reliance on defensive weapons. ^ Restore anti-ballistic-missile-de- fense weapons, virtually taboo since the signing of the U.S.-Soviet ABM treaty in 1972, as a valid option in de- fense planning. ^ Reverse the mounting trend of op- position to increased defense spending in Congress and across the country by holding out the hope of an ultimate end to the nuclear-arms race. ^ Seize the moral high ground in the struggle with the nuclear-freeze move. ment, which he fears could hamper es- sential modernization of the nation's strategic forces. The President in a March 23 tele- vised address to the nation spelled out his alternative Space Age strategy that focuses on ways to "intercept and de- stroy strategic missiles before they reached our own soil and that of our Reagan says that his plan, if success- ful, would eliminate the threat posed by strategic nuclear missiles ... [and] pave the way for arms-control measures to eliminate the weapons themselves." Stormy debate looming. The Presi. dent's proposal is generating a contro- versy that could become as intense as the 1969-70 anti-ballistic-missile de- bate. Critics, political and scientific, charge he is embarking on a potential- ly dangerous course that will entail staggering costs-possibly hundreds of billions of dollars-and end in failure. Senator Mark Hatfield (R-Oreg.) de- clared that Reagan "has, in effect, called for the militarization of the last great hope for international coopera- tion and peace outer space." AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY 4 April 1983 Pg,13 Washington Roundup Air Force space laser research will receive more than a twelve-fold increase in funding from Fiscal 1987 to 1988 under a plan prepared by the Dept. of Defense more than two months before President Reagan's call for definition of a space defense program. The finding would apply to antisatelltte weapons rather than antiballistic missile defense mentioned by the President The Air Force antisatelite space laser program, currently at a proposed $36 million for Fiscal 1984, would reach $40.9 million in 1987 and then increase to $518.4 million in Fiscal 1988. Air Force space surveillance research also will receive a large funding increase from $38 million in Fiscal 1985 to $106 million in Fiscal 1986, according to the Defense Dept.'s Five-Year Development Plan. The figures will change many times in future planning. The Army's high-energy laser components research program jumps from $42.4 million in Fiscal 1985 to $103.8 million in Fiscal 1986. Ballistic missile defense sys'sm technology research, another Army project, shows an increase from $538 milior requested for next fiscal year to $1.6 billion anticipated in Fiscal 1988. The plan also shows there was little increase anticipated over the next five years in charged-particle beam research when the plan 'was prepared by Deputy Assistant Secretary Clyde 0. Glaister, but a Pentagon official said that could increase as a result of the Reagan increased emphasis on space defense. Particle-beam research by Defense agencies, excluding the military services, was requested at $33 million in Fiscal 1984 and will increase to $54.6 million in 1988-a small change when compared with the anticipated activities in laser technology. STAR-WARS STRATB Y... Cont' d The critical reaction of much of the the scientific community was reflected in the comments of William Jackson, Jr., a guest scholar at Washington's Brook- ings Institution, who called the Presi- dent's plan "bizarre." "Such a system," he said, "will never work in the Nuclear Age because of the decided advantage the offense has over the defense." "So much fanfare." While favoring continued research work on ballistic- missile defense, many scientists ques- tioned the wisdom of giving it such prominence at this time. To quote Vic- tor Weisskopf of the Massachusetts In- stitute of Technology: "I can't under- stand why the President put it on the front burner with so much fanfare un- less his purpose was political, to sell his military budget to Congress." The President's call for development of a missile-defense program also is be- ing attacked-especially by Moscow- on the ground that it would lead to violation or repudiation of the U.S.-So- viet treaty. The accord and a protocol, which limit each superpower to a sin- gle ballistic-missile-defense site, pro- hibit the development, production or deployment of anything but fixed-site ABM launchers. Space-based weapons are specifically banned. White House officials acknowledge that the Presidents proposal involves potential problems and pitfalls, but they insist that these are being exaggerated. "This is not a crash Manhattan Proj- ect," says a top administration aide. "We're not talking about a specific pro- gram to develop a silver bullet that we know is out there." The plan, he ex- plains, is to give higher priority and eventually more funds to researching a scheme to defend against a ballistic- missile attack. As a White House aide put it: "The program today is subcritical, and we're trying to drive it to a critical program." Under the most favorable circum- stances, administration officials say, the new strategy could not conceivably be implemented before the year 2000. Moscow, they stress, will not be taken by surprise and will have ample opportuni- ty to develop a ballistic-missile-defense system of its own if it chooses to divert resources to that purpose. These officials concede that it will be necessary to renegotiate the ABM Trea- ty if and when it is decided that the actual development of a space-based missile-defense weapon is feasible. In fact, the Pentagon has barely be- gun to tackle the monumental-some say insuperableobstacles that must be overcome to develop a leakproof defense against thousands of Soviet nu- clear missiles. What is envisioned is a fleet of at least 24 and as many as 100 space bat- tie stations armed with laser or parti- cle-beam weapons. These would re- quire generators capable of producing power on an unprecedented scale. Durable mirrors bigger than anything yet produced also must be developed to aim the beam, as well as sensors capable of locating distant targets and distin- guishing actual missiles from dummies. Long shot Says Thomas Karas, au- thor of a forthcoming book on space warfare, The New High Ground, "Shooting at a missile from 3,000 miles in space is like aiming from New York at a garbage can over Los Angeles." For several years, the Pentagon has operated three programs concentrat- ing on the theoretical and technical problems associated with the develop- ment of battle stations in space. These are funded this year to the tune of 150 million dollars. The three programs so far have been conducted less with a view to scoring a breakthrough than to insuring that the U.S. is not caught napping by the Soviets in this field. A presidential directive issued on March 25 to the joint Chiefs of Staff assigns these projects higher priority, but no increased funds are contemplat- ed for at least a year. Karas estimates that "a full-scale anti- ballistic-missile system, designed to of- fer the kind of protection against all Soviet missiles that space-laser enthusi- asts endorse, would cost about 500 bil- lion dollars." Defense'analysts point out that the U.S. spent 5.7 billion dollars in the 1960s and '70s to develop and build the ground-based Safeguard ABM set- up, ostensibly to protect a Minuteman- missile field around Grand Forks, N.D. Even if a space-based defense barri- er were developed, critics in the scien- tific community insist there still would be a problem in making it leakproof. Jack Ruina of the Massachusetts In- stitute of Technology says that, given the large number of Soviet nuclear warheads, leakage would be inevitable and catastrophic. "A cold sweat." A ranking officer in the Pentagon's space-research pro- gram describes the challenge as seen from the inside: "When I look at the technology required for a laser battle station, I break out in a cold sweat. We are talking about pointing accuracy, optics and laser performance beyond anything done to date. It is a frighten- ing prospect." Whether or not a space-based de- fense of the entire nation or even ma- jor cities against nuclear attack proves feasible, many experts agree that a pro- gram to protect limited targets, such as missile silos, is actually within reach. In fact, the President's new policy could have more effect on this project than on the esoteric schemes for placing ABM's in space. The Defense Depart- ment is spending on conventional bal- listic-misdedefense research and de- velopment 519 million dollars, which is scheduled to be increased to 1.6 billion by the end of 1985. The Soviets devote substantial resources to upgrading the 32 ABM sites that defend Moscow. Progress in the U.S. is such that in February the Army could conduct its first test-firing of a weapon designed to intercept and destroy incoming war- heads at an altitude of 60 miles. The Joint Chiefs maintain that a scheme built around this weapon could be op- erating by the mid-1990s. Nan-nuclear wi rMad. The new in- terceptor presumably overcomes the shortcomings that led to abandonment in 1976 of the Safeguard ABM system. It is armed with a non-nuclear warhead and employs infrared sensors that are not vulnerable to a blinding attack. The Joint Chiefs see an urgent need for a new ground-based ABM to help overcome the vulnerability of Ameri- ca's Minuteman ICBM force and any future deployment of MX missiles to a Soviet first strike. A special presiden- tial commission weighing the fate of the controversial MX is to report in early April. Some experts who have testified be- fore the group argued that there is no practical way of protecting the MX without ABM. Richard Burt, assistant secretary of state for European affairs and a professional strategist, went on record in support of that view before joining the department. He character- ized ABM as "an important solution to the Minuteman vulnerability problem" and implicitly advocated modification of the U.S.-Soviet ABM treaty to per- mit the United States to take this route. Reagan's new posture on nuclear de- fense tends to lend credibility, as well as political respectability, to that argu- ment, which is likely to figure promi- nently as the debate over MX missiles culminates in the next several months. Other areas affected. Whatever the impact on the budget debate-and the first signs were not Ptouraging for Reagan-the President's call for a new defensive, rather than retaliatory, strategy is likely to have a significant effect in two other controversial areas. For one thing, consideration of ABM, after more than a decade in cold stor- age, now will be restored to the strate- gic agenda-even if Reagan's vision of a system for defending the nation proves impractical. And the President may be in a stron- ger position to respond to moral argu- ments on nuclear weaponry advanced by the nuclear-freeze movement. 0 Calling Buck Rogers' I suppose one must yield, or at least defer prolongation of the old balance of-terror timony, to this. The almost comic saga of our in some way, to the great weight of politics: guaranteed mutual vulnerability to own MX missile tells the same story. We argument and opinion against the so-called nuclear annihilation, this vulnerability to be and the Soviets are both committed to "Buck Rogers" section of the president's carefully nurtured and maintained until building bigger and bigger and better and speech on defense and nuclear arms. This is such time as agreements are reached to re- better in order to neutralize the other's ad- the part in which he recommends a stepped- strain and/or reduce and/or finally-this is vantage. And in doing so we have gotten in up effort to find technologies for defending the hope--eliminate nuclear weapons. the position of those overarmored knights against nuclear weapons, for disarming I have spent a certain number of hours in in the late Middle Ages, who managed them or rendering them useless. my lifetime arguing with my more disarms- mainly, by the end, to immobilize them- What's wrong with this seemingly rea- ment-minded friends that the balance of ter- selves: one fall and they couldn't get sonable proposal? Just about everything, to ror has had its indisputable and indispensa- up. Over time, the steel crossbow, the long- judge from theimmediate reaction ofscien- ble uses. But none who believes this hideous bow, the cannon got them. tists and strategic planners. For one thing, doctrine has, in fact, over the years, had the Alternatives Many people now recognize they say, the technology isn't even close to practical effect of helping to deter nuclear the end-of-the-line quality of our nuclear being at hand-so it is probably just a pipe war, I still don't think of it as representing assumptions. Perhaps we can't create a dream. For another, even though Reagan either the most or the best that is possible by large, invulnerable, MX-type land-based said this quest for a nuclear defense was not way of preventing nuclear incineration. missile. Perhaps we have to go to something intended to supplant the pursuit of negotiat- else. Surely we have to think imaginatively, ed arms reductions in the meantime, many radically, unencumbered about this. There people feel that precisely such a falling away I wish the status-quo are alternatives: going to sea with ourstrate- of arms-control effort would occur. And ' gic weapons; creating smaller, lighter, more even if it didn't (the argument continues), gang would 'try mobile ones; reaching agreements with the the prospect of our unilaterally achieving a t Russians (and others) to control these capacity to defuse or disarm strategic nucle- to improve on Reagan s weapons, to reverse the growth of our ar weapons would so threaten the Soviet thought, not arsenals. Union that God knows what it might be But I really cannot we how the record frightened into doing before our defenses merely satirize it. concerning any of these alternatives sug- were perfected-not to mention what we gents that it alone is the right course or that might be emboldened to do if our project it would, if pursued to the exclusion of all succeeded and we had, in effect, a kind of Does anyone? And I have argued, too, that, else, necessarily lead to a good outcome. In nuclear monopoly once again. The spirit, if fearsome as it is, the situation on which it is particular, thereisasense in which our arms not the letter, of the anti-ABM agreement premised (each side's remaining a hostage to agreements seem invariably to lead to great- would be violated, we hear. War in space utter destruction by the other) is less danger- ea armament: each government can get the would be all but guaranteed. And, if all this oars than the strategic alternative in which assent of its military only by pledging to go is not enough, the provenance of the propos- each side attempts to fortify and defend itself ahead with the most formidable and lethal al in the first place is suspect: its originators and develop a war-fighting capacity. But I weapons allowed under the agreement's and leading advocates are very right wing, am still made uncomfortable by the implica- terms. And our history of simplifying and very anti-arms-control guys. tionsofthepreferred,mutual-hostagestrate- rationalizing our cumbersome nuclear arse- Orthodoxy. All right, all right-no mere gy. Aren't you? Can anyone feel intellectual- nal isn't by itself wholly reassuring, either. columnizer could hope to take on all this. ly or morally content with a position that It is an astonishment to me that 14 years Even we aren't that arrogant or foolhardy requires us alltoassert, asamatter ofnation- after our own first landing on the Moon, and So I surrender. But I do not intend to go al policy, that we are willing to obliterate in an age habituated to mind-boggling ad- quietly. My parting yelpcomesdown to this: millions upon millions of innocent, helpless entifc achievement-including 1S-minute whatever the merits of the individual objet. human beings and cause other unimagina- Iced time to rocket-borne nuclear destruc- tions being raised, I sense too great a piling- ble suffering for any cause whatever? tion-"Buck Roger" and 'Star Wad' on here, too immediate and total a springing At a purely practical level this particular should be dismissive terms of ridicule for a to the defense of old and-I should have strategy has had its evident peacekeeping proposal such as Reagan's. Maybe it really thought-at least somewhat questionable value, mainly by two-way intimidation. But is no good; I don't know. But is no such ideas. Maybe nuclear stability would be it is becoming impractical now. Its logic has initiative worthy? Is it unfit for contempla- threatened by the president's initiative. But marched ahead, unimpeded, toward an ob- rim? Historically, invention has suc- certainlynuclearorthodoxy hasbeenthreat- vious end of the line, and its momentum has combed to other invention,science hasbest- mod by his enunciation of it. What we are driven us all-I include the Soviets in this- ed science. I wish the status quo nuclear ' leaning is that a remarkable constituency to a wholly lunatic place. The grotesque gang would try to improve on Reagan's has grown up around the idea that we and numbers of deployed nuclear weapons and thought, not merely satirize it. I wish they, the Russians can hope for no better than a their monstrous explosive potential are tea- too, would think radically. Rethinking the Unthinkable ust a half hour after the Democratic- controlled Home of Representatives voted last week to slash Ronald Rea- gan's requested increases in the defense budget by more than half, the Great Com- municator was back doing what be's always done best-selling his own program on na- tionwide television. Armed with charts, graphs and recently declassified aerial pho- tographs, the president hammered away at the Soviet Union's "massive arsenal of new .. nuclear weapons" and insisted that fur- ther cuts in military spending "cannot be made without seriously endangering the se- curity of the nation." But it was no ordinary salesjob: Reagan's partisan call to arms was tempered by a pies for the scientific commu- nity "to give us the means of rendering ... nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete" by embarking on a research-and-development effort aimed at providing a futuristic de- fense against Soviet intercontinental baths- tic missiles. House Armed Services Committee mem- ber Lea Aspin immediately dismissed Rea- gain's speech as "part Democrat-bashing and part Star Wars." But it was really much more. The president, said a top White House aide, was trying "to stake out some high ground" in the increasingly volatile nuclear debate-and last week's speech was only the beginning. Reagan will Continue the effort with an address in Los Angeles this week that is expected to include a proposal for an interim arms-control agreement with the Soviet Union. Then a week or so later, the administration is planning to unveil a plan-based on the recommendations of a presidential commission headed by former national-security adviser Brent Scow- crdt-toreduceU.S. relianceon giant land- based missiles with multiple nuclear war- heads. Taken together, the initiatives represent a notableredirectionof the admin- istration's nuclear policy and-if Reagan's Star Wars vision of the future comes true- could eventually result in what one presi- dential aide called "a significant new orien- tation of our strategic-defense program." Dabaast But the administration offered few specifics, and Reagan's nuclear-defense idea-with all its high-tech, space-age im- agery-was bound to fuel a new debate over nuclear deterrence and arms control. For example, will the sllategy violate existing arms-limitation treaties-particularly the 1972 agreement limiting Soviet and U.S. antimissile systems and their development? Can American technology devise a system that would be impenetrable by the Soviets or another nuclear power (page 18)? And if ao, is it desirable to overturn a doctrine of deterrence that, for all its im- perfections, has enabled the world to avoid the use of nucle- ar weapons for more than 35 years (page 20)? Reagan's speech and his plan for new antimissile technol- ogies-what he called "a new hope for om children in the 21st century"-had immediate po- litical impact. Moscow at- tacked the president for want. ing"toperpetuate the arms race and carry it over into the 21st century," and flatly charged that his ABM plan would be in violation of the 1972 treaty. Closer to home, House Repub- lican leader Robert Michel, who helped to fight the losing battle against the Democratic trimming of $9.9 billion from Reagan's requested Pentagon budget, worried that the presi- dent's speech, combined with his other lobbying efforts, could be "a bit of overkill." He openly wondered whether "people are getting a general image of [Republicans) being rather macho on the defense budget." And moderate Re- publican Rep. Jim Leach, echo- ing a fear that Reagan's ABM idea might preclude meaning- ful arms-control talks, suggest- ed that it was "fallacious to as- sume ... that scientists can somehow develop new technol- ogies to render harmless the awesome weapons 20th-cen- tury research has wrought." Fallacious or not, the notion of a space-based, antiballistic- missile system has intrigued Ronald Reagan for some time.- National-security adviser Wil- liam Clark-directed by the president last week to take charge of pushing ABM re- search ahead-has told aides that he remembers Reagan talking about the possibility when he was governor of Cali- fornia, long before New Right leaders started touting a simi- lar concept called "High Fron- tier." "He's always been con- cerned about the hopelessness of the strategy of mutual de- struction," says a presidential aide. More recently, defense experts like Dr. Edward Teller, the "father of the H-Bomb," have steadily "pumped up" Reagan and some members of his Whit; Douse staff about the potential of such defensive- wapons systems. But the real turning point came six weeks ago after Rea- gan received a routine briefing from the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The chiefs carefully reviewed the strategic and techno- logical facts of life that have made the tradi- tional triad of nuclear forces-land-based missiles, submarine-launched warheads and intercontinental bombers-an increas- ingly fragile foundation for the nation's de- fenses. The distressing prospect of having to boost nuclear firepower to preserve the doc- trine of mutual assured destruction (MAD) led to a briefing on recent advances which offered at least the vision of erecting impen- etrable missile defense systems. The presi- dent seized on the notion with such intensi- ty that even the Joint Chiefs were "surprised," says an aide. "He saw this option much more clearly than they did." Reagan's top defense strategists were even more surprised when the president over- ruled their objections and decided to make his enthusiasm public. Lap of Faith Reagan's lap of faith was doubtless speeded by the growing assault on his defense budget-an attack that has had more to do with spending priorities and political posturing than with the complex- ities of America's military strategy. House Democrats, for example, were simply reas- serting traditional party values last week as they passed a budget increasing Pentagon spending by a modest 4 percent, a rate far below the 10 percent that Reagan wants but closer to the 5 or 6 percent that many Senate Republicans regard as reasonable in the face of growing federal deficits. As the president himself pointed out last week, "these num- bers ... tell us little about the kind of de- fense program that America needs or the benefits in security and freedom that our defense effort buys for us." Reagan himself, however, is often guilty of the same defense-by-The-numbers rheto- ric. In his speech last week he accused "liberals in the House' of trying to re- duce defense spending to "2 to 3 per- cent"-a calculation the Democrats were quick to dispute-and ignored the call for cuts from arch-conservatives in his own party. The president tried to bolster his case with an ominous picture of a nuclear balance tilted in the Soviets' favor, but he RETHINKING... Continued failed to mention that a portion of the Soviet missiles are arrayed against China and left out the British and French missiles aimed at the Soviet Union. And he implied that an extended runway being built on the pro-Cuban Caribbean island of Grenada was a grievous threat to U.S. security- even though the British are helping to build it and a Florida firm is handling dredging for the project. Cynkhric The space-based ABM idea was tacked onto the president's speech just hours before air time. His political advisers pronounced themselves well pleased. "It was reasoned, gentle-there was a lot of pence in it," said a top aide. "It had to be a plus for him." If, in some other quarters, the proposal met with a certain cynicism, that was understandable. Reagan has, after all, spent most of his public life oppos- ing arms-control agreements and has pressed for bigger and better weapons sys- tems. The "warmonger" image (the so- called "button problem") that the Demo- crats tried to pin on Reagan in the 1980 campaign still lingers and has been rein. forced by his cold-war rhetoric and his apparent reluctance to negotiate with the Soviet Union. But, in a very real way, the president's nu- cleardefense notion is vintage Reagan, and totally sincere: once again, in his blessedly simple fashion, he has envisioned taking a national strategic doctrine that has guided the superpowers for more than 35 years and turned it on its head His opponents will call this simplistic, his friends will can it moral courage. Rather than force technology to remain a slave to the horrifying doctrine of assured destruction, he asks, why not use technology to change the doctrine? The trouble is that the answer lies far in the future. Reagan's short-range plans- this week's expected modification of the U.S. position on Europe's missile balance (two proposals were still being considered at the weekend) and next week's Scowcroft commission plan to reduce American reli- ance on the MX-may still be unacceptable to the Soviets. Moreover, the space technol- ogy Reagan hopes will obviate the MAD policies that now govern the debate is still 30 years--and.perhape as many as seven ad- ministrations-away. One president with a vision cannot change the world's nuclear calculus overnight. MICHAEL REEBE with THOMAS M. D.FRANL ELEANOR CLIFT. GLORIA BORDER ad DAVID C MARTIN m Wrhirytm A `Star Wars' Defense L egmd has it that around 200 B.C., the Greek scientist Archimedes devised engines of war that for three years held the Romans at bay in their siege of his native Syracuse. One such weapon, made of mam- moth concave mirrors, focused fiery sun- light onto Roman warships off the coast and set them afire whenever they approached within bowshot of the city's walls. If true, Archimedes had invented the prototype of a weapon that may someday revolutionize war: the laser cannon. Last week President Reagan invoked the idea of using concen- trated fight as a weapon not against ships, but against the most awesome weaponry of our time-nuclear missiles. Space-based defensive systems, the president suggested, could "pave the way forarms-control meas- ures to eliminate [nuclear] weapons " themselves. The idea is unquestionably alluring: or- biting laser weapons that could intercept aircraft and missiles within seconds after launch, making ballistic warfare a0 but ob- solete and replacing weapons designed to kill people with weapons that kill weapons. The strategic doctflne that underlies the balance of terror would be turned on its head. No longer would the best defense be a good offense. Rather, both the United States and the Soviet Union could empha- size defense in and of itself, and instead of reeling toward mutual assured destruction, might head toward a state of mutual assured survival. The president cautioned that such a plan "will take years, probably decades," and may not be realized until the next cen- tury. But Reagan said current technology has attained a level of sophistication that laser technology? Research has been under way since the early 1960s, but until very recently, laser-based strategic defense was a "subcritical" issue. The Pentagon is cur. rently working on a three-part space-based project: the development of a powerful chemical laser, a mirror capable of reflect. ing its beam with precision over thousands of miles and an aiming mechanism for the laser beam. But not until 1987 will the De- fense Department find out whether the project is even feasible enough to go forward with a prototype. Among the ABM possi. bilities on the drawing boards: ? Chemical lasers These would derive their energy from the spontaneous combustion of hydrogen and fluorine -arid are the most advanced of the systems now being devel. oped. But they also have the biggest prob- lems: the chemicals used in the reaction are highly combustible and corrosive, and they emit light in a less effective region of the spectrum. ^ Mitten in space Ground-based lasers would send a beam to giant mirrors in the sky, which in turn would reflect the beams at attacking missiles. The problem with this CONTINUED NEXT PAGE makes such wonders possible, and his aides likened the endeavor to develop them to John F. Kennedy's 1961 commitment to put a man on the moon by 1970. Tecdt?o&, Unfortunately, it may well be impossible to achieve. Apart from its stag- gering costs, the chief obstacle to the "Star Wars" scenario is that the needed technolo- gy does not yet exist. Reagan's vision of a brave new anti-ballistic world stretches the limits of scientific credulity. If American technology could produce an ABM system that was 95 percent effective-a rate most experts regard as & practical impossibility- that would still mean that I out of every 20 missiles would get through. Moreover, anti- satellite systems and powerful "space mines" could destroy defensive battle sta- tions before they could fire. And like all other weapons systems, a space-based ABM system would be vulnerable to counter- measures-a pre-emptive strike to blind or destroy the spacestation, for example. How much progress has been made in 'STAR WARS'... Continued approach is that when a laser beam operates within the atmosphere, it heats the air through which it passes. The heated air defocuses the beam, causing less energy to reach the target. What's more, such a device would be a fair-weather weapon. What hap- pens when you try to blast an intense laser beam through a heavy rainstorm? Steam. ? Partldebmm wasps These accelerate protons or ions. Using these charged atomic particles, these weapons could bore into targets, causing structural damage, disrupt- ing electronics and detonating fuel or explo- sives. These weapons are still in the concep- tual stages. ^ Nudro-pumpsd Lay Sera The lasers use energy derived from a small nuclear explosion to slam a brutally intense pulse of X-rays against an enemy missile. Before the detonation, as many as 50 laser rods would be aimed at individual targets; the launched missiles would be obliterated by the impact of the X-rays when the blast occurred. Of all when the targets are ballistic missiles. The defense system would require a surveillance mechmism to detect the launching of enemy salvos. a they were unfriendly and, of before a mortally wounded booster departs course, a highly precise aiming sufficiently from a ballistic trajectory to be system to rap the target. Long- declared no longer a threat." By that time, range bombers, which must the system may have lost its chance to refo- spend 5 to 10 hours en route to cus on another threat. these weapons, the X-ray laser appears lobe the most promising and the one President Reagan may well be counting on to "give us the means of rendering these nuclear weap- ons impotent and obsolete." Although in- formation on the X-ray laser remains classi- fied, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory reportedly created an X-ray pulse with the system in a recent under- ground testinNevada. The president's chief science adviser, George A. Keyworth II, however, conceded last fall that while it "is an embryonic technology that should be pursued aggressively, I don't see any clear- cut systems application at this time. It's premature. It's at the science stage." A space-based laser ABM system may, in fact, prove too complex to work. While it may be possible to develop a laser defense against manned long-range bombers, notes Robert S. Cooper, director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the problem becomes far more complicated systems plenty of time to zero in; to hit a missile, however, the ABM system would have only a few hundred seconds while the target is being launched. (The individual warheads, which separate from the missile after the boost stage, must be hard enough to withstand re-entry into the atmosphere, and are therefore much more difficult to destroy.) "I've devoted my life to systems and to the technology that goes into sys- tem," said Cooper recently, "and myjudg- meat is that we now cannot manage the complexity of the kind of system that we're talking about." Va tfimttme There is also the problem of verifying kills-the system's ability to de- termine whether its laser has destroyed the target. "Do you assume that if the laser has been pointed at the target for a calculated sure-kill time that destruction can be as- sured?" asks Wallace D. Henderson, vice president for systems integration at BDM International Corp., which does classified laser research for the Defense Department. Henderson points out that to be wholly effective, a laser space station should be able to determine that it has hit one target before WARS', Cont'STAR inued would be vulnerable. The killer satellite, an orbiting kamikaze designed to destroy en- emy satellites by pulling up next to them and exploding, is a formidable weapon against space-based ABM stations as well. The Sovi- ets have had anti-satellite (ASAT) capabil- ity for about a decade and are believed to have a considerable lead in satellite and laser technology. (Defense Department officials estimate the Soviet high-energy laser pro- gram is three to five times the size of Ameri- ca's.) Although both the Soviet ASAT and the American version now in development are effective only against low-orbiting tar- gets, it is conceivable that an ASAT could be equipped with lasers to attack higher alti- tude targets such as ABM stations. More simply, each superpowercould firea nuclear warhead into space and explode it, unleash- ing an "electromagnetic pulse" that might damage whatever was nearby. FesibBhyt The specter of space mines and ASAT's equipped with high-energy la- sers greatly complicates the task of operat. ing an ABM system. As Henderson points out, protection of our bases would seem to require the establishment of "keepout" zones in space large enough to negate the effects of space mines. Space stations would have to be hardened to withstand possible laser attack-yet another technological challenge. According to Henderson, "these questions of operational utility and fea- sibility call for detailed consideration before greatly increasing emphasis on laser- system technology. It could be embarrass- ing to spend billions to demonstrate the adequacy of technology to support develop. ment of a space high-energy laser system that could be operationally marginal oreas- ily defeated." Still, there are those who believe these technological and operational glitches can be overcome. Edward Teller compares Rea- gan's decision to push ahead with ABM research to Roosevelt's decision to build the atomic bomb. "In both cased, [the presi- dent] took a strong stand which in the for- mer case was decisive and which in the present case I hope will be decisive," Teller told NEWSWEEK'S William J. Cook. "This decision, I hope, will convert the cold war into real peace. That is clearly the inten- tion-and it is very much more than wishful thinking because: there are real proposals, real possibilities behind it." That is one view. Another was voiced last fall by a Reagan defense expert who suggest. ed that laser weapons are a highly question- able cure: "The high-energy laser is to war- fare what laetrile is to cancer." But Reagan may have reached for the stars because he believed that only a 21st-century solution could break the nuclear deadlock. Theques- tion is whether his is a workable dream-or whether the ABM system will remain as mythical as Archimedes's mirror machine. MICHAEL A. LERNER with WILLIAM J, CnOK .nd MARY LORD in Wuhiaama A New Nuclear Heresy The president's proposal to develop an antimissile shield raises profound questions about deterrence. R onald Reagan is not the first leaderofa nuclear power to propose antiballistic- missile technology as a key to world peace. Soviet Prime Minister Aleksei Kosygin holds that honor: back in 1967, at the U.S.- Soviet summit meeting in Glassboro, N.J., Kosygin argued that were "humenewapons"that "defended people.. instead of threatening them. At that point, Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara and President Lyndon Johnson persuaded Kosygin that just the opposite was true: that the prospect of "mutually assured.surviv- al." Instead of today's maddeningly convo- luted, almost theological "if he-then well war-gaming, the president suggests a be- nign, scientific invulnerability. Moreover, the president's proposal- vague and long-range though it may be- reflects a growing belief among arms experts and some military officials that modern nuclear technology and longstand- ing U.S. defense strategy have fallen seri- ously out of step. A shift to primary depend. the first nation to achieve both offensive and defensive capabilities might well be tempted to launch a devastating nuclear first strike. Thus began talks that eventually led to an ABM treaty. To the degree that Reagan's speech last week represents a turn away from the Glass- boro understanding it raises profound questions about the direction of America's strategic policy in an increasingly precar- ious nuclear age. "If we go ahead on this [ABM development] the Soviets are bound to match it," warns former U.S. arms nego- tiator Gerard C. Smith. "Instead of one arms race, we'll have two." And yet there is an undeniable moral and even intellectual appeal to Reagan's "vision of the future" in which national security no longer rests upon "the threat of instant ... retaliation." Instead of an Armageddon of mutual as- sured destruction (MAD, in think-tank parlance), futurologist Herman Kahn sees ence on antimissile systems would mark a sea change in that strategy, but a more modest step is likely fat sooner if the presi- dent accepts, as expected, the recommenda- tions of a special White House advisory panel on the controversial MX missile. The panel, headed by former national-security adviser Brent Scowcroft, is expected to pro- pose a historic first step away from the supersize missiles with numerous warheads or MIRV's (multiple independently target- able re-entry vehicles) that once seemed likely to be this nation's most awesome defense. That recommendation could put the future of MX itself very much in doubt $nstnvdovlaoc The emphasis on ABM technology, and the de-emphasis of MIRV, represent new approaches to the old game of arms control: a continuing effort to struc- ture U.S. and Soviet strategic forces so that neither side has the incentive to launch a first-strike surprise attack. At the outset of CONTINUED NEXT PACE NEW NUCLEAR HERESY... Continued the arms race, deterrence consisted solely of trigger nuclear war. Would the sudden loss having sufficient weapons so that enough of signals from a U.S. antimissile satellite, would survive an all-out attack to devastate for example, be construed by America as a the enemy country in all-out retaliation. Soviet act of war? How would Moscow take Then the nature of nuclear weapons and the Bestruction--accidentalorotherwise- strategy grew more sophisticated. The new presumption was that each side would try to destroy the other's missiles and war-fight- ing capabilities without vaporizing civilian populations. But MIRV technology in- creased the advantages of a first strike-at least on paper. In theory, one missile carry- ing 10 warheads could wipe out five missiles caught in their solos--each with 10 war- heads of its own. (In the Strangelovian nu- clear calculus, two warheads are needed to ensure an enemy missile is "killed.") MIRV's also made it less likely that the war could be confined to military targets. Could all those strikes and counterstrikes be car- ried out with such surgical precision that they did not trigger-or approximate--all- out war? Not even the experts can be sure. A shift to defense-oriented nuclear strate- gy, say its proponents, could dramatically alter the shape of the arms race. By the year 2000, says H-bomb pioneer Edward Teller, the United States could be spending 95 per- cent of its military budget on defensive sys- tems that are far less expensive than the amount of added offensive weaponry the Soviets would need to overcome them. "It's easier to do arms control if the emphasis is defensive, not offensive," says Herman Kahn. But other scientists sharply disagree with that assessment, pointing out that a hi- tech missile defense--even if it could be built some time in the next century-would be far more vulnerable and provocative than the shimmering protective force fields of all map and "Star Trek" spinoffs. "It's a Pandora's box of unprecedented magni- tude," argues Cornell University physicist Kurt Gottfried, a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists. Aapudlatlam The race to obtain a truly effective antimissile technology-a race the Soviets would certainly enter-could in- deed prove to be far more dangerous than the current phase of competition. At some point in the research, both sides would risk abrogating the restrictions on development, testing and deployment that are the heart of the ABM treaty signed by Richard Nixon and Leonid Brezhnev in 1972. Abrogating the treaty would mean an explicit repudi- ation of the doctrine of assured destruction that for better or worse has enabled the superpowers to escape nuclear war for the past 38 years. It would also cast aside the only example of mutual forbearance in the development of new strategic technology. Implicit, too, in the development of an antimissile system would be development of systems to neutralize it: killer satellites, space mines, laser cannons. This would move the deadly chess game of deterrence from the earth's surface (or below it, in the case of missile-armed submarines) to outer space. And all of that would set the stage for a whole new range of Esshpoints that could of a Soviet killer satellite? Would each na- tion's complex, space-borne defensive net- work turn into a web of deadly nuclear tripwires? As President Reagan pictured it, the ABM defense would make offensive weap- ons useless and therefore dispensable. This might be true with a totally impervious, will shield, but proponents of stepped-up re- search on ABM technology concede that even 95 percent effectiveness would be al- most impossible to achieve. "Zero leakage ... is strictly speaking not achievable, and can only be approached for a very light attack," a deputy director of the Army's and nobody has really looked at this," says Harvard University arms expert Albert Carnesale, coauthor of a forthcoming book titled "Living with Nuclear Weapons." Would it make sense for the two nations to share their antimissile research so that nei- ther one took a threatening lead? Would a U.S. president agree to significantly reduce or eliminate his offensive arsenal as an American ABM system went into place-to ease predictable Soviet fears and demon- strate that the United States would hence- forth base its national security on the new hi- tech defense in fact, as well as in rhetoric? Who pays the BUR Quite apart from these strategic conundrums is the staggering cost ofa21stcentury ARM system. Futurologist Kahn admits that a comprehensive ABM system even with today's primitive technol- ogy would require $200 billion, plus a $50 ballistic-missile defense program has testi- fied. And the assurance that some of their missiles would get through is likely to prompt each nation to build up its force of offensive weapons so that the number of surviving missiles is sufficient to destroy all assigned targets. As the United states or the Soviet Union approaches the point where its antimissile system seems about to become operative- based on observed testing or other intelli- gence-the risks of conflict in times of crisis could increase dramatically. The other na- tion would certainly feel threatened by a realization that much of its offensive arsenal would shortly be neutralized. And the na- tion with ARM technology would realize that the system could cope far better with a weak retaliatory blow than a massive first strike-perhaps prompting leaders to con- sider launching a first strike of their own. "It would have to be a 'negotiated transition,' billion annual maintenance fee. "Where in hell is the money going to come from?" asks Arthur Klein of Washington's Center for Defense Information. Some Pentagon offi- cials fear it will come out of the budget for conventional or nuclear weaponry, under- mining Reagan's own controversial defense buildup. But Reagan himself said nothing about reordering defense expenditures- thus leading critics to speculate that any ARM funding beyond current levels would be siphoned from domestic social programs or the capital supply needed for economic recovery. Calling the president's speech "a dangerous hoax," nuclear freeze coordina- tor Randall Kehler said Reagan's "Star Wars militarybuildup ... will taketheheav- iest toll on those Americans who are already struggling to have decent housing, food and adequate health care." In the short run, and perhaps the long run as well, a more important contribution to CONTINUED NEXT PAGE Continued come from the Scowcroft commission on MX. Rather than undertake new technical studies, the panel concentrated on the po- litical realities and the strategic facts of life as outlined to Reagan by the Joint Chiefs six weeks ago. The current triad of U.S. strate- gic forces, the chiefs explained, has become an ever-more-dubious proposition: no amount of silo hardening now can protect land-based missiles from their Soviet coun- terparts, U.S. bombers and cruise missiles face increasingly sophisticated Soviet air defenses-and submarines, while so far able to elude detection, remain the least reliable warhead missiles that have so complicated the nuclear equation. According to sources able Minuteman missile silos mostly as an interim measure, a sop to conservative MX big missiles. Congress, however, citing the lack of survivability, might well authorize getman" (30,Og0 pounds-compared with MX's 193,000 pounds). It would have only that would anchor it to the ground in caseofa nuclear attack. Because of its mobility and afar less attractive target than MX for Soviet missiles-both harder to hit and less of a And it would be a rare case of putting technology into revere-to produce a stabilizing weapon. Reagan's ABM propos- al, of course, seeks stability through precise- ly the opposite process-a concerted thrust WASHINGTON TIMES April Pg.C- Commentary Who can object to obsolescing nukes? JOSEPH SOBRAN T o paraphrase Shakespeare, we know that we know, but we know not what we may know. In an era when our knowledge has repeatedly outleaped our recent speculations, we would be rash to say in advance what we will be unable to discover over the long haul. How quaint the science fictions of Jules Verne and H.G. Wells look today; in most cases because their fantasies fall short of realities now familiar. Think of Capt. Nemo's submarine, run by electricity. President Reagan's call for re- search and, development toward a complete anti-missile defense sys- tem is an utter masterstroke. It is, to begin with, an act of faith in the human mind - a faith fully warranted by American history. It comes at a moment of high-tech buoyancy, offering an exhilarating challenge. It appeals to deep yearn- ings for peace by seeing security as the final fruit of technology, just when we had come to assume that technological progress can only mean greater risk of annihilation. Above all, it has the paradoxical effect of making the arms race righteous. The sooner we make our- selves immune from missile attack, the sooner we can avoid the tempta- tion to retaliate against Russian cities. Politically, Reagan's appeal is also masterful. His opponents have been thrown completely off balance. In their beehive reflex to attack him, his critics, from Moscow to Wash- ington, have put themselves in the position of defending the status quo of mutual terror they have been trying to associate with him. He has trumped the freeze movement. The leftist hive can only argue, with lame dogmatism, that it will never work. Against his message of hope they offer only a counsel of despair. The fury of The New York Times is exceeded only by that of Yuri Andropov. Surely nobody supposes that Andropov is angry because he is afraid an anti-missile system would never work. The more plausi- ble hypothesis is that he is afraid it will work all too well. Critics argue that even if we do develop an effective system some- where down the road, the interim will become more risky, tempting the Soviets to strike while their mis- siles still have some destructive value. But as long as we also have the ability to retaliate, this is a strained argument, proving only that those who make it have less faith in the good will of the Soviets than they demand of the rest of us. A more rational argument is that the imminence of American immu- nity from attack gives the Soviets incentive to engage in serious disar- mament negotiations, complete with on-site inspections. It also will make them question the value of any fur. thernuclear buildup with the loom- ing possibility that nuclear weapons will lack value even as bargaining chips and blackmailing devices in the event that the delivery system is rendered totally obsolete. Obsolete. Think of it. Not just condemned by all decent persons or renounced in dubious treaties, but simply useless. Even if the "Star Wars" approach to defense ultimately proves unsuc- cessful, it has the immediate effect of illuminating the political land. scape. We are now beginning to see which of the advocates of Ameri- can disarmament really want a nuclear-free world and which really want something else - empty moral grandstanding, the promotion of Soviet interests, the abasement of America. Already it is remarkable how many of these intrepid moralists are not even attracted by the Reagan vision and refuse to entertain it for even a fleeting moment. In many cases it is no doubt a simple reflex assumption that any idea that comes from Ronald Reagan must be bad. A pity they feel this way. They are underestimating this imaginative politician once again. The loss may be theirs. For the rest of us, that vision is too thrilling to dismiss out of hand. It promises to make our country great, the world blessed, our chil- dren safe. Let us pray it will be so. another technological triumph into a real foundation for peace. DAVID M. ALPERN vita DAVID C. MARTIN, MARY LORD and WILLIAM 1. COOK N ww,i gwn TIME 4 April 1983 Pgs.2O-21 The Risks of Taking Up Shields In the nuclear age, it may be safer when each side has only spears W To President Reagan, a foolproof system for shoot- ing down nuclear weapons is nothing less than "a new hope for our children in the The buildup of strategic defenses could touch off a chain reaction of nega- tive consequences. If the U.S. tried to erect the son of protective umbrella Rea- gan has in mind, the Soviet Union would suspect that the U.S. was seeking the ca- pability of destroying the U.S.S.R. with impunity. To forestall that, the Soviets would no doubt accelerate their own al- ready considerable research into defen- sive weapons, while simultaneously ref r- ing their offensive weapons in order to "beat" or "penetrate" whatever ABM Sys- ter, an ARM based in space could be used to zap airfields, factories, bunkers or an office building inside, say, a walled for- tress on the banks of the Moscow River. In short, an ABM system cannot be, on the one hand, omniscient and omnipotent while at the same time being purely and exclusively defensive-at least not in the eye of a beholder on the other side. All these cautionary considerations were dismissed last week by Under Secre- tary of Defense Fred IkM as "doctrinal blinders that have been in the way for the 21st century." Such an antiballistic missile (ABM) umbrella, he said, would make the U.S. safe from attack, the world free from the danger of cataclysmic con- flict between the superpowers, and the doctrine of deterrence more credible- and far more human-than the tradi- tional reliance on the threat of massive retaliation. To many experts, however, Reagan's dream of a "truly lasting stability" is a nightmare of a new, and highly destabilizing, arms race. It is part of the paradox and perversity of nuclear weapons- and practically an article of faith among those who most think about how to prevent their use- that defensive systems can be ev- ery bit as treacherous as the offen- sive ones they are meant to counter. The reason is that in the- ory, strategic defenses would tend to upset the balance of terror and increase the chance of war. According to the definition Reagan used in his speech last week, "Deterrence means simply this. making sure any adversary who thinks about attacking ... concludes that the risks to him outweigh any potential gains." The President was speaking just about American deterrence of So- viet attack. "The United States does not start fights," he asserted. "We will never be an aggressor." But the military planners and political leaders in the Kremlin will never proceed on that assumption, nor can they. They want to feel confi- dent that deterrence works the other way and that they could retaliate effectively against an American attack on them There is no mom in the concept of mutual deterrence for one side to claim, as Rea- gan did, a monopoly on virtue and peace- ful intentions. Sure enough, Izvesna, the Soviet government newspaper, launched a rhetorical countentrike at Reagan, ac- cusing him of turning "Washington into a dangerous hotbed of thermonuclear con- frontation." Nix is there any way to exor- cise from deterrence what Reagan called "the specter of retaliation." That specter is in the nature of nuclear weapons. As Winston Churchill observed nearly three decades ago: "Safety will be the sturdy child of terror, and survival the twin brother of annihilation." ten the U.S. devises. In that mom, the wont sin against strategic stability is a good defense-particularly the sort of "prevent defense" Reagan has in mind. ARMS could also be a troublesome factor in the calculations, and miscalculations, that would determine the outcome of a crisis. If one side felt secure against retaliation thanks to its defensive system, it might bet everything on what Harold Brown has called "the cosmic roll of the dice," an at- tempt to disarm the other side by knock- ing out its defensive forces. Moreover, the gamble might be car- ried out by using ARMS themselves. Any system powerful, accurate and pervasive enough to destroy all the adversary's at- tacking missiles after they are launched would also, almost by definition, be capa- ble of destroying those same missiles be- fore they are launched. Or, for that mat- pan 20 years or so." Bad, like Rea- gan, sees ABMs as an "alternative" to a deterrent made up of offensive weapon. But offensive weapons would almost certainly remain and quite possibly increase in re- sponse to the surge in defenses. It was American defense intel- lectuals who first fully appreciated the perils of as interlocked offen- sive and defensive arms race, with an escalation in either one driving the other. Back in 1967, the John- son Administration suggested to the late Soviet Premier Alexei Ko- sygin the possibility of calling off an ARM race before it began. Koey- gin's initial reaction was that it would be grossly irresponsible and even crazy for any nation to forgoa system that would allow it to pro- tect itself and its populace. During the first Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT I), however, the Soviets accepted sharp restrictions on ARMS They were moved to do so not just by the philosophical wisdom of the American argument, but by the strength of the American bargain- ing position. The U.S. had started to build an ARM of its own, despite stiff po- litical opposition,, so the Soviets had to ponder the implication of unregulated competition as an alternative to negotiat- ed restraint. They also realized the appar- ent impossibility of an effective ARM. The 1972 SALT I treaty limiting ABMs is the only nuclear arms control agreement still legally in force between the superpowers. As amended in 1974, it restricts each side to one ARM installation. The US. has already retired and put into storage its own Safeguard system that was protecting the Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missile field at Grand Forks, N. Desk. The U.S.S.R. still has an operational ARM sys- tem surrounding Moscow. The ARM treaty is generally regarded as the most valuable achievement in the otherwise controver- sial and, to many, disappointing hissosy of U.S.-Soviet arms negotiations. CONTINUED NEXT PAGE Whether the agreement can endure is another question. From the moment it was concluded, U.S. officials made clear that just as a defensive rivalry would fuel an offensive one, so defensive arms con- trol must be accompanied by offensive arms control. In May 1972, Richard Nix- ='a Chief SALT negotiator, Gerard Smith, Put his Soviet counterpart, Vladimir Sem- yonov, on notice that there would have to be a SALT B treaty extending limitations on offensive arms within five years. Oth- erwise, "US. supreme interests could be jeopardized," and the treaty might have to be scrapped. Jimmy Carter missed Smith's dead- line by two years. SALT B was not signed until 1979, and it has never been ratified. Still, the ARM treaty has remained in ef- fect, and Reagan was careful to say last week that his pursuit of a breakthrough in defensive technology would be "consis- tent with our obligations under the ABM traty." Making good on that as- surance will be tricky, since Arti- cle V of the treaty prohibits not just deployment but development of space-based ABMs, as well as more down-toarth methods. eagan's Professed adher- ence to the ARM pact rings a little hollow when exam- ined against the backdrop of his Administration's overall attitude toward, and record in, arms con- trol and defense. In looking for a way to protect the planned MX from Soviet pre-emptive attack, civilian and military officials of the Pentagon have seriously con- sidered various schemes for ballis- tic missile defenses, or BMD, a land-based system of antimissile missiles that would require drastic renegotiation if not abrogation of the 1972 treaty. The chief negotiator in the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START), Edward Rowny, has voiced skepticism about whether the US. should continue tocomply with the ABM treaty. In 1972, he says, the U.S. and U.S.S.R. in ef- fect agreed to throw away their shields; since then, the Soviets have acquired an ever more bristling armory of spears; therefore the US. must think seriously about picking up its shield again. Rowny has conveyed a version of this glad atorial analogy to his Soviet counter- part, Victor Karpov, at the negotiating ta- ble in Geneva. Rowny has also reminded Karpov of Smith's warning to Semyonov eleven years ago: the viability of the ABM treaty will depend on progress in offensive arms control. The Soviet comeback: It is the U.S., not the U.S.S.R., that refuses to ratify SALT n. The Reagan Administration's START proposal would require drastic and immediate cuts in Soviet forces and is un- acceptable to the Kremlin for that reason. Therefore, the Soviets argue, the US. will have only itself to blame if the ARM treaty collapses and a race to develop defensive superweapons begins in earnest. Underlying the President's speech and many policies of his Administration is a confidence that the U.S. could win such a race. While decrying what they see as an across-the-board inferiority to the Soviet Union by most measures of mili- tary power, Administration officials seem to think that the U.S. enjoys a lasting and partiaBcompensating advantage at least technology. One of the burdens under which the Administration's arms-control negotia- tors are laboring is an injunction not to trade away, or even accept, significant limitations on, weapons systems where the US. has a technological lead. For example, American advances in micro- electronics and precision guidance put the U.S. cruise missile program well ahead of the USS.R.'s. As a result, cruise missiles have been declared virtually out of bounds for restrictions under START. This faith in technology as the solu- tion to the country's military problems shone through clearly in Reagan's speech when he called on the American scientific community to "give in the means of ren- dering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete." That faith, however, may be both forgetful about the past and short- sighted toward the future. It is also strangely insensitive to the purely eco- nomce costs of opening yet another huge area in the arms race-and, conversely, to the economic benefit of keeping that area closed with arms control. The Soviets have been able to over- come technology gaps before. The classic, and pertinent, example is multiple inde- pendently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVa), the warheads on ballistic mis- siles. MtRVS were an American monopoly in the late '60s. The Johnson and Nixon Administrations decided to proceed with the deployment of Hydraheaded missiles rather than seeking to ban or limit them in SALT 1, because MIRV5 were a hedge against Soviet ABMs. But the Soviets first caught up with the U.S. in Mmes, then gained effective superiority by putting them on larger missiles. Now Henry Kis- singer and others responsible for the deci- sion of the late '60s wish they had tried harder to cap tatters before that genie was out of the bottle. So it may be with cruise missiles with- in a few years, and so it may be with exot- ic ABMs early in the next century, when Reagan is hoping that American children will be Safe at last. Today's panacea can be tomorrow's poison, especially if the other side is busily filling the same pre- scription. Prudence certainly requires that the U.S. continue brainstorming on possible ABM plans, with a wary eye on what the Soviets are up to-but without 'any illusion that ARMS can make the threats of both Sovi- et aggression and nuclear war disappear. The question is not so much whether either the U.S. or the U.S.S.R. can beat the other in a space weapons race..Rather, the danger is that both will lose, each aggravating the insecurity of the other as it strives to keep up. That is a danger that will loom long be- fore the scientists and generals know whether the systems they are so feverishly developing will actually work. And to work, these systems must be 100% effective. Even a tiny percentage of "leak- age" (offensive warheads slipping through the defensive net) would mean millions of deaths. If, in the end, a system did work-J, despite all the skepti- cism voiced by the experts last week in reponse to Reagan, Yan- kee faith in Yankee know-how paid off-then a final irony would come sharply into focus. As the U.S. moved closer to actual de- ployment of any such system, the Soviet Union, would be under an increas- ingly desperate temptation to strike while it still had a chance, to attack before the U.S. not only rendered Soviet weapons im- potent, but rendered the Soviet Union it- self permanently at America's mercy. There is only one way the U.S. would be able to put its impenetrable, invulnerable antinuclear umbrella in place without the gravest risk of nuclear war: it would have to share its invention with the U.S.S.R. The most striking thing about Reagan's speech last week was his treatment of ABMs as a solution that the U.S. can adopt on its own rather than a problem that must be subject to management with the other superpower. That same instinct for unilat- eral defense without the benefit of bi- lateral diplomacy has characterized his custodianship of nuclear weapons more generally. -SySeesa Talent Reagan for the Defense His vision of the future turns the budget battle into a star war M The crusade he has em- barked upon requires that he balance two competing messages: the U.S. most res- olutely rearm to counter the Soviet threat, but it must project its peace- ful intent along with its military might. Congress most be convinced that his $274 billion defense budget for fecal 1984 ought not to be gutted. The nuclear freeze move- ment at home and abroad has to be coun- tered so that the U.S. can upgrade its stra- In his speech alma Of Oval Office last week Reegaa used daduslll d spyylue photograph to Were, the spread of Seds knllanhce. The eanssedeatons base, shove, Is re, by 1,500 Soviet teddclaat The Soviet hehcaptars sheave In N amass, be- low, carried the Pape on his recent stilt The cairn facility pktared haul the Preddent Is a lahahg strip for Soviet MO fk hl.. Reagan also used charts S. S. aass on the for right to show protetla of conventional sass over the put decade tegic forces and proceed with deployment of NATO missiles. And the Soviet Union needs to be persuaded that the West will not shrink from nuclear competition if its proposals for arms reductions are spurned. In a television address last week, Ronald Reagan confronted this complicated bal- ancing act by graphically depicting what he claims is Moscow's "margin of superior- try" while broaching a surprising and con- troversial idea for preventing nuclear war. Reagan refused to retreat an inch in defending what is now proposed to be a f2 trillion, five-year military spending plan. Speaking just 33 minutes after the Hot= voted to cut by more than half his proposed 10% increase in next year's Pen- tagon budget, the President sharply as- sailed the arguments of his critics as "noth- ing more than noise based on ignorance." Said he: "They're the same kind of talk that led the democracies to neglect their do- fences in the 1930s and invited the tragedy of World War 11." In order to emphasize the offensive threat posed by the Soviet Union, Reagan declassified spy-plane photographs showing Soviet activity in the Caribbean area. His charts showed the five new classes ofSovlet tcBMs that have been produced since the U.S. Minuteman was deployed. Hecompared Moscow's missiles aimed at Europe with the lackofany NATO missiles aimed at the Soviets. And he pointed to a daunting Soviet lead in con- ventional weapons. Then, in concluding his down-to-earth defense of his budget, Reagan launched the debateover U.S. military spending into an entirely different orbit. "Let me share with you a vision of the future which offers hope," he begin. The President went on to suggest that America forsake the three- decade-old doctrine of deterring nuclear war through the threat of retaliation and Stead pursue a defensive strategy based on space-age weaponry designed to "inter- cept and destroy" incoming enemy mis- siles. "I call upon the scientific community in our country, these who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn that great talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace: to give us the means of rendering these nucle- ar weapons impotent and obsolete." R eagan's video-game vision of satel- htesandotherweaponsthatmight some day alp enemy missiles with lasers or particle beams and the drama surrounding his unexpected an- CONTINUED NEXT PAGE DEFENSE Continued nouncemen were partly a ppatiew ploy to change the context of the debate over de- fense spending. But if his space-age plan proceeds, or even if the suggestion Of a shift in strategy is taken seriously, the implica- tions are staggering. Indeed, as Reagan said, "we are launching an effort which holds the promise of changing the course of human history." Not since 1972, when the antiballistic missile (ABM) treaty was signed as part of the SALT I accords, has the U.S. or U.S.S.R. actively taken steps to set up a defense against nuclear attack. Embarking on an effort to build shields rather than swords was a characteristic Reagan gesture-a clear and simple asser- tion from his gut challenging the accepted wisdom that defensive systems are "desta- bilizing." His notion that missiles could be knocked out in space had a wisthil though === that the na- earthly sac- rifice and bloodshed. As with many of the President's un- compliated-soumding Proposals, the idea of space-age missile defenses masks a swarm of complexities. It raises the specter of an arms race in space, which ultimately could be more expensive and dangerous than the one taking Place on earth. In a prompt and strong reaction, Soviet Leader Yuri Andropov personally warned: "Should this conception be converted into reality, this would actually open the flood- gates of a runpway race of all types of stra- tegic arms, both offensive and defensive." Even more ominous, the development of a missile defense system could undermine the very foundation of strategic stability, namely, the concept of mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), which has often been Oct, called the High Frontier, which was horded by the Heritage Foundation, a Washington think tank. It reported that technology currently exists to orbit more than 400 "killer sateftes" that could knock out Soviet missiles. Thee were oth- er Supporters of the ides, most notably Ed- ward Teller, the hawkish physicist known as "the father of the hydrogen bomb." Reagan first discussed the question of missile-killing technology with his science adviser, Physicist George Keyworth II, in a conversation two yeah ago. Keyworth, an admirer of Teller's who helped develop an earlier AM system, appointed a task fora that included Teller, Consultant Ed- ward Frieman and tamer Deputy Seee- tary of Defense David Packard. Early this year they informed Reagan that the Was seemed technically feasible, and it was bsoughtupataFeb. I I White Housemeet- iog with the Joint Chiefe of Staf Reagan said nothing for the next three weeks, than popped the Was at a morning briefing, He told National Security Adviser William Clark to have the Pentagon and State De- partment formally consider the project. The Arms Control and Disarmament Agency was left out of the consultation due to the turmoil there resulting from the still unsettled controversy over the nomination of Kenneth Adelman to head the agency. Reagan felt the need to include a posi- tive element in his speech last week to show that his Administration hada broad- er vision than simply confronting security problems with greenbacks. So he decided to announce his space-age plan with some public fanfare, rather than simply order that it be studied quietly.- Clark warned Reagan on the day of the speech that he could expect criticism, even from within House restricted discussions Ofthe ABU plan to top officials on what is called a "close field" basic Most cang essio al leaden were kept in the dark until the af- ternoon of the speech. So were most of those on the the political and policy atab in the West Wing. The Paragraphs in Rea. sin's speech on now defensive technol- ogies were drafted separately and then blended into the It by the President. The overriding factor in the timing and handling of the isute--one that discomfit- ed a few senior aides--seemed to be the de- sire for intensive political impact rather than a careful consideration of the subject. The most important ramifications that the Administration has yet to address fully may be geopolitical rather than techno- logical. What course will the Soviets take in response? Moscow, which has a lead in many applications of law technology, seems unlikely to refrain Mon exploiting it. if both nations fellow parallel roads into space, a now balance of &cea could emerge. The President hopes that an em- phasis on defensive weapons could be linked to a negotiated reduction in oba- sive missiles. But the Administration has of even begun to work out the possible contingencies involved in a Soviet-Amei- an military span race. Heather side nun the Point ofdepkrying an Amt system &st, the strategic situation could become dan- ge ously destabilized, especially if ofen- sive weapons have not yet been reduced. What has been dubbed at the white Hose the "star wan add- n" actually tended to obscure the real substance of Reagan'sspeech, which waspartof a series designed to rally support for his defense budge. In what staffers jokinpy all the "Darth Vader" speech, Reagan told evan- CONTINUEpDporNdEXT PAGE 'Respoaftwly aWiesd' as Hon pS aaPpteepaweAeeA fense inOgebr 1951: 'We wigspadbaaattcMissilede- ie. delwmt tr aaM defies. ass lend-basof eeao t.rndmism;uw'1awiadeWopleranaige, tr modified, but never abandoned. Under his Administration, for precipitately sus- this concept each side is deterred from us- gesting such a radical change in strategy. inn is weapons by the her of cataclysmic It won't be the first time," the President retaliation ear jblo,,4 story). replied. "It doesn't bother me." The recognition that defensive sys- n order io preserve an element of a"- The striae in its anno ncement, the. White could upset the nuclear balance was the propelling force behind the 1972 ARM treaty, the only arms-control pact that binds the two superpowers. It declares: "Each party undertakes not to develop, FOR YOUR test, or deploy ABM systemsorcomponents which are sea-based, air-based, space- EYES ONLY based, or mobile-land-based." The Ad- 4 /4 / 83 ministration says that merely undertaking research into such a project does not vio- late the treaty. Indeed, the Soviets have been spending perhaps as much as five times the U.S. amount on laser technol- ogies and weapons, although they appar- ently have not developed such devices for knocking out missiles. Over the past de- cade, the U.S. has tested lees against rel- atively slow-flying drones and antitank missiles. The results were mixed, but good enough to show the cone' 'v potential. Two retired military aBigence offi- cers, Air Force Major ..eneal George Keegan and Army haul. General Daniel Graham, have been leading advocates of space weaponry. Graham headed a proj- When President Reagan delivered his speech on 23 March calling for development of a system to defend the United States against nuclear missiles, he hastened to add that it would be a project lasting decades. Network commentators reinforced this point. The theory of a defense against nuclear missiles is exactly that, a theory. It is based an technology (lasers, particle beams, etc.) that hasn't been invented, let alone tested, developed, and pro- duced. A network of defensive satellites will cost $1 trillion and take 20 years to build. This, of course, is the message that has been echoed in the media for the last 2 weeks. There is at least one "think-tank," however, that claims this assessment of the potential for nuclear defense is wrong. The High Frontier Project Office, a branch of the conservative Heri- tage Foundation, has proposed a two-stage defensive system (known as "High Frontier") that can defend the United States with exist- ing technology. According to their analysis, which is heavily backed up with easily verified facts, the first stage of their system could be tested within 60 days and fully operational in 2-3 years. The second stage could be tested within 2 years and fully operational in 5. The total cost would be considerably less than $50 billion in then-year dollars, and all needed technology already exists, much of it literally sitting in warehouses. That's a strong statement, but retired Army Lt. Gen. Daniel 0. Graham, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency and now the director of High Frontier, claims he can prove it. gelical Chris s meeting in Or- lando, Fe-., in early March that the Soviet empire was "the focus of evil in the modern world." This Thurs- day, the President will outline the US. position on European-based missiles in an address in Los Ange- les and next week will make anoth- er speech on the need for the MX missile. In addition to presidential speeches, the Administration has been conducting classified brief ings for Congressmen in the White House theater on the Soviet mili- tary threat. Fven with this conceited nub istration will have series trouble salvaging what it considers to be an acceptable defense budget in Con- gress. House Democrats last week passed their own version of a bud- get for fiscal 1984, which begins in October. Depending on how infla- tion is calculated, the Democratic plan raises defense spending by about 2% to 4%, compared with the more than 10% after-inflation boast that Reagan wants. The Democratic leadership used various parliamentary ma- neuvers to ensure that the budget plan it had worked out would be considered as a whole; the only amendment they would permit was a substitute of Reagan's pro pond tax and spending package. But no Republican was willing to introduce the Reagan version of the budget on the floor for fear of being politically tainted by its large deficit ($188.8 billion) and whopping increases in defense. The G.O.P. members preferred in. stand to let the Democratic propcs- a1 which calls for tax hikes of $30 ?noted fighting vehicles vs. $4,000 Efor the U.S.S.R. He also displayed a graph of the unilateral increase in Soviet intermediate-range mis- siles aimed at Europe, noting the pledges made by Kremlin leaders at each point in their buildup. Crit- ics claimed he did not make clear how the comparisons compelled precisely the spending increase that Reagan proposed, rather than one twice as big or one half the size, since the President was essentially contending the military budget should have nothing to do with the nation's ability to afford the spending. The question of using spy- plane photographs to bolster Rea- gan'a charges of Soviet involve- mat in Latin America was debated within the intelligence community. Reagan felt that if the public could at what he sea, it would be more willing to rally around his policies. So, lea than two weeks after he signed an Exec- utive Order clamping down on leaks of classified material, he or- dered three reconnaissance-plane photographs declassified. He did, however, accede to intelligence agency arguments that the release of additional satellite photographs would reveal too much about US. techniques. Reagan's display of the photo- graphs was not done in a sensaa- tional manner, and the evidence revealed in two aces was hardly more than what tourists could have gathered on the ground. Co- mandante Tomas Borge, a leader in Nicaraga's Sandinista direc- torate, scoffed at the idea that the billion and deficits of $174.5 bil- Swutarba) d N w - - m V ml ssseratle raapwsaesonea ss Mi-8 Soviet helicopters Reagan lion, be the focus of debate. Reagan ..Most respectfully. Mr. President. Jva know that is nor roue." pointed out on an airfield at Maoa- persoally lobbied against the gua were threats to American so- at Mana- i ht f ili Th f budget alternative, mostly with Democrat- ic fieshmen. He told Ronald Coleman of Texas that the Democratic plan was "way out of line." Amoy Secretary John Marsh also called Coleman, subtly reminding the Congressman that Fort Bliss was in his dis- trict. Coleman stuck with his party. "Even though I'm a freshman, I think there's enough of us not to let anything happen to Fort Bliss," he said. The 26 seats won by the Democrats last fall tipped the balance: on what was close to a party-line vote, the Democrats budget paved, 229 to 196. The Democratic budget plan will not pan the Republican'controlled Senate, of course. But the President will have trouble prevailing there too. On defense spending, Republican leaders in the upper chamber are closer to the Democrats in the House than their leader in the White House. They have publicly urged that the growth in the Pentagon budget be cut to about 5%. The more pragmatic members of the Prad- dent's staff led by James Baker , are hoping for a compromise at about 7%. For them to persuade the President to come down to icult as getting Re- that level may be as dif publican Senators to come up to it. aderlyimg Reagan's speech last week was his unwavering conten- tion that questions about the prop- er level of military spending should be divorced from the nation's overall bud- getary and fiscal situation. The determin- ing factor, Reagan insisted, should be the level of threat posed by the Soviets. "Our defense establishment must be evaluated to see what is necessary to protect against any or all of the potential threats," he said. "The cost of achieving these ends is totaled up and the result is the budget for national defense." Reagan somberly detailed the over whelm ing nature of these threats as he sees them. Using red and blue charts marked with the Soviet sickle and the American fing (which inexplicably contained 56 stars), he compered the production of ar- maments since 1974: 3,050 tactical war- planes for the U.S. vs. 6,100 for the Soviets, 27 U.S. attack submarines vs. 61 Soviet ar s g s am ey are cavity. gua's airport. One was used to transport Pope John Paul II during his visit there in March. Borge told TIME: "You an see them without climbing into a satellite." The photographs did, however, illus- trate an important point that Reagan made: the Soviets are "spreading their mil- itary influence" to America's backyard, and doing so in a way that indicates that their aims are far from merely defensive. Pointing to a new 10,000-foot noway on the tiny Soviet-aligned Caribbean island of Grenada (pop. 110,000), Reagan noted: "Grenada doesn't even have an air force. Who is it intended fora? The Caribbean is a very important passageway for our inter- national commerce and military lines of communications. The rapid buildup of Grenada's military potential is unrelated to any conceivable threat to this island country." Two photographs of Cuba reveal a communications facility staffed by 1,500 Soviet technicians, which the President said is the largest of its kind in the world, and an airfield from which two modern So- CONTINUED NEXT PACE DEFENSE... Continued viet antisubmarine planes are operating. "During the past two years, the level of Soviet arms exports to Cuba can only be compared to the levels reached during the Cuban missile crisis 20 years ago," Reagan said.' Reagan's figures are technically accu- rate. and the Soviet buildup has indeed been formidable, but there is still ample room for dispute over what the numbers mean. Daniel Inouye, in the official Demo- cratic response. argued that it is wrong to think that the Soviets enjoy a strategic su- periority. as Reagan asserted. Said the Ha- waii Senator: "Reagan left the impression that the U.S. is at the mercy of the Soviet Union. Most respectfully, Mr. President. you know that is not true. You have failed to present an honest picture." Inouye said that Reagan failed to point out that the So- 'In 1979. President Canercited with alarm aerial ev- idence that a 2.000- to 3.000-man Soviet brigade was training and operating in Cuba. He publicly asked that the troops be withdrawn: they are still there, viet Union's advantage in land-based mis- siles is "more than offset" by American warheads on submarines and bombers; the total nuclear warhead arsenal of the U.S. is 9,268, compared with 7,339 for the Soylets. (These numbers, from a Democratic Party study, differ somewhat from the most re- cent Pentagon reports, which say the U.S. has about 9,000 warheads and the U.S.S.R. has about 8,500.) Some skeptics charged that the speech was part of an increasing Pentagon propensity toward "threat inflation." Explained Con- gressman Les Aspin of Wisconsin: "We are seeing a more exaggerated and disingenu- ous presentation of the Soviet threat than we have seen in the past." Assn example of how this works, critics point to Defense Department hype two years ago for the new Soviet T-80 tank. It was depicted in briefings and a Pentagon publication as fast, heavily armored and bristling with grenade and missile launchers. That was when the Administration was anxious to secure funding for America's new MI tank. A recent photograph released by the Pentagon in its latest assessment of Soviet strength shows that the T-80 is actually only a slight modification of its predeces- sor, the T-72, with similar shape, armor and capability. Reactions to Reagan's defense of his military spending plans were dwarfed by the debate over his vision of sateWte mis- sile killers. "To inject and hurl out this new idea while the whole world is waiting for the U.S. to come up with a reasonable arms control proposal I find bizarre," said Dem- ocratic Senator Christopher Dodd of Con- necticut. "Can you imagine the reaction here and abroad if Yuri Andropov had made this speech?" Others were appalled at the enormous potential costs of a space race. Said Republican Senator Mark Hat- field of Oregon: "It is a call to siphon off the meager and inadequate commitment CONTINUED NEXT PAGE The Old Lion Still Roars "The President's statement bears some analogy with Pres- ident Roosevelt's interest in Einstein's letter about the atomic bomb. In historic importance, the two are comparable." That may sound like an extravagant appraisal of President Reagan's proposal to develop a defense against nuclear missiles. But it comes from the only man who had a hand in both those decisions, 44 years apart. As a young refugee from Hungary, Edward Teller was part of the group of physicists who persuaded Albert Einstein to draft his famous 1939 letter advising F.D.R. that a nuclear bomb could be designed. Teller went on to help develop it and. in the 1950s, win universal rec- ognition as the "father of the hydrogen bomb." Now, gray and limping at 75 but booming out sharply worded opinions in a voice as powerful and confi- dent as ever, Teller is one of the advisers who convinced Rea- gan that a missile-killing sys- tem based on laser- and parti- ._._-_~_ _.__- vc is indirect. A senior research awe at home, without allies. I don't believe fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, he that the United States can maintain its happy position in serves the Government only as a member of the Air Force the world-I don't even think we can survive-without scientific advisory board. But the highly hawkish views that high technology." have made him a suspect figure to many fellow scientists - On the balance of nuclear power: "If we have a defensive win him respect from the Reagan White House, where he is advantage, the Soviets can be very sure that this is no teal an honored guest. He was among the 13 scientists who dined danger to them. They know we are not going to use it; we are at the mansion last week. More to the point, Reagan's sci- not going to start a nuclear war. But if the Soviets should ence adviser, George Keyworth, 31 years younger than Tell- have a defensive advantage, that would be dangerous." er, has long admired the old lion and included him in a - On the interim period: "We need a good defense, and a group of outside scientists who reviewed antimissile technol- good defense of necessity is preceded by a marginal defense ogies for the President last summer and fornd them promis- and later by a better defense. We will be able to defend our- ing. Says Teller about "my President": "He has endorsed selves if we stand behind the President." con cts we ou high technology as a means by which a more stable world can be created. Such confidence in imaginative approaches ... is remarkable news." Reagan did not need to consult Teller personally or even through Keyworth; he could have learned the aged physi- cist's views by picking up a newspaper or magazine. Teller has been arguing for an antiballistic-missile system since the mid-1960s. He fell silent after the signing of the treaty ban- ning such systems in 1972, a grievous mistake, in his opinion, but has taken up the cudgels again in a spate of articles dur- ions, as summarized for TIME Correspondent Dick Thomp- son last week, dismiss contrary opinion as vigorously as ever. - On how long it would take to develop a working antimissile system: "Fission was discovered late in 1938, and the first atomic bomb exploded in the summer of 1945. To my mind, our job today is comparable; perhaps more difficult, per- haps more easy. I tend to be an optimist." - On the necessity for it: "We need to be in a situation where we are not subject to nuclear blackmail, where no matter how other fli come t DEFENSE... Continued which now exists to rebuild America." A few Senators, including Republicans Pete Domenici of New Mexico and Malcolm Wallop of Wyoming, have long been urg- ing such a project. The reaction from most others was guarded curiosity. "It's worth putting out and debating," said Senator William Cohen, a Republican from Maine. The White House reported an out- pouring of supportive calls and telegrams after the speech (90%outof 2,800in favor). Said Senior Adviser Michael Deaver: "He has had the most favorable response to any speech since he was elected President." But editorial reaction from around the country was more skeptical. The Atlanta Constitution, which labeled Reagan's characterization of the Soviet threat as "huckstering misimpression," said that by "raising the remote possibility of a sci-fi defense against Soviet missiles, he risked destabilizing the U.S.-Soviet mili- tary balance-already dangerously tenuous." The Chicago Sun 7Ymes called the speech "an appalling dis- service." Said the Detroit Free Press: "Reagan's vision of a 21st century in which the U.S. will be hermetically sealed against all nuclear attack pro- vides no answer to the problem of how our national security is to best be addressed now and in the next couple of decades." There was some feeling, howev- er, that Reagan's challenge to a sys- tem of deterrence that is based on the threat of mutual destruction could be a welcome element in the debate over nuclear policy. "Reagan now suggests that we slowly start in- vestigating whether in the next cen- tury technology may offer a solution to our security that does not rest on "It is the product of Ronald Reagan's pe- culiar knack for asking an obvious ques- tion, one that has moral as well as political dimensions and one that the experts had assumed had been answered, or found un- answerable, or found not worth asking, long ago." Moscow's response was far less gener- ous. For the second time since coming to power, Andropov chose to respond person- ally to a U.S. initiative through an inter- view with Pravda. He began by conceding that part of what Reagan said was correct: "Trine, the Soviet Union did strengthen its defense capability. Faced with feverish U.S. efforts to establish military bases near Soviet territory, to develop ever new types of nuclear and other weapons, the US.S.R. was compelled to do so." But then he struck back, saying of his American counterpart: "He tells a deliberate lie asserting that the Soviet Union does not observe its own mor- atoritun on the deployment of medium- range missiles [in Europe]." When he ad- dressed Reagan's idea of space-age defensive ABMs, Andropov became heat- ed. "It is a bid to disarm the Soviet Union in the face of the U.S. nuclear threat," he said. The relation between offensive and defen- sive weapons cannot be severed, he argued. "It is time Washington stopped devising one option after another in search of the best ways of unleashing nuclear war in the hope of winning it. Engaging in this is not just irresponsible, it is insane." Reagan invited a group of 52 scien- tists and national security experts to the White House Wednesday night to view his speech and be briefed by top officials. Some of those who attended, such as Teller and David Pack- ard, a co-founder of the Hewlett-Packard Co., were longtime advocates of ABM re- the prospect of mass and mutual ryrand-sspsdradar station that would have guided Altos death," noted the Washington Port. Strategic stability now depends on mutual vulnerability. has moved ahead to the point where we could design a ballistic missile defense system which could be fully effective. If both sides had a defen- sive system, it would be stabilizing." But other scientists who were at the White House briefing, including Victor Weisskopf of M.I.T., Hans Bathe of Cornell and Simon Ramo of TRW Inc., are troubled by the plan. "I don't think it can be done," says Bathe, a Nobel laureate in physics. "What is worse, it will produce altar war if successful." Ramo, one of the developers of the ballistic missile, likesthe idea in theory but says, "We don't know how to do it." He also worries about the awesome offen- sive power that would be inherent in what are conceived of as defensive weapons. Asks Baron: "Who says that this technique will be used only to knock out missiles in the sky? H CONTINUED NEXT PAGE Aaddphataraph dadaalnwbyRaagat s .1,,, SMabpartbabiboltYa n si Vap. 110,000) Serfs - t stay MS. Ca6MagadS, S MMm we trams do read Said S. Prssidsah "tr.. ada dsMt avahm f ah fees WM Is R bdsadsd tsr?" it's such a good technique, why not use it to knock out things on the ground?" Scientists also believe that any satellite antimissile system could lead to more em- phasis on low-flying missiles, like the cruise, that would not be vulnerable to space defenses. The satellites could also be vulnerable. "Many potential counters, such as decoys or space mines, have the power to neutralize space-based systems," says Stanford University Physicist and Arms Control Expert Sidney Drell. His colleague Arthur Schawlow, who won the Nobel Prize for his work on developing the laser, agrees: "A laser battle station out in space would be a sitting duck." T he fact that new weapons could probably evade or destroy satellite defense systems makes the tech- nology Reagan envisions incalcu- lably expensive. "The offense can add di- mensions to thwart or neutralize the defense for far less money than the cat of defensive systems," says Ramo. "Hence it's economically unsound." Jeremy Stone, director of the Federation of American Scientists, agrees. "The cost is unlimited," he says, "because what we try to do in defending the country, the Russians will attempt to negate by penetrating the system." Even if such a system could survive, points out another tanford physicist, Wolfgang Panofsky, ilia "infeasible" to de- sign a defense that will intercept all mis- siles. "It is possible todevelopa system that can shoot down one missile, but that is a long cry from developing a system that does not leak," he says. Such shortcomings in a nuclear defense system clearly would be disastrous. Even if a system were 90% effective, the leakage of just a fraction of Moscow's 8,500 or so warheads could be devastating. Says Kate Tsipis, co-director of a program in science and technology at M.I.T.: "The critical failure of all these defensive systems is that they must be perfect Lea than that and they are ruinous. What the President is offering is a cruel hoax." Carl Sagan, the Cornell University as- tronomer and author, and Richard Gar- win, a military expert at IBM's Watson Re- search Center, have prepared a petition of leading scientists opposing space weapon- ry. Sagan, who listened to Reagan's speech from a Syracuse hospital where he was re- covering from an appendectomy, was so agitated that he pressed to have the mani- festo completed for release this week. It concludes: "If space wee ponsare ever to be banned, this may be close to the last mo- ment in which it can be done." West European political leaden and defense experts were taken aback by Ra- gan's out-of-the-blue suggestion that the entire deterrent doctrine be reassessed. One main worry: such a strategic shift might "de-couple" America's defense of it- self from that of its NATO -flies "I fear this will be an issue that could become ex- tremely divisive between the Europeans and the U.S. because it is tending toward Fortress America," said British Colonel Jonathan Alford of the International Insti- tute for Strategic Studies in Landon. "The proposal intends to put a bubble over the U.S, and that would be followed by a bub- ble over the Soviet Union. If we can't threaten to strike the Soviet Union, we Eu- ropeans are going to be out in the cold." While the London Standard headlined its worry over REAOAN'S RAY-GUNS, the 7Jmes engaged in soberer hyperbole, call- ing the initiative "one of the most Ilmda- mental switches in American policy since the second World War." In Bonn, the disarmament spokesman in the opposition Social Democratic Party, Egon Bahr, said Reagan "has broken a tit- boo, and the new perspective could be fruitluL" But Manfred Wmner, Defense Minister in the conservative government, ailed the plan "a program for the next century, not oneto tackle the defense prob- tems of tomorrow." For Western Europe, visions of 21st century satellite weapons could scarcely divert attention from an immediate de- CONTINUED NEXT PAGE Continued tense concern, the 572 American Pershing II and cruise missiles that NATO Plans to begin deploying this year if no agreement is reached with the Soviets on Intermedi- ate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF). For this reason, allied officials are less interested in the speech Reagan gave last week than in the one he is scheduled to deliver Thursday in Los Angeles spelling out the U.S. INF ne- gotiating stance. So far the U.S. has stood pat on Rea- gan's taro option, which proposes that NATO forgo its planned deployment if the Soviets dismantle the 613 intermediate- range missiles they now have in place. NATO defense ministers meeting in Portu- gal were successfully persuaded by De- fense Secretary Caspar Weinberger last week to reaffirm support for deployment of NATO's missiles if there is no agreement at the INF negotiations in Geneva. But de- spite this declaration, West European leaden remain hopeful that the U.S. will adopt a more flexible approach. In this week's speech, Reagan is expected to indi- cate that the U.S. will consider accepting an interim U.S.-Soviet balance of, perhaps, 300 warheads for each side as a step toward the eventual elimination of Euromissiles. Offering such a compromise would help blunt the intense opposition among many citizens in Western Europe to new missiles. In addition, a good-faith bargaining ges- ture could neutralize one of Reagan 's se- verest political problems both at home and abroad, the perception that he is not really sincere in seeking arms control. R esgan's final speech in his current defense crusade is expected to of- fer a recommendation concerning the much disputed MX missile. A presidential panel has been studying ways to deploy the new ICBMS, which remain homeless after three years of basing pro- posals ranging from race tracks to dense packs. The panel is expected to suggest that a limited number of the mammoth missiles be built and placed in existing silos used by Minuteman ICBMs. The panel is also considering calling for a new, smaller missile, dubbed Midgetman, that could be made mobile and thus less vulnerable to an enemy strike. With so many crucial defense deci- sions looming in the coming months, it was distressing that Reagan chose this particu- lar moment to introduce his star wars vi- sion of missile defense forces. The issue of altering fundamental nuclear strategies is far too important to be tossed about either for temporary political impact, or in the name of getting the levels ofdeferse spend- ing that he feels-rightly or wrongly-the nation so urgently needs. Shifting to a sys- tem of satellite defenses would require years of careful planning and sincere nego- tiations with the Soviets, for the idea can never work as a unilateral pursuit or as merely a hostile escalation of the arms race. -By Waft.,Mnce*% geysttsd by tarssca L gnrta mid Detain `sue/ MM 1--, The Presidency/Hugh Sidey Turning Vision into Reality Tbe mat question a one of commit- meet whether Ronald Reagan un- daWnds what it takes to nudge a doubting, cash-abort nation into serious rooodrration of his star wan defense concept. One thing is certain: it will take . mesa than a few speeches John Kennedy had a bit of the same problem when he decided it was time to send Americans to the moon. Not every- one was eag r to spend $40 billion on a ten-year dream, especially with so many poor and hungry people needing help on earth. There was even fear within Ken- nedy's White House (as in Reagan's) that J.F.K. was acting before thinking. Critics noted then that the Soviets had a head start Kennedy never yielded. Growing weary with the naysayers, he scolded his space experts: "If somebody can just tell me how to catch up... I don't care if it's the janitor over then, if he knows how." Kennedy prodded, pleaded and threat- LFJLwhaamodrsSofahsrmadW erred, and managed to launch the Apollo program. The next question for Reagan is where to turn for the kind of dedicated and selfless work that Franklin Roosevelt won from Government agencies, the mili- tary, university scientists and private business to develop the atomic bomb. Res- gan does not have the same emergency authority, nor is there the urgency of war- time. The President's proposal appeals to the heart: he is calling for a defense system that renders' strategic missiles ineffective. It also appeals to common sense: his plan seems to open up pleasing vistas for arms reduction. But layman's logic often conflicts with the accepted wisdom of experts, whose chorus we now hear. In developing nuclear weapons, Roosevelt moved in secret, sidestepping doubters. (His own naval aide, Admiral William Leahy, said FD.R.'s project was "the biggest fool thing we've ever done. The atomic bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert on explosions.") Reagan must confront arms control experts and political opponents in public. Another question for Reagan is whether the defensive devices he envisions have a reasonable chance of working. Enough scientists accept the theory to make it worth purnting. Besides, visions of this scope are not necessarily the province of the technical experts After World War II, one of America's top sci- entists, Vannevar Bush, delivered this wisdom for the ages: "Then need be little fear of an intercontinental missile in the feat of a pilotless aircraft." And many of the instant critics of Reagan's idea, like former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, were not all that prescient when conducting the public's business. A determined, skilled President who captures a nation's imagination, energy and know-how can work miracles. Abraham Lincoln understood the enormous strength of American industry even while the country was being torn apart by the Civil War. He unleashed that force to build a railroad to the Pacific. Eighteen hundred miles of track were flung across prairies and mountains to four years. Theodore Roosevelt bragged, as if he had created the Pansma Canal with his bare hands, "I took the Canal Zone, and let Congress debate." Teddy's battering- ram shoulder did wonders, but private concerns had already made attempts to cut through the isthmus, even in failure showing it could be done. T.R. knew the time was ripe. soil conservation was a science long before Franklin Roosevelt lifted it to the top of the national agenda and we began to heel the washed and windblown land. Ike grasped the importance of a huge interstate highway sys- tem. His endorsement helped push 23,300 miles of superhighways action; the country in a decade. Once challenged, and once convinced, this nation has been able to do jug about anything it has wanted to do. It may decide, after further consideration, that Ronald Reagan has come up with a bum ides But it should not rebuff his vision out of timidity. High Tech on the High Frontier Scientists explore killer lasers andparticle-beam weapons N Imagine a nuclear-tipped harder to create. Unlike the massless ph,_ missile rising from a silo tons that make up light beams, charged deep inside the Soviet Particles (those parts of the atom that car- Union, fixed on a target in ry an electronic charge; electrons most the U.S. Almost immedi- likely would be used in a missile-iillin g ately its fiery exhaust plumes trip warning bum) have weight. But, as in the beams sensors in satellites orbiting overhead. used in atom smashers, they could be "en- One of these satellites sends a powerfiil ergized" in strong magnetic fields to w beam of light, or perhaps even a cascade kicities approaching the speed of light. of subatomic particles, bursting down because beam weapons are largely from the heavens like a Jovian lightning unaffected by the tug of gravity, they bolt. The beam homes in on the ascending could be aimed straighter than the pro- missile And fastens onto its nose cone. verbial arrow. In space, laser beams B urning through, the beam turns the elec- tronic guidance system into silicon mush, sending the missile wobbling off course and totally immobilizing its nuclear war- head. As it plunges back into the atmo- sphere, no longer protected by the now cone, most of the missile incinerates in the sialing heat of re-entry. Only a few harm- less fragments reach the ground. The Soviets fire off other missiles . But again and again, the killer beam appears almost miraculously out of the skies, de- stroying one rocket after another. The Kremlin is so frustrated that it calls off its multimegaton attack. When President Reagan last week urged U.S. scientists to develop new high- tech defensive weaponry , this scenario was the sort of thing that he had in mind. It is called directed-energy weaponry and has two main forms: high-energy la- sers (Ha) and charged-particle beams (CPB). In the current fiscal year, the Pen- Won is spending $1 billion to tot the fea- sibility of these weapons schemes. By all indications, the Soviets are spending even more, perhaps three to five times as much. What makes these weapons so attrac- tive to strategic planneis, at last in the- ory, is that their "bullets" travel many times faster than even the highest-veloci- ty conventional rockets. In the case of la- sers, which send off beams of highly con- contrated light of a single frequency (or the speed is that of light itself, about 186,000 miles per second. That means the beam arrives at its target liter- ally in a flash. If a missile were traveling at, ay, six times the speed of sound (4,400 m.p.h. at sea level), it would have moved only nine feet before a laser beam arrived from 1,000 miles away. High-velocity beams of charged particles would be small mirrors left behind by the Apollo astronauts on the moon. (At lower alti- tudes, laser beams, like pay light, are readily diffroed by clouds and even fog.) Charged particles, on the other hand, would be influenced by the effects of the earth's magnetic field. But researchers are working on machines that shoot particles with no electrical charge, like simple hy- drogen atoms, whose trajectory would be unaffected by magnetism. Such "high frontier" weaponry, as its proponents like to call it, faces enormous technological obstacles. "The theoretical physics for all this is pretty sparse," con- cedes Robert McCrory, director of the Laboratory for Laser Energetics at the University of Rochester. Victor Weiss- kopf, professor emeritus at M.I.T., judges that it is a pipe dream. A laser or particle beam must dwell on its speeding target for more than an in- stant before it can destroy it. Only a slight wavering in the beam will spread the en- ergy sufficiently over the target so as to blunt the destructive impact. Hence, the beam must be aimed over thousands of miles with truly pinpoint accuracy. That may eventually be possible, thanks to high-speed computers and the spotting ability of new infrared (or heat) detectors. But to date, lasers have been consistently effective only on relatively slow-moving targets. For example, a laser was turned successfully on wire-guided antitank mis- siles, traveling at a relatively poky 500 m.p.h., as part of an experiment near San Juan Capistrano, Calif, a few years ago. Another important obstacle is the rel- atively large power plant needed to gener- ate laser beams. The San Juan Capistrano beam packed only 300 watts, hardly more powerful than a household appliance, yet it required a station as big as several freight can. Even the space shuttle's large payload bay could not heft such a package into orbit. N o doubt lasers are becoming smaller and more efficient. U.S. Air Force re- searchers have carried a five-megawatt laser system aboard an aircraft and fired beams at air-to-air missiles speeding across the skies at several thousand m.p.h. Only a few of the targets, however, were downed. On the eve of the President's speech, Air Force officials told a House subcommittee about an unspecified "ma- jor breakthrough" in lawn of short wave lengths, Possibly high-energy X rays or gamma rays. Even ifa laser weapon could be parked in space, it would not necessarily be an in- vulnerable Battlestar U.S.A. It would be susceptible to attack from even primitive antisatellite weaponry: at orbital speeds (17,000 m.p.h.), it could be demolished in a collision with an object only a friction of its weight. The debris and electromag- netic: storm from the detonation of a small nuclear weapon also could do the trick. But even if laser and particle-beam weapons are distant long shots, they bear further examination. "If the potential is there' McCrory ays, "we must in our own interests pursue it, if only to find out what our adversaries may be doing" -enaars&eshim s4raresd by Amy I eadMONesasw sad Sp rm sbssstllanv Yak Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/08/09 : CIA-RDP90-00552R000505400047-8 NEW YORK TIMES 27 March 1983 Nuclear Facts, Science Fictions President Reagan's desire for a missile-proof shield around America and Its allies expresses the deepest longing of the nuclear age - for a place to hide. But it remains a pipe dream, a projection of fantasy into policy. A space-age shield, if stretched from the Sea of Japan to the Berlin Wall and made almost foolproof, might indeed relieve Americans of a cosmic burden and allow them to stop relying on the doomsday ma- chine for defense. And if, at that point, technology could be frozen, to prevent a quest for weapons that could penetrate the shield, the world of the 21st cen- tury might indeed find a way to end the terrifying arms race of the 2ow. "What if," the President dared to wander: What it we retrieved the old invulnerability and could live securely without having to threaten barbaric retali. ation? What if this "formidable technical task" could be accomplished in a few decades? What if we poured in "every investment necessary to free the world from the threat of nuclear war"? Presidents have a duty to ask such questions. What they should not do, without a firmer scientific basis and political examination, is what Mr. Reagan has now done: proclaim a farfetched quest to be the settled, high-priority intention of the United States. Mr Reagan did not merely urge science on, to see whe: a it might lead; he prejudged the merits of a histonc shift in the nuclear arms race, from offen. sive to defensive weapons. He did not raise the idea merely to warn the Soviets about the costly new competi Lions their vigorous missile programs might invite; he challenged them to this Star Wars compe. tition even if in the meantime they accept his proposals for deep cuts in weaponry. Decades before anyone can know whether a missile-killing defense is doable, the President casually pronounces it highly desirable. Perhaps Mr. Reagan has some secret knowl- edge about the high-energy lasers, charged particle beams and microwave devices with whichdreamers hope one day to attack onrushing missiles. Even if the physics are theoretically sound, that's a far cry from a workable system, managed from scores of vulnerable satellites. Anything lees than a foolproof system would be worse than useless; nuclear weep. os are so destructive that keeping out all but a few dozen cannot sanely be deemed tolerable. It is this disparity between any nuclear offense and defense that leaves most scientists skeptical about Mr. Reagan's dream. They thin[ the offense will always have the edge. But even if a foolproof defense were someday possible, it would not automatically be desirable. Until completely built, it would have to coexist with powerful offensive weapons; and as someone alertly wrote into the President's speech, a defense paired with offensive weapons "can be viewed as fostering an aggressive policy and no one wants that." The long interim years of defense deployments would be dangerously unstable, and put a premium on harassments, feigned attacks to probe for weak spots and costly countermeasures. That is why EDITORIALS. Leave `Star Wars' to moviemakers j TSING LASER BEAMS and electronic ray guns to U destroy an enemy is fascinating stuff-if you're a science fiction fan. But its something else again when the President of the United States embraces such `Star Wars" technology as the final solution to the Soviet nuclear threat and calls for a program to produce such a shield'by the end of the century. It may be that American scientists can do the job, if they are given the tons of money that will be required The Defense Department is already spending about $1 billion a year on anti-ballistic missile-ABM-technology, but that's only for research. No one can even hazard a guess on how much a functioning system would cost, but all agree the figure would be astronomical. The real trouble, as we see it, is that such a system would not produce the result President Reagan envisioned in his "Star Wars" speech last week. As things stand now, or so the theory goes, the United States and the Soviet Union are involved in a nuclear standoff. Each possesses so much clout that neither would dare launch an attack for fear of instant retaliation. But fingers on nuclear buttons can become itchy. In that sense, development of a U.S. ABM system could be extremely destabilizing. A Soviet leadership believing that such an ABM was going into place might very well decide to go for broke before its missiles would be rendered impotent. And let's not forget that the Russians have at least matched-and bettered, in some cases-every U.S. advance in nuclear technology, from ICBMs to multiple warheads to missile-equipped submarines. There is no guarantee that they will not be the first to develop an ABM system and that even if they don't get there first, they may be able to develop an anti-anti-ballistic missile. That could set the stage for a real-life Star Wars battle in space in which the whole world would be the loser. In putting forth his ABM ideas, President Reagan glibly brushed over what he called "certain problems and ambi- guities," including the fact that the U.S. and the Soviet Union are bound by a treaty restricting ABM systems. He is now treading on extremely treacherous ground by proposing to let yet another genie escape from the bottle. President Nixon persuaded the Russians to ban anti- missile missiles a decade ago, permitting only the research that Mr. Reagan wants greatly expanded. If either side were making progress in that re- search, a prudent response would be calm assess- ment of the obvious risks and benefits of a radical shift in strategy away from deterrence. On reflex tion, other Administration officials seem now to be saying that is all the President really meant to do. But more reassurance will be needed, to dis- courage a panicky reaction in Soviet laboratories and to.reassure allies who already suspect that an America vulnerable to nuclear attack will never risk all in their defense. The threat of devastating retali- ation is an awesome cloud over all diplomacy. But as the President also observed, it has worked to pre- vent nuclear war for four decades. Mankind yearns for a better idea, but there's no statesmanship in sci- ence fiction. EDITORIALS Good as fool's gold W HAT'S good for the Pentagon is gold for Silicon Valley, the local wisdom goes. President Reagan's dream of developing weapons to shoot down Soviet mis- siles could cost $100 billion. If Congress approves the highly controversial project, much of the research in laser, microwave and radar technology will be done by local defense contractors. Bad for nuclear deterrence, bad for the federal budget, but a boon for the local econ- omy, right? Yes, yes and no. If a nuclear defense system were safe, practical and affordable, it still wouldn't be good for Silicon Valley. In the short run, some defense contrac- tors would prosper, in the long run, opr high- tech economy is healthier without the divert- ing glitter of military money. Offering defense contracts to local electron- ics firms has been like pushing drugs in a schoolyard. During the Vietnam War, half of local companies were high on defense con- tracts; now about 30 percent are still hooked on Pentagon cash. There's an undeniable thrill when those DoD dollars flow in, for the companies that get the contracts, but defense dependence isn't healthy in the long run. When the rush fades, many defense contractors find that profits are low, paper work is high and success depends on connections rather than competence. Engineers become highly specialized in skills that often have no commercial applica- tions; when the military contract runs out, they're out of luck. If the companies and the workers didn't have anything better to do, that might not be a major drawback. But the managerial and technological expertise that's devoted to mis- sile guidance systems isn't available for prof- itable, productive work in civilian industry. The more energy and engineers the United States pours into the endless arms race, the less goes into the race for high-tech markets, While consumer electronics companies compete for scarce technological talent, 30 percent of American scientists and engineers work in the military/industrial complex. (If it weren't for foreign nationals, who aren't eligi- ble for defense work, Silicon Valley would starve for engineers.) While entrepreneurs compete for scarce capital, 46 cents out of every $1 available for capital formation goes to defense. While the Japanese invest heavily in electronics and robotics technology, more than half of federal research and development funds go into military-related research. Some defense research has commercial applications, but much of the time, talent and resources devoted to weapons work is wasted in economic terms. Its only justification is national security. Reagan's search for an anti-missile missile system will endanger our security, not enhance it, by fueling the arms race and destabilizing the system of deterrence. And it will drain the brainpower of Silicon Valley, sapping our commercial vitality for military moonshine. The president paints a pretty rainbow, but it ends in fool's gold.