DEATH RAY WEAPONS BID TO OUTFLANK SALT ARMS EFFORTS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP88-01315R000400380044-2
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 8, 2004
• Sequence Number: 44
• Publication Date: May 20, 1979
• Content Type: NSPR

ARTICLE' Apps RFB Approved For ReleaWd@MAIOTMA-RbP88-01315
ON PAGE_A__--f..-_L, 20 MAY 1979
By Henry S. Bradsher
Washington Star Staff Writer
fu
As the Soviet Union and--the United
States near completion of a treaty to
limit their long-range missiles and
bombers,-both- nations, are moving
ahead with death. ray technology that
could change future warfare.
Senior U.S. officials say the Soviets
are building prototype. weapons based
on one form of this directed energy
technology, using high-energy lasers.
The United States knows how to make
laser weapons but so far thinks high-'
speed missiles can do the same job bet-
ter.
There is dispute here about how far
along the Soviets arein developing.
the other militarily interesting pros.
pect for a death ray device. It would
use a beam of highly charged atomic
particles. U.S. scientists do not yet
know how to make a particle beam
weapon..
But American laboratories are
working on it-with Defense Depart-
ment funding. After acaustic debate
that divided both the scientific and
intelligence communities over the
value of U.S. or Soviet particle beam
work, the Pentagon has pulled to-.,
gether pieces of old research pro.`
grams into a coordinated, study of.
weapons applications.
SOME OFFICIALS picture the recent
decision to establish a coordinated
program as no great change from the
piecemeal efforts long under way. But
those who had been on the losing side
of the debate, while warning that this
country was falling` behind the Sovi-
ets in. a vital field, feel there has been
a policy reversal that: vindicates their
osition.
p
r ptli lasers and particle beams can
deliver potentially destructive energy
on a tirget with: the speed of light -
186,0O0 miles a second. Lasers can de-
stroy By. transmitting energy in the
form of light, somewhat the same way
a fire a dsunlight. started a magnify-
m
i ng glass
ing
are more like-'lightning bolts that
o
atm
h
h
'
e
t
burn their way, throug
being dissipated, on the. way. But the
phereto zaP their ; target. difficulties have been immense
The new strategic arms limitations
treaty, SALT II, restricts offensive
weapons It does not restrict defenses
againsttheni. A.1972 Soviet-American
treaty jimits one. type of defenses,
against ballistic missiles, although it
does not prohibit. research on them.
Wiser or charged particle beams
cculd become radically new forms of
ballistic missile defenses if major
physics and engineering. problems
are overcome. A virtually instantane-
ous ray that could wreck an attacking
missile while if-is still out in space
seems like theultiinate defense." . -
The. possibility that' the. Soviet
Union might be developing such a de-
fense; and could put. it. into operation
either secretly, or after denouncing
the 1972 treaty, has worried those.who
accept the feasibility of high-energy
weapons. It raised the prospect of the
Kremlin's threatening the United
States with nuclear attack while itself
immune to counterattack - thus
holding this country at its mercy..
FOR YEARS SUCH fears were dis-
missed by skeptics who said the
physics problems were too great, par-
ticularly with particle beams. The
skeptics, including many leading U.S.
scientists, insisted the Soviets were
wasting their scientific talent and
money. They argued. that the-United
M38 (944 S,
h e~z~
(Qt-D>
SA J
After a decade of intensive effort,
'-'.people in the program just got worn
.rout," according to a physicist then in
. a group that included Harold Brown,
?- who is now the defense secretary.
;"!Every summer we had a new inven-
dion to solve some problem, and every
*inter we'd find out why it didn't
`work. We realized that in the end we
were not delivering much effective
.,'energy on a target."
y..
-`. THE 1972 MISSILE defense treaty re-
,duced U.S. interest in. particle beam .
-.problems. At the same time, new ways
ut of
tiro raise the gross power outp
Users increased their weapons poten-
tial: . capability The of laser weapons to
shoot down short-range attack mis-
siles has been demonstrated- But,
,,being shafts of light, laser beams can
;44ot penetrate clouds. They therefore
cannot be depended upon for general
.;purpose defense of warships, one of
the likeliest applications.'
Some Pentagon officials take the
ittitude that there is no sense in
'building them if laser weapons. would
only be supplemental defenses, added
-Mto high-speed missiles to defend ships
?~pgainst missile attack, for instance.
,,But others point out that redundancy
:;jin defenses is common and advocate
-developing laser weapons.
Research is continuing on ways to
-increase the power of lasers while.
}ieducing the weight and bulk of the
.equipment. A theoretical goal is a.
mall enough device-to-be put into a:;
,tellite above the atmosphere, where
unhindered by clouds it. could be an
affective missile defense weapon.
r The Soviet Union is presumably'
looking at such uses. "We estimate
-,i at the Soviets are at about the same
evel of technology as the United
States, and facing the same kinds of
(laser weapons) systems problems
that we're facing," according to Wil-
liam J. Perry, the under secretary of
C. TINUED
States should not do the same.
Despite the argument, this country,
is now in a race with Moscow in death
ray development. 'Advances, in lasers
and a reassessment of particle beam
possibilities have given new impetus
to both types of high-energy. work in
the United States
The concept of particle beam weap-
ons developed out of research into
basic physics using the high-energy
devices known to the public as "atom
smashers.". The same principles that
are used to split atoms: can be used to,
.explode bricks by pumping atomic
particles into them
For more .than 20 years U.S. scten-
ists. have sought ways. of generating
h th
e
beams and sending them throug
>yptmosphereso that effective energy
-will arrive at a. target rather than
Approved For Release 2005/01/12 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000400380044-2
 Approved For Release 2005/01/12 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000400380044-2
defense
iug.
or research and engineer-
"BUT THEY'RE making four or five nificant Soviet research program. But
times the effort we are, and they've few people would listen.
cision to build in the early and mid-'70s, Keegan
d
t
d
e
e
evidently ma
he
prototype weapons," Perry said in an ran a maverick intelligence a erasion
interview. that ep coming up wit warnings
The Kremlin has often in the past about Soviet military activities. Both
authorized prototypes of weapons that the CIA and the Pentagon's own De-
arenot fully proven and then later fenselnn ligence Agency took skepti.
scrapped them. The United States cal attitudes toward his work, but he
takes a more cautious approach of was later accepted as the first to spot a
extensive research before putting number of important developments.
money into hardware.
Perry also said that the Soviets "evi- KEEGAN CONTENDED that. at a
dently have a very significant re massive, expensive research facility
search program." on particle beams. "I at Semipalatinsk in Soviet Central
don't believe they have a weapons Asia the Soviets were well on the way
program in this field." to solving the problems-of =particle
This is the Pentagon's official judg- beam weapons and could within a few
ment, but it is a controversial one. ..years :have an effective missile de-
About the time the U.S. scientific. fense system. The rest of the intelli-
community, was ready to give up in gence community scoffed. ,-
frustration with particle beam re-.- The CIA brought together a panel of
u g
the same scientists who had failed to
make breakthroughs in particle beam
research themselves. They were
therefore unable or unwilling to ac-
cept that the Soviets might be solving
the problems that stumped them,- al-
though the objective evidence indi-
cated they are, Keegan said.
He retired from the air force in
early 1977 and went public with his
warnings. When The Star. took the.
first close public,look at. them, in
March 1977, the intelligence corn--
munity sought to discredit Keegan
with the weight of scientific opinion
against him, but no firm conclusion
was possible.
Later when other publicity was
given Keegan's statements about
Soviet particle beam work,. especially,
by Aviation Week magazine, Defense
Secretary' Brown dismissed them. But:,
a panel of 53 physicists and engineers
was named under Perry's deputy, Dr.
Ruth M. Davis to re-examine the sub-
ject.
THE STAR REPORTED last January
that the panel had recommended that
.the Mentagon move ahead with' re-
search, air force intelligence headed leading scientists to Study'the-evi- j
denied that the Soviets
Th
ey
by Maj. Gen. George J. Keegan Jr. dence.
began to detect signs of that very sig- could be doing anything threatening.
B t Kee an argued that these were
search on particlebeam weapons. Asa
result, funding is being increased_
rapidly.
One possible interpretation of the
panel's finding is-that Keegan has
been vindicated.- that scientism in
this countrynow accept that'-it is
possible, or at least might be possible,
to overcome the physics and engi-
neering problems that. have so far.
frustrated American researchers.
Many scientists and official admin-
istrators of military science programs:
.remain skeptical: One says the Soviets
are wasting, their money, thereby
implying: that;-:: the..,United,._States`
should keep its- program down tq
avoid duplicating the waste..
But Davis is enthusfastic Testifying
to the Senate Armed Services ComiiiitS
tee two months ago;-she said she be-
lieved that "if the difficult technical
hurdles facing, directed energy tech-
noi'ogy. . are surmounted,: the
application of,this technology to mili
tart' needs may revolutionize both
strategic and tactical warfare.".
The Defense Department now be.
lieves that the "if' qualification is not
large enough to make U.S research a
complete waste.
- Davis said that by Sept 30 $1.27 bil-
lion. will have been spent-on high-
energy laser technology, and another
$1 billion will be spent by 1985 in com-
pleting "lethality demonstrations.
Research to determine particle beam :
weapon feasibility-is to cost $29.3 mil-
lion in the 1980 fiscal year she said'. 'A
Approved For Release 2005/01/12: CIA-RDP88-0131f5 WQW80DA4z% developed to
cost $31S million