PRESIDENT'S SPEECH ON MILITARY SPENDING AND A NEW DEFENSE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90-00552R000505400047-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 113
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 9, 2010
• Sequence Number: 47
• Publication Date: March 24, 1983
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

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 P.dds 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 ...to
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 Ruinaa.an 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 ABM.systems 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. r.aia.ee 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-
._._-_~_ _.__- v-.ae 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.