LETTER TO ROBERT M. GATES FROM JIM COURTER

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90M00004R000300090020-4
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 16, 2011
• Sequence Number: 20
• Publication Date: March 27, 1987
• Content Type: LETTER

JIMCCOURTER
NEW JERSEY
March 27, 1987
Honorable Robert M. Gates
Deputy Director
Central Intelligence Agency
Washington, D. C. 20505
87-1307x
I thought you would like to see the enclosed essay from The
Boston Herald, in the last paragraph of which I cite your recent
speech on the Soviet SDI program.
I still think that your speech to the Northern California
World Affairs Council was one of the most valuable contributions
to the cause of strategic defenses ever made by a U.S. government
official. It is my considered opinion that we must continue to
call attention to Soviet activities in the strategic defense
area. The recent edition of Soviet Military Power was somewhat
disappointing in this regard, as it contained little new
information on the Soviet SDI program. I understand the
constraints under which you operate in this area, but it would be
very helpful if you could do your utmost to release additional
examples of Soviet SDI activity.
Once again, I hope you enjoy the essay. Please let me know
when we could get together and discuss the many issues in which
we both have an interest. I will look forward to hearing from
you.
Sincerely,
A/Vr-
JIM (CURTER
Memde of Congress
JC/jr
Enclosure
%ouue of 11tprtztntatiuro
Convtsz of the `United ~$tateo ON AGING
Approved For Release 2011/08/17: CIA-RDP90M00004R000300090020-4
COMMRTf&
ARMED SERVICES
SELECT COMMITTEE
2422 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING ? WASHINGTON, DC 20515 ? [phone]
Approved For Release 2011/08/17: CIA-RDP90M00004R000300090020-4
 Approved For Release 2011/08/17: CIA-RDP90M00004R000300090020-4
The Boston Herald, Thursday. March 26, 1987
Here comes Soviet 'Star Wars'
REP. JIM COURTER
HERE are three "Trivial
Pursuit" questions for in-
quisitive Bostonians:
Which country. the United
States or the Soviet Union, had
the first "Star Wars." or Strate-
gic Defense Initiative (SDI)
Program? Which country has
spent $130 billion on strategic
defense in the last ten years?
Which country has the only de-
ployed strategic defense sys-
tem? The answer to all three
questions: The Soviet Union.
If you answered "The United
States," you are to be excused.
Since President Reagan an-
nounced the Strategic Defense
Initiative program almost ex-
actly four years ago, the pro-
gram's critics have promoted
the erroneous impression that
only the United States was pur-
suing defenses against ballistic
missiles. For its part, the Rea-
gan Administration has not
done enough to expose the So-
viet strategic defense program
to public scrutiny.
The fact is that the Soviet
Union has had its own "Star
Wars" program since the early
1950s. predating even the intro-
duction of U.S. ballistic missiles
capable of striking the Soviet
Union.
After more than 30 years of
effort, the Soviet Union now has
the world's only operational
strategic defense system, de-
ployed around the Soviet capi-
tal city of Moscow.
In addition to the Moscow
ABM system, there are thou-
sands of very fast interceptor
missiles deployed elsewhere
around the Soviet Union, which
reportedly have some capabil-
ity to intercept U.S. ballistic
missile warheads. The Defense
Department estimates that
there are also 10,000 Soviet
scientists and technicians work-
ing on high-technology strate-
gic defense systems involving
lasers, particle beams and
microwaves.
After a careful evaluation of
these activities, the Reagan Ad-
ministration reported to the
Congress on March 10. 1987,
"that the Soviet Union may be
preparing an ABM defense of
its national territory," in viola-
tion of the 1972 ABM Treaty.
But is the Soviet SDI system
a perfect, impenetrable leak-
proof "astrodome" against U.S.
ballistic missiles? No, it is not.
There have never been, nor will
there ever be, any "perfect" of-
fensive or defensive weapons
systems.
The Soviets know this, yet
according to the Defense De-
partment, over the past ten
years they have spent an esti-
mated $150 billion on their SDI
program, or more than ten
times the amount the United
States spent on similar technol-
ogies., Why?
Soviet war plans envision
the use of a strategic "sword"
and "shield" to achieve military
objectives. The "sword" is the
1400 land-based ballistic mis-
siles and the "shield" is the So-
viet SDI system. It is estimated
that a Soviet missile attack on
the U.S. missile force could des-
troy 90;;- of our 1000 land-based
missiles. The U.S. would natu-
rally retaliate against such an
attack with all our remaining
weapons, but this dramatically
smaller, uncoordinated retalia-
tory attack could be effectively
'There are
10,000 Soviet
scientists
working on
strategic defense'
systems. 9
blunted by the partially effec-
tive Soviet SDI system. Thus
the Soviet leadership could ra-
tionally threaten, without ac-
tually carrying out, a nuclear
missile attack on the United
States.
The total absence of strate-
gic defenses also leaves us vul-
nerable to accidental or unau-
thorized ballistic missile attack.
Consider this scenario: The
Pave Paws radar at Otis Air
Force Base on the Cape detects
a submarine-launched ballistic
missile heading for Boston. Its
estimated flight time Is just a
few minutes. We assume that
the missile was launched by a
Soviet submarine, but we also
know that the Chinese have bal-
listic missile submarines. The
President has no alternative to
letting the missile detonate
over Boston and then contem-
plating retaliation against the
Soviet Union with our missiles.
Millions of innocent Americans
and Russians would die as a re-
sult.
But even if we all agree that
some initial strategic defenses
for the U.S. would be a good
idea, wouldn't it take at least
until the mid-1990s to deploy
some SDI systems? Not neces-
sarily. If the right decisions
were made and funding provid-
ed in 1987, the U.S. could begin
deployment of a partial strate-
gic defense system in 1993. As
the technology advances, more
effective strategic defense sys-
tems could be added to the ini-
tial system.
This is known as "pre-
planned product improvement."
and it is the same approach we
use for many other weapons
systems. It is, by the way. the
same approach that the Soviet
Union has used in Its strategic
defense program.
But in spite of the vigorous
Soviet strategic defense pro-
gram. Soviet spokesmen con-
tinue to attack our SDI program
in the harshest possible lan-
guage. Soviet leader Mikhail
Gorbachev recently denounced
the SDI program as a "vora-
cious monster" derived from a
"fundamentally inhumane"
concept. But what could be
more humane than President
Reagan's goal of saving lives
with SDI rather than avenging
them with nuclear weapons?
Soviet opposition to the U-S.
SDI program was best ex-
plained by Deputy CIA Director
Robert Gates in a recent
speech. "There is one person in
the world who believes nearly
as strongly as Ronald Reagan
that SDI will work and that
America can build it if it de-
cides to do so," Gates said. "And
that person is Mikhail Gorba-
chev." Isn't this reason enough
to start defending America a-
gainst nuclear missile attack,
the sooner the better?
U.S. Rep. Jim Courter, R-N.J., is
a member of the House Armed
Scrriccs Commitfcc and a lead-
ing crpcri on the Strategic De-
fense Initiative (SDI).
Approved For Release 2011/08/17: CIA-RDP90M00004R000300090020-4