Nuclear Weapons Freeze Movement: Issues for National Debate

Congressional Research Service

The Library of Congress

NUCLEAR WEAPONS FREEZE MOVEMENT: ISSUES FOR NATIONAL DEBATE

IP0195N

I s t h e American p u b l i c i n c r e a s i n g l y a g a i n s t n u c l e a r weapons?

Are U.S. and o t h e r world l e a d e r s p a y i n g t o o much a t t e n t i o n t o

arms p r o d u c t i o n and t o o l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n t o arms c o n t r o l ?

Have t h e f e a r and l i k e l i h o o d o f a n u c l e a r war i n c r e a s e d ?

These i s s u e s a r e b e i n g d e b a t e d i n l o c a l communities and i n c r e a s i n g l y

among U.S. p o l i c y m a k e r s . The g r a s s - r o o t s movement t o "ban t h e bomb" h a s

a l r e a d y b e e n e n d o r s e d by o v e r one m i l l i o n p e o p l e t h r o u g h l o c a l and S t a t e

A r e c e n t G a l l u p p o l l c o n c l u d e d t h a t o v e r 314 o f Americans

referendums.

f a v o r a 50% r e d u c t i o n i n n u c l e a r a r s e n a l s by b o t h t h e S o v i e t Union and t h e

United S t a t e s .

The n u c l e a r weapons f r e e z e movement h a s r e c e n t l y g a i n e d t h e a t t e n t i o n

o f C o n g r e s s . On March 1 0 , 1982, S e n a t e and House r e s o l u t i o n s were i n t r o d u c t e d

which r e q u e s t e d t h e P r e s i d e n t t o n e g o t i a t e a n immediate n u c l e a r weapons f r e e z e

w i t h t h e S o v i e t Union, f o l l o w e d by m a j o r r e d u c t i o n s on b o t h s i d e s . Another

congressional proposal c a l l s for t h e President t o negotiate with t h e Soviet

Union a l o n g - t e r m , m u t u a l and v e r i f i a b l e n u c l e a r f o r c e s f r e e z e , b u t a t e q u a l

and s h a r p l y r e d u c e d f o r c e l e v e l s .

T h i s I n f o Pack p r e s e n t s background i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e r e c e n t p e a c e

c r u s a d e and examines b o t h t h e d e s i r a b i l i t i e s and p o t e n t i a l d a n g e r s i n h e r e n t

i n such p r o p o s a l s t o f r e e z e o r r e d u c e n u c l e a r weapons. A l s o i n c l u d e d a r e

r e l e v a n t Reagan A d m i n i s t r a t i o n r e s p o n s e s t o t h e s e v a r i o u s p r o p o s a l s .

We hope t h i s m a t e r i a l w i l l b e u s e f u l .

Congressional Reference

Division

COMPLIMENTS OF

Gene Snyder

A r t i c l e s r e p r o d u c e d w i t h p e r m i s s i o n of c o p y r i g h t c l a i m a n t s .

BIDS THE RUSSIANS JOIN IN

Mr.RV'S

aPening st.naS

irompsdbyamoyementfmarmclear

rsac that has gathered wide national

d d q and the support of same 170

n e m b of CQlgress. In opposition to

he pmposal for an early freeze, Senaon, John W. Warner. Republican of

{irginia, and Henry M. Jackson, Derm

aat of Washington, introduced a pr+

&, supported by 56 other samtors,

htroulddelayafnezermtil.ftatbe

~nitedStates had either caught up witb

Pledge of Ultimate Cutbacks

Is Designed to Stem Drive :

RhetieperceivedasaSwietadwmtage

for Freeze in Arsenals

n nuclear weapons or had reached an

rgrerment from Moscow for the sub-

-

WASHINGTON, March 31

President Reagan said tonight that he intended to reduce stores of nuclear

weapons dramatically. He called on the

Swiet Union to join witb the United

States in such cuts and "make an important breakthrough for lasthg peace

memill."

I .a nationally televised news amferencefnnntbeEastRoornoftbeWhite

House, the President sought to OOunter

Ttmrscript ofnews session,page A22.

pressure from those seeking a treeze in

Swiet aad American atomic arsenals

now by saying that such a move would

deprive the Soviet Union of an incentive

to negotiate a memhgtd reduction. He

said the Russians had "a definite margin of superiority" wer the United

Statesin nuclearweapons.

rtantial raiuctions that the President

!ailedfor again tonight.

lmporLsntxnitl8tive'

TIE President called the Wamerradmm pmposal "an important move

m the rigi~tdirection" and an "important initiative."

In his statement, Mr. Reagan said

plans were being completed fn W&

tngm for the eventual start of talks

with the Soviet Union on mhcbg

strategic arms. In answer to a question,

be@d he hoped that the talks eould

start this summer but, alluding to the

martial law Govement in Poland, he

said the timing would depend on "the ip

t e r n a t i d situation." Other officials

have said the beginning of talks depend

on there being w sharp worsening of

thesituation in Poland.

"1 want an agreement on strategic

Cm~ooP8geA23,Columnl

SOURCE: The New York T i m e s

A p r i l 1 , I982

p.A1 ,A23

Reagan Says He Plans to Reduce

~ u C l e a r ~ &Stores

n s Dramatically

Continued From Page 1

In his lifetime. He s d d 4 , "I share thg

determination of today's young people

that such a tragedy, which would be

nuclear weapons that reduces the risk rendered even more terrible by the

of war, lowers the level of armaments monstrous inhumane weapons In the

and enhances global security," the world's nuclear arsenals, must n e w

President said. "We can accept no happen again."

In talking about the Soviet Union, the

less."

On other foreign questions, Mr. Rea- President also seemed conciliatory in

his prepared opening statement that he

gan made these points :

rather rapidly.

QHe praised the wide turnout in the read

Hesaid

the successful outcome of the

elections last Sunday r a constituent United States

space shuttle mission this

assembly in El Salva , saying it was week reminded

the world "of the great

inspiring. He noted that he had heard of

the human pace can achieve

a w m a n who insisted on standfng in when it harnesses its best mfnds and efline to vote even after being hit by a forts to a positive goal."

ricochetingbullet. But he refused to say

"Both the United States and the

what hetaould do if a right-wing govern- W e t Union have written proud chap

meat tooh power and did away with ters in the peaceful exploration of outer

space," he said, "so I tnvite the Soviet

previous social changes.

QThe United States is continuing to Unionto in with us now to subs^

E 4 . t ce nuclear weapons and

watch developments in Poland. The tially

make an important -b

for

President revealed no new Mtiatives lasting peace on earth."

and said it was necessary that the Rus- The President's statement contrasted

sians understand that "there could be a with the sharp attack on the Soviet

carrot along with the stick, if they Union that he made in his first news

straighten up and fly right."

conference last year, in which he said

QOn the Middle East. Mr. Reagan M e t leaders had made a virtue out of

said he hoped that recent clashes h the lylng and cheating and could not be

West Bank between Israelis and Pales trusted.

When asked ii his 15 months in o w

tiniam would not slow progress in the

negotiations between Egypt and Israel hadledhirntochangehisop~mabout

for Palestinian self-rule in the occupied the Russians, he said, "No, I don't think

theirhabits."

area. He said he hoped for progress in they've changed

the Russian8 were experkno

those talks after Israel turns over the LnnHea said

"demerate situation economicalrest of Sinai to Egypt on April 25.

IF as a r d t of the military buildup

In his openine statement, Mr. Reagan that "has left them on a very narrow

seemed to gu out of his way to combat Lelge."

that as a reeult eamomic

an impnssiar that bb was uninterested He saidmade

the the Rwiarn, vulin annsoontrol and wan interested only problems

to economic sancttom by the

in building up Ammlca'r military ma- merable

west, such as the withholding of

chine.

xedits. Be pointed out that thts was

He said he had seen the world being urged on the allies by the Ad&

"plunged blindly into global war" twice istratfon.

Asked whether a nuclear war would

bd wianable or "SUrYivable," Mr. Reagan said, "I just have to say that I don't

believe there could be any winnefil." If

there was a nuclear war, Mr. Reagan

said. "everybody would be a loser."

Mr. Reagan declined to say pffdealy

how the United States would respondif

the Russians moved to place nuclear

weapons in the Western Hemisphere.

Any such move would be "in totalviolation" of agreements reached in 1962 la

theCuban missile crisis, he said.

Mr. Reagan also said tbat Cuba and

perhap Nicaragua were the only

places where the Russians mieht prt

nucle8rweapoasinthishemispbars.

The President decbed to reply fn &

tail to statements about nuclff weap

ons by Leonid I. Blw?hm?,th6 Saviel

leader. hlr. Reagan said the statements

were part of a Soviet "propaganb

&

4

CamPam-''

Pro and Con

A Reeze on Nuclear Weapons?

YES-The arms race "could subject

the entire world to holocaust"

NO-It "would perpetuate an unstable

situation" that increases the risk of war

lnterview With

Senator

Mark 0. Haffield

Interview With

Richard R. Burt

Republican,

Of Oregon

Director of Politco-Mhtary

Affa~rs,Department of State

Q Senator Hatfield, why are you sponsoring a proposal in

Congress that calls upon the superpowers to put a freeze on

nuclear-weapons construction?

A Because the U.S. has had superiority in nuclear w e a p

ons ever since World War 11, when the Soviets didn't even

have the bomb, and yet it is evident that the more nuclear

weapons we build, the more they will build. And the result

is less security in the world. Nuclear superiority is not only a

meaningless term in the age of multiple overkill, it is a

hindrance at the bargaining table.

Now not only do the Soviets have the bomb, but by the

end of this century an estimated 60 nations will be capable

of building nuclear weapons. We must halt this kind of

madness. It could subject the entire world to nuclear holocaust-the end of the planet.

Q Wouldn't a freeze simply perpetuate the substantial Soviet

advantage In medium-range nuclear weapons in Europe?

A First of all, the U.S. has a massive nuclear-weapons

capability in Europe. The Soviets have 2,000 missiles, and

we have 1,200. The U.S. total includes invulnerable, forward-based submarines, two of which could knock out every major Russian city.

Globally, we have over 9,000 warheads, and the Soviets

have 7,000. Furthermore, our warheads are far more accurate. When we look at the nuclear arsenals in their totality,

we have a more destructive arsenal than the Soviets.

Q Could a freeze prevent the building of our 8-1 and Stealth

bombers and leave the Soviets free to enlarge their air defenses?

A You must remember that there are other parts of our

arsenal that will survive an attack and have significant

deterrence value. Secondly, we can seek to negotiate a

collateral agreement constraining U.S. and Soviet air-defense improvements.

Q But wouldn't the U.S. bomber force be rendered vlrtuaily

useless against Russia if our airborne-cruise-missile program

were killed by a freeze?

A Absolutely not. First, current war plans call for preattacks on Soviet air defenses that would leave them badly

damaged. In addition, our current bomber, the B-52, is now

equipped to suppress air defenses. The Air Force is on

record saying that the B-52 bomber will have a penetration

capability at least until 1990 and perhaps well beyond. Also,

it is worth noting that the production of a new Soviet

bomber the Pentagon claims is being developed would b e

prohibited with a freeze.

Q What about the vulnerability of land-based missiles?

A The Soviet Union's nuclear arsenal is more vulnerable

than ours because 70 to 75 percent of it is based on land;

Copyright @ 1982. USNews 8 World Report, Inc

Q Mr. Burt, why is the Reagan administration opposed to a

nuclear-weapons freeze?

A There a r e two basic reasons:

T h e first is that w e think it would lock us into some

military disadvantages. In Europe, the Soviet Union has a

force of 600 intermediate-range missiles with 1,200 warheads. The Soviets thus have a massive capability to target

our allies. The U.S. has no equivalent systems. Furthermore, the Soviet Union has developed over the last 15 years

a new generation of intercontinental ballistic missiles which

threatens a large fraction of our existing land-based missile

force. Again, we have no equivalent capability. We cannot

allow these disadvantages to continue in perpetuity.

Secondly, the administration believes that we can d o

better than a freeze.

Q Better in what way?

A Our objective, both in the current talks in Geneva on

intermediate-range nuclear forces and in the forthcoming

strategic-arms talks, will b e significant reductions in the

existing arsenals of both sides. We believe that if both sides'

forces are frozen at current levels, the Soviet Union will

have no incentives whatsoever to take our proposals for

reductions seriously. In fact, the only reason w e have negotiations going on now in Geneva on intermediate-range

missiles is that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in

1979 decided to modernize its capabilities in response to

the Soviet buildup of intermediate-range nuclear forces.

Q Looking beyond the situation in Europe, where you say the

Soviet Union has a substantial advantage, wouldn't a freeze

leave the U.S. with a big edge in strategic warheads all told?

A Well, there are many different ways to measure the

overall balance. T h e fact is that by most measures of strategic nuclear capability the Soviet Union is ahead of the

United States right now.

We believe that both the Soviet Union and the United

States should reduce the level of nuclear arms they presently possess. So the real question is not how to accomplish

a freeze at existing numbers; it is how to achieve limitations at reduced levels. And that's what the Reagan administration wants-agreed limits at reduced levels. We want

to negotiate significant reductions, and history has shown

that the only way to d o that is to give the Soviets incentives for negotiating.

*

Q Would a freeze actually end the nuclear arms race?

A No. First of all, a freeze would be extremely difficult

to verify and therefore would not limit the Soviets' ability

to increase their nuclear force.

Secondly, even assuming for the moment that one could

lnterview With Senator Hatfield (continued)

only 25 percent of our missiles are land based. Any negotiation could include discussion of options such as moving

the Minuteman 3 missile frpm land bases to small, coastalbased submarines-which would reduce fears regarding

our vulnerability.

First-strike capability is a purely theoretical notion. Second, knowing that we have such great power to retaliate,

why, unless an accident occurred, would the Soviets attempt

a first strike? Finally, a freeze would seriously reduce Soviet

confidence in a first strike by placing a cap on warheads and

halting testing activity which is needed for accuracy.

Q Were we to have a treeze, how would Soviet compliance be

verified, in light of Russia's past refusal of on-site inspection?

A The U.S.has an elaborate satellite detection system.

We have a multitude of other intelligence-gathering mechanisms. Illegal activity could be detected more easily with a

freeze than without a freeze because a n y testing or production activity would suggest a violation. Today we are faced

with detecting very subtle deviations and changes in activity, which is far more difficult.

Q How do you respond to the contention of administration

officials that a freeze would destroy any chance of negotiating

an agreement to reduce nuclear arsenals and limit the nucleararms race on a broad basis?

A The logic of that idea escapes me. We have to first create a freeze to get a change of direction. A freeze would not

impair our ability to reverse the current upward arms escalation. Instead, it would stop the arms race so that it could be

reversed. You can't throw a freight train corning down the

track into reverse until you first stop it.

Q Another objection being raised is that the movement for a

nuclear freeze in this country will impair U.S. defenses by undermining support tor the administration's buildup--

A First, don't forget we also halt the Soviet buildup.

There isn't any question that a freeze would challenge the

administration's present defense program. The Reagan defense program, compared to the Carter budget, provides

for a 49 percent increase in military spending, whereas

nondefense programs have diminished by some 12 percent.

It weakens America to commit over 200 billion dollars

over the next six years to nuclear weaponry at a time

when the economy -needs capital

to modernize its production capability and channel more manpower and womanpower toward

scientific and engineering fields

so that we can better compete in

the international marketplace.

This, too, is a matter of national security.

Q Do you see any comparable

1 .Interview

- - With Mr. Burt (continued)

verify it, such a freeze would perpetuate an unstable nuclear situation, one that would increase the risk of war rather

than reduce it.

Finally, such a freeze would leave totally unconstrained

many other military developments which could directly

threaten the nuclear balance. These include improvements

in submarine warfare and air defenses.

Q In your view, the kind of treeze being advocated in Congress could not be verified-

' A There are a variety of proposals, but the proposals I

have seen call for a freeze in warhead production, testing

and deployment. As I noted, it would be very difficult to

verify such a freeze. It would require extensive on-site

inspections, which the Soviets have traditionally rejected.

Q Many people urging a freeze argue that if the arms race

continues, it wiii lead to a nuciear war. How do you answer that?

A We are concerned, as everyone should be, about the

dangers of a nuclear war.

The best ways to minimize the chances of a nuclear war

are through the maintenance of a balance of power and the

negotiation of significant reductions. We have been able to

avoid a nuclear war since the advent of the nuclear age by

maintaining an equilibrium in military capabilities, and that

is the policy of this administration.

0 In light of the growing push for a freeze, is the administration going to move quickly into strategic-arms talks?

A We have spent several months extensively analyzing

our options in the strategic-arms area. Secretary of State

Haig said recently that our analysis will be complete in a

matter of weeks. We want to approach these talks seriously, with a thoughtful opening position. We should be prepared in the near future for negotiations, international

conditions permitting.

Q Would a treeze help cut defense spending by large sums

and thereby help reduce the deficit, the source of so much

concern in this country?

A Experience has shown that existing arms-control

agreements have not resulted in great savings. A freeze at

existing levels-levels that most people believe are already

too high-would probably not result in real savings. Agreed

limits at much reduced levels would possibly save money.

And. of course, this is our goal.

movement toward a nuclear treeze

in the Soviet Union?

A It is very difficult to assess

the mood of t h e people in a

closed society. But Americans

who have recently visited the Soviet Union frequently say that the

Russian people don't want nuclear war. Eventually, that feeling

will have to erupt, even within a

closed society.

As for the open societies of the

West, ot r allies are attracted to a

nuclear freeze. If we back the

idea, America's leadership worldwide would be enhanced.

56

4

USNEWS &WORLD REPORT. April 5, 1982

Thinking About

The Unthinkable

%

4

Rising fears aboSit the dangers of nuclear war

'No anny can stop an idea whose time

has come.

-Victor Hugo

-

An idea whose moment

El

may have arrived is sweep

ing the US.-for better or

for worse. From the halls of

Congress to Vermont hamlets to the posh living rooms

of Beverly Hills, Americans

arc not only thinkmg about

the unthinkable, they arc opening a national dialogue on ways to control and reduce the awesome and frightening nuclear arsenals of the superpowers. This new

awareness of the dangers of nuclear war

cuts across traditional political boundaries. Advocates of a bilateral frceze on

the development and deployment of nuclear weapons include some peacenik activists who led protests against US. involvement in the Viet Nam War a decade

ago. But the new movement is tar more

broadly b d , it includes more bishops

than Berrigans, doctors and lawyers with

impeccable Establishment credentials,

archconservatives as well as diehard liberals, and such knowledgeable experts as

retired Admiral Noel Gayler, former director of the supenecrct National Security Agency, and former SALT U Negotiator

Paul Warnke. Says Rabbi Alexander

Schindler, head of the Union of American

Hebrew Congregations: "Nuclear disarmament is going to become the central

moral issue of the '809, just as Viet N u n

was in the '605."

The central goal of the movement is to

educate the public to the tnre horrors of

what war would mean to the US. and the

world today, and thereby put pressure on a

hawkish Administration to negotiate a

cutback in nuclear arms with the Soviet

Union. W e of that prodding is already

corning from Congress. Senators Edward

Kennedy of Massachusetts and Mark

Hatfield of Oregon two weeks ago introduced a resolution that calls for a freeze on

the testing, production and further deployment of nuclear weapons by both the US.

and the Soviet Union. The nonbinding

measure has already attracted the suppod

of 22 Senators and 150 Representatives.

That was not all. Republican Charles

McC. Mathias of Maryland last week introduced another Senate m l u t i o n calling upon the President to "immediately

invite" the Soviets to negotiations on

strategic anns and the proliferation of nuclear mapons and technology. Mathias

charged that the Administration was

guilty of a "grievous failure" for not having initiated such negotiations. "Nothing

less than the future of mankind ia at

stake," he said.

The resolutions on Capitol Hill are

the small tip of a very large iceberg. In

part, the Senators who favor the motions

are responding to an unprecedentd flood

of teach-ins, referendums, legislative proposals, letter-writing campaigns, petitions, and books addressing the peril of

nuclear war. The groups involved in the

movement include such longtime disarmament organitations as SAM and the

Union of Concerned Scientists. But with

them are a h06t of fledgling organizations:

Physicians for Social Responsibility, International Physicians for the Prevention

of Nuclear War, the Lawyers Allfice for

Nuclear Arms Control, the Business Alert

to Nuclear War, Artists for Survival. The

St. Louis-based National Clearinghouse

for the Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign, founded last December, estimatca

that 20,000 volunteers arc now involved

in the crusade nationwide.

lthough its hardconr publication by Alfred A. Knopf will not

occur until April, one of the mas(

talked-about books of the year ir

Jonathan Schell's Tire Fate of rhe World.

First published in m e New Yorker last

month, it is an impassioned argument

that nuclear weapons have made war o b

solete and world government imperative.

Astonishingly, some 40 new books on nu.

clear issues arc scheduled to be published

before the end of this ycar, Pocket Booka

is rushing into bookstores with 1

0

0

,

W

copies of Nuclear Wac WharS in It for

You?, a paperback primer on the subject

written by Roger Molander, founder ol

Fireball of m H-bomb exploslaa rises w.c

BikM A t d after r 1956 test b b t

tailed analysis intended to show that the cia1 Responsibility. "Instead, the Reagan

Brahnev plan would only harden an al- Administration gives us pronouncements

ready overwhelming Soviet edge in nucle- that nuclear weapons are usable and that

ar weaponry in Europe. Thesoviet Union, nuclear wan arc winnable." Adds Dr.

for example, now has 300 SS2O-missides in Stephen Klineberg, professor of sociology

place and capable of being targeted on at Rice University in Houston: "Reagan

Western Europc-up from 100 in 1979-has t c d e d not only the Russians, but the

Ground Zero, a nuclearaducation group. while.p~TOcurrently has no land-based Americans too."

The main reason for the growth of the missides that can hit the Soviet Union.

Most of the groups lobbying against

movement is increasing wn&rn that po- "What [Baahnevl is tallung about," the spread of nuclear weapons embrace

litical leaders of both sumrwwers-cste- charged White Hsuse Counsellor Edwin the belief that, as a first step, the US.

cia& since the she\& of the S A L ~11 Meest, "is a situation where, two-thirds of should negotiate a bilateral nucleartreaty in 1980 and the failure to resume the way through a football game, one side weapons freeze with the Soviet Union.

talks since then-have moved, with mu- is ahead 50 to 0, and they want to freae The current proposal was written in 1979

tual belligerence, toward a direct confron- the score for the rest of the game.'.' Both by Randall Forsberg, 37, a former editor

tation that could trigger a nuclear war. Reagan and M s a e were somewhat over- for the Stockholm International Peace

Those worries were, in a sense, symbol- stating the case, Since NATO dOCS have Research Institute, who was then studyiud by a rhetorical exchange between aircrafl- and submarine-based missiies ing for a doctorate in military policy and

Ronald Reagan and Leonid Bruhnev last that partly offset the Soviet advantages

arms control at M.I.T. "My objective was

week that probably did more to augment

There was something else to Brczh- to come up with a goal in arms control

superpower tensions than to ease than. nev's proposal: a vague but ominous that would have grcat appeal," she exSpealung to the 17th Congress of Soviet warning to the US. that seemed to harken plains, "It had to be simple, effective and

Trade Unions, the medal-bedecked Sovi- back to the days of an earlier showdown bilateral in order to involve people."- .

et leader announced that Moscow was im- betmen the countries, the 1962 Cuban

mediately suspending its deployment of missile crisis. If the NATO allies did -bdeed

orsberg's treae propod was hrsP

published in April 1980, in a booknew SS-20 nuclear missiles west of the s t a t i h the new missiles on. Eiiroopean soil

Urals and targeted at Western Europe. next year, said the Soviet leader, "there

let titled Gall to Halt the Nuclear

The frrc2c would last until an arms agree- would arise a real additional threat to our

Armc Race. but it attracted searnt

ment was reached with the US., or until m t r y and its allies." Warned Brahntv: attention Only aher November 1980,

the North Atlantic Treaty Organization This would compel us to take retaliatory when voters in three state senate districts

began deploying 572 new Pershing II and steps that would put the other side, in- in Massachusetts approved a hezz rcmcruise missiles in Europe, which is now cluding the United States itself, its own lution by 59% to 4146, did the proposal

scheduled to take place in late 1983. temtory, in an analogous position. This begin to draw wide support. "Whet that

told us," says Randy KeNer, a formu

Brczhnev also declared that the Soviet should not be forgotten."

It is precisely that kind of scare talk. schoolteacher and antiwar activist, "was

Union would later this year unilaterally

dismantle "a certain number" of its medi- whether emanating from the Kremlin or that Ronald Reagan's election was not

from the White House, that is galvanizing necessarily synonymous with support of

um-range missiles already in plaa.

the nuclear-freeze advocates. For d

l the the nuclear-arms race." At last count,

ashihgton swiftly rejected obvious reasons, they are uneasy about freeze resolutions had been passed in 257

Brezhnev's proposals. "A the military intentions of the Soviet town meetings in New England. 31 city

freue simply isn't good Union. Unfairly or not, the Reagan Ad- councils, and six state legislatures.

Perhaps the most significant local

enough because it doesn't go ministration is also blamed for fueling the

far enough," said President Reagan in a current jitters with loox talk-from the freeze campaign involves the m e d

speech to the Oklahoma state legislature. President on down4bout the prospect of California initiative, which would require

Instead, Reagan reminded Brczhnev of fighting a "limited nuclear war." M v y the state's Governor, reflecting the will of

his "zero option" proposal made last Nc+ Americantincluding some with wns~d- the people, to advise the President that he

vember, in which the US. would forgo erable expertise in the area-fear that should propose to the Soviet Union an implacing its new Pershing I1 and cruise mb- their leaden are mom comfortable than mediate halt to the "testing, production

sila on European mil if *Moscow would ever before with the thought of using nu- and further deployment of nuclear w s a p

clear weapons. "There is great concern mu ... in a way that san be verified by

scrap its arsenal of SS-20 missiles.

M t there are no s e r h i efforts for axma both sides." The brainchild of Liberal ACConcerned that Moscow might pthelcsr score a propaganda coup w t h tts control." says Thomas Habtpd, 48, d i m tivist Harold Waens, boord chairman of

proposals, the White House released a de- tor of the Boston-based Physicians for So- the La Annelts-bared F a c m E s u i ~

F

W

2

ment Corp., the initiative has b u n endorsed by G m o r Jeny Brown Backhave gathered more than 600,000 sigrytures, nearly twice as many as arc necersary to have the initiative plnad on the

November ballot. "We feel that we're on

the cutting edge of a new phenomem,"

says Wiens. "It's going to bevery hard

for the opposition to sweep us into the corner as a fringe group." I n d d , early e d mates arc that the referendum measun

could pass with 65% of the vote.

Then is considerable diversity in the

goals and activities of the various antinuclear groups. The Lawyers Alliance for

Nuclear A m Control, for example, was

founded a year ago by Alan Sherr, 34, a

Boston attorney. "I felt then as I do now

that there has got to be a popular initiative on this issue or else no one

will really make the difference,"

says Sherr, who considers himself a political moderate. Since

the alliance opened its Boston

headquarters, membership has

grow from 200 to 700, and

them arc chapters ia h . e e other

cities. Shem has interitionally

shied away from endorsing any

specific proposal for a nuclearweapons freac, and instead is

concentrating the alliance's efforts on educating other lawyers

about the perils of nuclear war. Thus,

the alliance is sponsoring symposiums

throughout the country and plans to seek

a resolution of support from the American

Bar Association.

In Boulder, Colo., the three county

commissioners voted earlier this month to

revoke ttieir endowment of a nucleardisaster evacuation plan propased for their

city by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which administers the nation's civil defense programs. The witch

University o f C d a u h "The plan Qan't Nancy Smwmq whae uate is homc to

even mention radiatioa. Once a bomb is IPoreidonalkikfPaory8DdtheXUlaunched, it w i l l be an d o u t war urd w tion's only wapons-g.de plutonirmn

pt.nt~instnllrrtionsbavebetnherr

community in the U S will be exempt"

In Chicago,Kmlc 350 profcggn flwl f a y a m , b u t I d o t h i n L ~ ~ p d o p k . n

42 colleges and rmive1.sities have banded now ueannfatably aware that h t h

Chi- CarolimpLyrafugeWrrotethanwe

together since Janumy to form m.

cqp Area Faculty for a Freeze. "This is a would wish in nuclear matters." Efint for me," said B ~ c Winstem,

e

a Vni- more ccmpfkabk has ban the rrceptim

venity of Chicago physicist .who pined given to faur dronclad Buddhist monks

the group. "I've never gotten mvdvcd be- from J a m , who arc trudging along highfore, but finally I can oec where I can ways in the South chanting prayers af

make a difference." In Slth Dakota, peace. The monks belim that the ground

they~wUbe~Eromnuclcar

which has 150 missile sites and an imping military payroll, eight city anmcils war, they began their pilgrimage h

have so far passed their own nuclear- New Orleans last Januasy and h o p to

freeze rrsolutions. "South Dakota h the reach New Yak City by Juue. "We have

last place pople think something Wre this been met with great interest," said Jinju

would be & i i on." says Tim Langley, di- Moorishita last week, after being greeted

rator of the South Dakota by 150 well-wish- who walked to the

Peace and Justice Center. "But ouWrirtsdALhens.Gr,inagaturcof

t h e s e w h a s g r o w n h m t h a t m welcome. "People do wt ignae ra."

arc entering a new phasc of the

eligiora kadm and groups have

arms race, that we .re getting

' played an incrraJingly important

ready to fight. nuclear war.role in the movement. At l a s t 70

St. Paul, Minn., Bonnie Iverson,

Roman Catholic bishops (of the

37. a mother of two,, b y dlecting s i g n a t m for her state's 368 in the US.) have spoken out against

freeze rrsolution. "I get nervous the arms race a in favor of a nuclear

about going door to door." she Ereeoe, and the hierarchy's umbrella am ~ d q ..hrt it's a

I bp ganization, the ~ a t i o n a lConferena of

lieve in. It's the notion of what Catholic B k h . dam to vote on a major

would happen to the land and all statement abo;t bklear war at its annd

life. If nuclear war happens, I hope the meeting in November. Bishop Leroy

bomb hits right here b u s e 1don't want Matthiesen of Amarillo, Texas, has even

to live to see it"

urged Catholia working at a nearby

The strength of the antinuclear senti- nuclear-mapons asscrnbiy plant to amment is especially surprising in the South, sider switching ptu, and has set up r

considering the .region's traditional con- 510,000 fund to help workers who quit the

servatism and its dependence on the mili- plant far m o d rcesons

tary for its livelihood. Ln at least six of the

Protestant churches have ban equalregion's states, the largest single employer ly outspdrm. The National Council d

is the Department of Defense. The board Churches, which represents 40 d o 1 1

of supemisom in Loudoun County, Va., Protestants,supports a bilateral nucla!

adopted a nuclear-freae rrsolution last frecre. The 1.6 million-mcmber Ameriweek, and Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young

has signed his city's petition. Physicians

for Social Responsibility has 16 chapters

in the South; last year there were none.

Says South Carolina Lieutenant Governor

8

I

,TIME, MARCH 29.1982

7

Nation

can Baptist Churches declared in Decem-

a pediatrician at Children's Hospital- respond by claiming that a freeze on "tcstber that "the presence of nuclear weapons Medical Center in Boston, took over as ing, production and further deployment"

and the wihgness to use them is a direct president in 1979. A zealous opponent of of nuclear weapons cannot be verified

affront to our Christian beliefs and com- all things nuclear, Caldicott took her m e without on-site inspection,which Moscow

mitments." Even members of the evan- sage all over the country, and her hellfire has always resisted. Beyond that, a Prcsigelical movement, which has been gcner- oratory soon attracted a following. Since dent pushed into negotiations with Mosally noted for its political conservatism, then, membership in P.S.R. has gown cow by the force of a populist movement,

have raised their voices against the arms from ten docton to 11,000, and the Bps- even in the name of a morally just cause,

buildup. Says the Rev. Kim Crutchfield of ton-based organization now boasts a 22- would be at an enormous disadvantage in

the Chapel Hill Harvester Church, a Pen- member staff, 85 chapters in 45 states and trying todeal with leaden ofa totalitarian

tecostal church in Atlanta: "We are not a 5600,000 annual budget\

.society who knew in advance the limits of

talking about Russians or Chinese or

P.S.R. may be the most effective his maneuverability.

Americans, but people. God's children. It group in the antinuclear movement. "Ourb

It is too early to asses the domestic

is right that Christians be concerned with credibility is as a scientific, single-issue political impact of the antinuclear scntinuclear war, because nuclear war threat- organitation," says Director Thomas ment. Although impressive in size, the

ens God's kingdom on earth."

Halstcd. "Our issue is nuclear war and its movement is still rather amorphous and

Two organizations-and their lead- medical consequences. That's it." In an politically unorganized. Democrats are

en--exemplify the passions and concerns ongoing series of symposiums across the pinning much of the blame on Reagan for

country, members lecture about the hor- the growing fears of nuclear war, and

of the nuclear-freeze movement:

b Ground Zero was founded in late 1980 rifrc consequences of a 20-megaton bomb

White House a i d a admit that indiscreet

movement of the 19605,"

ar movement what Earth Bredmv .dboshg trade unkn members at thc Kremlin last week

says Robert Neurnan. diDay was for the cause of en- .

A.y p p ~ ethreat that harkened back to the 1962 Cuban missile crisis.

vironmentalism--the catarector of communications

lytic launching of a mass effort to engage explosion, from the moment of impact to for the Democratic National Committee.

the nation in discussions on the threat of the long-term effects of radiation sick- "It is confrontational, and will probably

nuclear war. Although the focus of the ness. "As m n as you dwell on the effects not become a Democratic or Republican

week will be on seminars and lectures, the of a nuclear bomb," says Halsted, "the issue." Says Republican Political Consultant David Kcene: "It's like motherhood

group is also mailing out kits to local coor- coffee cups stop rattling."

P.S.R. backs a bilateral nuclear freeze, and apple pie. Who's going to k in favor

dinators with directions on where to place

Ground Zero markers and details of the but Caldicott sees that proposal as only a of nuclear war?"

Some political observers believe that

effects of a I-megaton bomb dropped on Grst step. "No one has the absolute answer," she admits, "but the kue of nucle- Reagan could defuse the movement4r

their city or town.

Molander believes that the Reagan as war will reach a critical mass, and co-opt it-by sitting down to negotiate

Administration has fanned feanofa nucle- from that will emerge a solution. We must with the Soviets. Some supporters of the

ar war, but he iscareful not tolink hisgroup continue stirring the pot, for the issue is initiative secretly hope that will happen.

Only a proven antiCommunist like Richwith any partisan movement. Says Mo- survival."

Advocates of a bilateral nuclear- ard Nixon could have opened the door to

lander: "What we seek is a public active

enough in the dialogue about nuclear war weapons freeze contend that the plan mainland China in the early 1970s withthat they will feel compelled to work with rnaka sense, since both the US. and the out causing a divisive national debate.

already have larne enounh Siilarlv. the armment ROW, only a Pres-- .- .Union

-.

the Government in coming up with solu- Soviet

strong-on naconal d&ense as '

ident

tions, whether it be disarmament, a i r a t e arsenals to annihilaie each othk's po&

or some other option. The ball is rolling, lations many times over. Supporters also Reagan could bargain with the Kremlin

reject the charge made by hawkish critics on nuclear arms in the early 1980s. That, I

and we want togive it molnentum."

that the movement is ultimately a pacifist indeed, may be the idea whose time has

b Physicians for Social Responsibility

was a moribund organization.devotd to one that play into the hands of the Sovi- come. -8y Ims.Kelly. Reported by 8enbdn

detailing the medical consequences of nu- ets. They point out that the freeze p r o p - H! &te/Lor A n p k s wd CU Pltlllipr/AtlrN. I

I

clear war when Helen Caldiwtt, 43. then a1 calls for verification. Critics, however, IlfhothW-

--

---

Q

8

TIME, MARCH 29.1982

Nation

For and Against a Freeze

Voicesfrom a citizens'choncs on a complex issue

damage f a countless generations to

came, and that can destroy in the most

horrifjing manna massive noncombatant populations isa wlossal evil and totally immoral. The very real possibility of

the destruction of all life a our planet is

above all a religious and moral issue.

At the same time, the billions of dolIan which are being spent on these arms

each year by a growing number of nations

is an appalling form of theft, when so

many of the world's disposes& are bcing deprived of the possibilities of a minimal human existence in a world of abunIt is the very dismissal of these

E W Y A R D T E U E R , ~ o f t h . dance.

~

b r m b a d a R e a g a ~ smoral

~ ~d d e r a t i o n s that now threatens

dvbar: I h o p [the n u c l e a r - f m m o v l to prcject ra into an a b y s of fantasy, in

mentj will not become UI important which a nuclear war is thought of as possiforce. I hope more sense will prevail. If ble and even survivable.

the nuclear freeze gaes through, this country won't exist in 1990. The Soviet Union

is a country that has had totalitarian rule

for many hundreds of yean, and what 8

relatively small ruling class there might

do can be very different from what a demmatic m t r y can decide to do.The rulers in the Kremlin an as eager as Hitler

ALANCRAllSfw--cdifan~rd pm#cntlrl rrpt.nt: The was to get power over the whokvorld.

pcaa movement in Europe has spread But unlike Hitler they arc not gamblers. If

acrars the ooean,and back into Eastern we can put up a missile defense that

Europe, I might add. Another factor is makes their attack dubious, chances are

that Ronald Reagan frightens people. they will never try the attack. We can

The rhetoric has alarmed people. The avoid a third world war, but only if

calLs for huge increases in defense spend- strength is in the hands of those who want

~noVAJCRomrnCtthdkpNb.0

ing make us wonder. So have the absurd peace more than they want power.

Our policy of [military1secncy is very ~ r d l l ~ ~ ~ r m ~ ~ ~ . t i v r r o c W c r l t i c : T h e

statements by Administration oflick&

that a nuclear war can be survived, ifone badly overdone. It makes the public dis- point of deterrence is to deter. Weapons

has a shovel and can dig a hole fast m i o n irrational, because it wipes out the do not fire themselves. Where the will is

enough. It's a form of sickness not to face dXerena betmen people w h a know lacking,deterrence is absent. To deter nuup to and deal with the situation. But p e e what they are taking about and those clear disaster and the spread of totalitarple arc beginning to emerge from that who do not. Those who do know are not ian power is not a pleasant business. It is

sickness and come to grip with i t

allowed to say what they know. There- not a form of cheap grace. It demands of

It's a tcmble thing to think about. It's fore, the whole discussion is made on an ls extremes of selfdiscipline and selfvery tough, but it has to be dealt with. It uninformed basis. By practicing secrecy s a d c e . National security is not %parawill have to come by an act of leadership we are doing nothing except impeding our ble from the defense of f m institutions,

from both the US. and USSR., a will- collaboration with our allies and keeping built i t the cost of so much intellectual

ingncs to engage in negotiations like the American people in ignorance.

diligence, sweat and blood.

there have never been before. We have to

Tho# who choose detemnce do not

cut out the diplomatic dance. This madchoose I m than the highest human MIness can only be broken by leaders of the

ues; they choose the only state of develop

US. and U S S R sitting down and agree

ment within which -human beings would

ing that this must stop.

freely choose to live. It is not "better to be

We cannot let infinite detail get in the

dead than Red"; it is better to be neither.

way, as in other arms talks. There should

As the history of our time amply demonbe no agenda worked out by staff in adstrates, some who choose the latter have

vana. We should just sit down and talk

not avoided the former. Avoidance of

about i t The Soviets don't want to be

both sickening alternatives is the moral

blown up in a nuclear war, they know the

good which deterrence, and deterrence

danger. Well never know if nuclear

alone, effects.

weapons have been eliminated. The

The bishop [who favor a nuclear

threat will be with mankind forever. [But

freeze1 use the freedom purchased for

without actial, sooner or later a nuclear

them by the strategy of deterrence they

war will happen. Possibly all life will end. w m n ~ R o m a n C . t h d i e k c h b l . h o g ~decry to look down upon those who keep

If that's possible, we have to act on the as- S;m Frmkco: Any mapon that can briag them free. I call them the "war bishops"

sumption that it's true. We have to avoid about irreversible ecological damage to because their views are more likely to lead

ever finding out.

large portions of the earth, untold genetic to war than the dlternative.

6

TIME, MARCH29, 1982

Why har the nucleor-1;eeze

mowmrnl emerged ot this

moment of Americon history? How seriously should it

be taken? 'l7m asked a

sampling of i&uential citizens who o n deeply engoged

in the nuclmr debate to

comment a the ismu i n a d . llreir

responses:

I cm 6nd much to argue about in m y

of the various bilateral nuclear freeze p m

poaals now under discussion. But that's not

what b truly important. The frrat initiatives am an attempt by the popk of this

armtry to do somethin& to get the attention of our kadcrs, to say that we must put

an end to this madness that has been going

on for the past 35 years. No one wglles(s

that 8 6eezc is an end in itself. It is a beginning that must be followed immediately by

m aderly. thoughtful, realistic and wri&

able reduction in nuclear arms, and a re-.

newed dediition to the prevention of a

c n r u s V ~ f O n n e r ~ d S t . t c further

I

spread of nuclear weapons.

urge a rapid resumption of SALT XI negotiations and a serious effort at a S U C C ~ S S ~ ~ ~

conclusion. I think it is realistic to expect

the Soviets to a g r a to hrrther reductions

beyond the SALT 11 figures [on strategic

launchers] plus accepting other ammetic

changes. It is importint r c c o p h that

there will be prrssures on both sldes not to

continue the-tacit obseniancc of SALT n.

For example, Soviet President Leonid

Brahnev's latest statement suBgeds to me

that they will create a new bissilel s)atern, perhaps putting a third stage on the

intermediate-range SS-20, wnverting it

\

into an intercontinental

which h

prohibited by SALT. T h m wiU be parallel - m s r r r c , ~ a d f o r n v p m

prrssures on the US. to break out of the i d a n t d t h e I l k . ~ t t s h . t i h r t . o f T . c l c

SALT amsuahta.

ndon: There has b a n for a long time

Second, we should pvsue Theater dapseatcd fear of nuclear war, but only

Nuclear Force taJks in parallel with the sine thosc in power have begun to talk

effort to push ahead with START [Strategic openly about the prmpects of fighting and

Arms Reduction Talks]. Third,we should winning a nuclear war have people recoglook seriously for progrcs in the negotia- nized the danger. When the leaders of the

tions on equalizing conventional forces in Government say they are prepared to

Europe. I think some sort of breakthrough 6ght a nuclear war and it really isn't going

would then be possible on battlefield nu- to be all that painful, the public mponse is

clear weapons in Europe. If the Soviets not all that surprisii. In a sense this Adwould ngne to equal conventional farce ministration has been more honest with us

levels with NATO,the battlefield weapons than its prcdecasora

The nuclear-freeze proposal is a good

could be withdrawn, particularly fiom the

foward amas where the threat of their start, for it would be a major c h m in

being overrun represents one of the major the direction the world is going. It is a

very important first step, and a perfectly

thrcab of early rae of nuclear weapons

safe one. The freae would not eliminate

nuclear weapons, but it would stop increasingly dangerous new technology.

The current deterrent foras on both sides

are sufficiently secure w that either the

President or Mr. Brezhnev could declare

a unilateral freae and challenge the

otbertojoin.

MARYPlatocnk rdcntlst nd

preridmt of tha ManL h r t b of Tach

nology In the hll of 1981 I was on a com-

mittee to select prospective Rhodes r h d a n from all over California. Cscil Rhodo

asked that people be chosen who could

'contribute to the world's flght."'l asked

all Lhesc 16 exceptional y w men and

women what they considered to be the

a n t r a l problem in "the world's fight." Every single one answered that the iswe

how to reduct the danger of nuclear war.

TIME, MARCH 2).

The nuclear-ums race

has become Ear more expensive, wlus

and perilws than either the US. or the

!b&t Union can continue to count+nance. Neither nation can hope now to

gain any military advantage or add to its

d t y by using or threatening to rse nuclear bombs. Massive retaliation must be

expected by any would-be fint striker

who is not insane. Not even a surprise attack could be successhrl. Such an operation cannot be rehearsed even once. A 1%

imperfection in performance, a level

which experienced weapons enginan

would call absurdly optimistic, would be

intolerable to the attacke~.

Thus deliberately s w i n g a nuclear

war with the goal of winning is an idea

whose h e , if it ever came, has passed.

The more prilous possibility is a crisis

provoked by the temporary irrationality

of leadership, a mult of panic, misinformation or misunderstanding. Both sides

should recognize that the only r a w n leR

f a a nuclear capability is to deter the other side from ever us- it. It wadd be an

act of world leadership for both superpowen to admit that fact and take necessary steps toward nuclear-arms reduction.

lOSEPH mr, lhrrd Ulivadty p9t.na

ndf~DLFutyUlkrkcrrtrr0tSt8ta

fanoclprdnerat&npdky: A sensible nucle-

ar policy has to make clear to people that

to be credithe weapons arc usable enble and deter the Soviets, but are not so usable that they arcactually used. We have a

wry narrow box in which to work. If the

Reagan Administration had taken arms

control more seriously sooner, that would

have helped to reassure the public that

there was an intention to manage this narrow space betmen these two extremes.

I personally do not think the I n ~ l e a r l

freae is the right idea. The type of weap

on is more important than the number of

weapons when you are concerned with

crisis stability. We should not get ourselves in a position where we are Ieh with

some weapons that are destabilizing and

prohibited from moving in the direction

of weapons that nught be stabilizing.

The escapism of the right is to treat

nuclear weapons just like other weapons

in warfare; the escapism of the left is to

treat them as though you could make

them all go away. If you don't believe either of those is realistic, then you have

to continually think how to make sure

that you preserve a careful management

of nuclear weapons.

-

0 the arch

Fkeeze Campaigndosed in St. Louis and working to ban

and deployment of

weapons by

ussle--has20,000 volunteers working in 149

offices in 47 states. Moves are Pfoot to put statewide nuclear-freeze referendums on the ballot in &ifornia, Michigan,

New Jersey, Montana and Debware. Resolutions of support

tgt%:,y

neeticut. Maine and Vermont

rn In ;series of mid-March town meetings in New Hamp

shire, 33of44 participating communitia voted for a nuclear-

fhis time it's the middle class, not ~ d l e g *

radicals, leading an antiwar movement

Though quieter than European protesters,

activists in rising numbers alarm offickls

worried about a Soviet edge in nuclear WmS.

Even as Resident Reagan presses the largest pacetime

military buildup in the nation's history, a peace movement

The Fellowship of Reconciliation, a 66yeai-old interfaith pPclfist group, has more than doubled ik 1970s memkrship and on request from local churches has distributed

ronu 500,000 brochures on

rn The National ~ o r n m i t t E E Y % b N U C ~ ~ Ppolicy,

known as SANE, which hor been working for a quarter

cenhrry to halt the arms race, reporb that its paid memberrhip has jumped 88 percent in the last yenr to 16,000.

m CroundZero, & organization dedicated to informing

the public on dangers of nuclear nrms, is publishing 200,000

copies of a paperback book-Nuchr War:mt'sin It for

You?-nnd planning a nationwide Ground Zero Week in

April featurinn

- community discusrio~uand other events.

demanding a first-step global freeze on nuclear arms i s

quietly ~ickinxup support across the US.

- still- faint &bo d b e much louder antinuclear outcry

Fur of N

w Wu"

that has shaken Western Europe-but potentially more far- Uw

reaching--the American camCPIIlpaign

is -stprtiae to draw atCited by organizen as evidma of the emerging mood is

tention in Washington. Government officials warn that it

nccnt Gallup Poll that shows 72 p e m t of Americans

might undermine the nation's efforts to keep the Soviet ' questioned hvored a U.S.-Soviet pact not to build my more

Union from gaining superiority in strategic weapona.

nucleax weapons. Says George Gallup, Jr.: 7 b e latent fear

At the same time, the movement is mustering important

of nuclear wor among the American public should not be

political support On March 10, Senators E d w d M. Kenminimized. It is clearly somethng to reckon with."

nedy @-Mass.) and Mark Hatfield (R-Oreg.) led 139 memWhile some leaden of the new pacifists are veteran

ben of Congress in aligning themselves with the drive to

antiwar protesters, the bulk appear to be orpeople

halt the nuclear-anns race. The lawmakers announced that

convinced that the nuclear-arms race has careened out of

they would seek a resolution of both houses asking Reagan

control and is leading to the m u N destruction of both the

to negotiate an atomicweapons freeze with the Soviets

US. and the Soviet Union

Three days before, former Vice Resident Walter F. Mon6pponents of the movement, both inside and outside

dale gave his support to the freeze initiative..

government, argue that the protesters at best are nsve

Barely a year &er the US. banabout the Kremlin's intentions

the-bomb drive formally began. A.aulb to

m w Amdean p n a &iva stmtch (ram and at worst could derail an

more than a million Americans d.rgy nmnkn to pot...lonrb to drWdra

American military buildup that is

have endorsed its aims with their

essential for the nation's world

signatures or votes in state referposition if not for its very survival.

endurn or resolution campaigns. I

Latest estimntes show that the

and the support is expected to

U.6. leads in nuclear warheads

pass the 1.5-millionmark by June.

with 9.208 to Russia's 7,000, but

Still in its formative stage, the

Russip b well ahead in delivery

peace cwade remains largely f

systems, 2498 to 1,944, and in

uncoordinated; it includes more

missile payload, 11.75 million

than 75groups with varying aims.

pounds to 3.385 million pounds.

Yet the movement's backers

Americans in increasing numclaim a far broader and more

b a r e not only signingpetitions

influential following than the

for peace groups but also helping

largely young and defiantly antito finance them The Fund for

establishment activists who

Peace reports a 25 percent inspearheaded the opposition to

crease in ~ ~ ~ t r i b uo tv ia olast

~

the Vietnam War. Dedicated reyear, for an operating budget of

cruits to the new pea& move1.9 million d o k

ment include substantial numA crucial early test of the crubers of the middle-aged and the

d e ' s stmqth is under way in

elderly, bluecollar workers and

CPlifomia, where a coplition of

professionah as well as homo

activisb b seeking a statewide

maken. The most significant enreferendum on a nuclear-arms

thusiasb: A broad. Jpbdrum of

freeze by both ru&rpowers. The

clergy of all faith*

Cplifornia drive in three months

Signals of the newly emerging

hPI reached its initial gad of colpacifism across Americelecting 500,000 signatures to aam The Nuclear Weapons

sure getting the issue on the N e

0

d

24

U.S.MEWS

WORLD REPORT

%,emberballot. Backers hope success in California will, like

the state's Proposition 13 tax-limitation referendum in 1978,

spark a citizens' movement that will sweep the country.

Business executives, musicians, women's groups and even

children are involved in the drive against atomic weapons.

The Rev. William Sloane Coffin, Jr., of New York's Riverside Church, a leading figure in the anti-nuclear-arms campaign and a veteran of the Vietnam protests, notes the

sharp differences in membership of the two movements:

"The white collar seems to have taken over where the blue

jeans left off. Now, it is doctors, scientists and lawyers on

center stage instead of people from campuses and the arts."

.4 10-year-old group called Physicians for Social Responsibility is drawing upon its 10,000 members in 40 states to

conduct a series of symposiums on the medical consequences of nuclear war. The Union of Concerned Scientists

sent members to 150 college campuses late in 1981 to

conduct teach-ins on the danger of atomic arms.

Most of today's job-oriented students have not yet shown

the same z e d for banning the bomb that their predecessors

did for stopping the Vietnam War. But a new group called

United Campuses to Prevent Nuclear War will stage a

nationwide convocation on some 200 campuses on April 22,

as Congress debates the Reagan budget that calls for a

drastic cutback in student-loan programs and record levels

of military spending.

Participants in the new peace movement have a wide

variety of gods, ranging from opposition to locd nuclear

testing or weapons instdations in certain Western states to

doing away with all the world's atomic arsenals. Some oldline pacifist organizations insist on banishing even conventional weapons or, in the words of one analyst, "huning

every last sword into a plowshare."

Most activists, however, favor a U.S.-Soviet nuclear

freeze as a practical first goal. As Dorothy Eldridge, head of

New Jersey's SANE group, explains it, this stance "provides

the average citizen with a common-sense handle on a complex, deeply threatening problem. By comparison, the pros

and cons of SALT I1 were so technical and confusing that

the mass of citizens could only shrug and leave it to the

experts, who got us into our present fix-"

In town meetings, 8 heavy majority of communities in Vermont

and Now H8mpshire endorsed the nuckar-freeze proposal.

tentidy harmful." Others welcome tough challenges to the

authorities as a headline-grabbing way of awakening public

concern and gaining new supporters.

Behind the Latest Drive

What is fueling this new American peace crusade? Is the

movement controlled by European activists, groups sympathetic to Communism,or former Vietnam War protesters?

There is no evidence that the recent growth was generated simply by a few score former Vietnam activists in staff

positions. Nor are there any signs that pro-Communist sympathizers exert any significant influence. One delegation of

15 American activists has visited Europe to talk with organizers of antinuclear activity there-some of the Americans

even marching in at least one large demonstration-but its

members insist that no help was sought or given.

The key force behind the American antiwar crusade consists of leaders of most of the nation's churches.

At a meeting in Washington in late 1981, an appeal for

nuclear disarmament by Archbishop John R. Roach of St.

Laying the Foundations

Paul-Minneapolis, elected leader of U.S. Catholic bishops,

drew strong support from among the 263 bishops attendThe American peace movement is a subdued one coming, 69 of whom have specifically endorsed the nuclearpared with the strident street marches and rallies in Europe.

freeze proposal. The United Methodist bishops have called

For the most part, the U.S. crusade has emphasized quiet

the threat of nuclear holocaust "the most crucial issue fatdiscussions, showings of antinuclear films and prayer. Orgaing the people.of the world today" and pledged to help

nizers term this period the "consciousness raising" phasebuild a U.S. groundswell for peace on the European model.

one they hope will lay the foundation for later efforts to

Many Presbyterian and Lutheran leaders have stepped up

influence policy by demonstrating popular strength.

their antiwar activity, while the governing synod of the

Already, however, signs of a more dramatic and muscular

United Church of Christ has thrown its backing to "unilatapproach are emerging in the form of scattered direct

eral initiative by the United States" if that is necessary to

challenges to authorities. In Seattle, Catholic Archbishop

begin the process of nuclear disarmament.

Raymond Hunthausen announced that he would withhold

Three historic "peace churches'-Mennonites, Society of

half of the tax on his 1981 personal income as a protest

Friends (Quakers) and the Church of the Brethren-have

against the U.S. nuclear buildup, calling it "a grave moral

challenged their members to renew their commitments

e d . " He urged other Catholics to do likewise.

with radical acts including civil disobedience.

Bishop Leroy T. Matthiesen of Amarillo, Tex., exhorted

Evangelist Billy Graham said recently in an interview: "I

Catholic workers in a nearby nuclear-weapons plant to

am not a pacifist and I don't believe in unilateral disarma"seek new jobs or something that they could do which

ment, but I do believe in [eliminating] nuclear weapons. As

would contribute to life rather than destroy it." TO assist

long as any of these weapons exist, there is a danger."

workers who quit, an order of Catholic priests in St. Paul,

Rabbi Marc H. Tanenbaum, national interreligious-affairs

\1inn., sent the bishop $10,000.

director of the American Jewish Committee, joined with

In L\.ermore, Calif., in early February, police arrested

five prominent members of the Episcopalian clergy in

170 members of a peace group for trying to block the gates

pledging to help organize "millions of co-religionists" into a at a government atomic laboratory. Those jailed included

massive force to help avoid nuclear disaster.

Daniel Ellsberg, who was instrumental a decade ago in

In the face of this ecclesiastical militancy, Michael Novak,

releasing the Pentagon Papers on the U.S. role in Vietnam.

Some pacifists call such gestures "premature" and "P scholar in religion and public policy at the conservatively

U S N E W S 6 WORLD REPORT. March 22. 1982

1

oriented American Enterprise Institute, has warned Catholics against following the pleas of the "peace bishops,"

saying: "These clergymen appear unaware that Russia has

been pushing a tremendous atomic-weapons buildup over

recent years, while the U.S. was tapering off. To call a halt

now would leave us at a serious disadvantage in numbers of

military aircraft and with no antiballistic-missile system

such as the Soviets possess."

A Test of Strength

Late this spring, the fledgling American peace movement is scheduled to spread its wings in what backers hope

will be a major demonstration of power. The target: A

special United Nations session on disarmament opening in

New York on June 7. A week before, on May 28-31, the

churches will test their strength as peace services are conducted in some 3,000 churches and synagogues. Then

groups from as many as 30 states are to head for Manhattan

by chartered bus and plane to join delegations from Western Europe and Japan at a World Peace Day on June 12.

Organizers hope the turnout will top 200,000.

The major factor in triggering the country's ne? outburst

of pacifism has been the breakdown of US.-Soviet efforts to

control strategic weapons, starting in 1979 with the Senate's failure to ratify the Salt I1 treaty.

Compounding this concern, peace campaigners say, are

the stance and policies of the Reagan administration-the

harsh anti-Soviet rhetoric, the coolness toward strategicarmscontrol negotiations with Russia and the flurry of highlevel talk last year of fighting a limited nuclear war in Europe.

Explains Da\id Bnmell, head of the anti-nuclear-arms

campaign of the Union of Concerned Scientists: "To many

of us, the arms race between the US. and Russia is like two

kids standing up to their knees in a room full of gasoline.

One has 10 matches, the other eight. Neither kid says he

will feel safe unless he has more matches; yet each has

many more than he needs to blow the place up. That's why

people don't feel more secure

with more missiles."

Such talk brings quick retorts from American officials.

Secretary of State Alexander

Haig told a Senate subcommittee on March 10 in relation to

proposals for a nuclear-arms

freeze: 'This is not only a bad

defense policy, but it is a bad

arms-control policy as well.

The effect of a U.S. acceptance could be devastating."

He said the freeze proposal

would hinder current U.S.-Soviet talks in Geneva on limiting nuclear missiles in Europe.

Peace spokesmen say they weapo& montorlum .

believe Soviet leader Leonid

Brezhnev was sincere in suggesting to an Australian disarmament group in February that there be a bilateral moratorium on nuclear weapons. They say he has three good

reasons: Almost all the nuclear weapons outside Russia are

aimed at the Soviet Union; the arms race is a massive drain

on the Russian economy, and a freeze would halt the escalation into counterforce weapons--an area where the U.S. is

said to be several years ahead.

Most pacifists stress that they see the freeze only as a first

step toward mutual arms cutbacks. They add that they

would insist on satellite surveillance and other verification of

Soviet weapons reductions. 'There is a calculated risk involved." admits Randy Kehler, coordinator for the n a t i o d

freeze campaign, "but we think a start must be made soon

and somewhere."

Critics of the Kremlin voice a sharply different view. Says

Gerald Steibel, director of national security at the National

Strategy Information Center, a private group promoting a

stronger US. defense: "A joint nuclear-freeze agreement

between the U.S. and Russia at the present levels would

give the Soviets an overwhelming advantage in Europe. It

would leave our Western allies there vulnerable not only to

nuclear and conventional attack but to nuclear blackmail."

What are the prospects that the American peace movement will gain enough mass support to influence national

policy? Analysts concede that the crusade is growing steadily but note that it is still fragmented and has the potential

for blowing apart over differences in goals and tactics.

Says one organizer: 'There's no question we are gathering steam. But I don't think we are going to know enough

about whether we have something really big going heresomething capable of moving Washington and Moscowuntil we see what happens in the months just ahead."

0

By DA Z7D 6. RICHARDSON

Why Join the Peace Movement?

Some typical supporters of the drive to freeze nuclear

arms talk about why they joined the campatgn:

Dam Undley, 33, Indianoia, lowa, homemaker:

"My commitment began when my church asked me to

head a committee to find ways of working for peace.

The more I read and studied, the more I was convinced this was not just another routine a c m ~ t y I

became terrified at the immensity and horror ,,f the

nuclear-arms danger. Suddenly, doing what I c c d d to

avoid a nuclear war began to supersede all social and

housewifely things."

Dlck Peterson, 45, Uncdn,

Nebr., lawyer. "Iam a lrfelong

Republican and not normally a

person who goes in for causes.

But soon after Reagan came

into office, I became alarmed at

this administration's bellicose

posture and massive escdahon

of arms spending."

Harold Willens, 66, Los Angelt, business executivc "My

generation remembers t h e

atomic honors of Hiroshima and

Nagasaki. The way things are

going, we think it's high time to

)re we're all blown to hell."

Dlck Riley, 61, Oar Moinea, lowa, rttlred Navy

captain: "Isaw enough war to give me a bellyful. I

don't want my grandchildren to go to war, or any

other individual on this earth. I strongly believe a

nuclear deterrent is a 'must' until we can make our

adversaries agree to jointly disarm. But no form of

arms control is realistic that allows others to expand

their nuclear weaponry."

Nan Rodmy, 44, Springfield, Va., homemake

'The first thing I think about when the neighborhood

civildefense siren goes off in a test every month is my

kids. Now, I am working almost full time to try to

prevent a real doomsday from ever happening."

U.S.HEWS 6 WORLD REPORT. March 22. 1982

Analysis

What's Next for the

Nuclear-Freeze Movement

little immediate difference to voters.

Says one party staffer: "Reagan faces a

credibility g a p in his sudden switch to

hawk.

p

eacem

Many

a k e rfeel

from

he is fire-breathing

still set on winning an arms race." On this issue.

The antinuclear crusade

A recent New York TimesKBS some Democrats already are eying

Kews Poll showed 72 p e r c e n t of the 1984 presidential campaign.

has come a long way fast.

Americans favor a US.-Soviet nucleTwo leading Democratic presidenAhead is the tough part:

ar freeze, but only 30 percent want a tial aspirants-Edward Kennedy and

Turning a controversial

freeze if it might leave t h e Soviet Walter Mondale-have endorsed the

idea into U.S. policy.

Union with somewhat more strength. freeze. A Democratic pollster, PatAdministration officials believe rick H. Caddell, says the concept has

.4n .4merican peace movement

Reagan has deepened such reserva- caused "a firestorm that goes be).ond

that has captured t h e world's atten- tions, even if he has not defused the comprehension."

tion now faces a test of whether it movement, with his warning that a

For freeze-campaign leaders, h o ~ can bring to bear enough pressure on freeze would lock in Soviet superior- ever, endorsements by prominent

Ll'ashington to accept a US-Soviet ity-a

point disputed by nuclear- Democrats are a mixed blessing. .4cfreeze on nuclear arms.

arms experts in the movement.

tivists insist that theirs is a nonpartiThe \va! the nationuide peace cruStill, some Republican leaders ad- san issue and claim many Republisade caught fire already is credited mit uneasiness about the possible im- cans in their ranks. They worry that

with helping persuade the Reagan ad- pact of the freeze campaign on a other Republicans may stop joining

ministration to soften its harsh anti- number of 1982 congressional elec- or drop out if the campaign begins to

seem a straight partisan issue.

So\.iet rhetoric and to open armsLink to economy. In an effort

control talks June 29 with Russia.

T h e question now: Will t h e

to maintain momentum, organizfreeze campaign be a major force

e r s plan to broaden their a p in future I..S. policymaking, or will

proach. Top priority: Link the

freeze to key U.S. economic issues

it quick]!- fade as ha\-eso many such

by offering it as a means of cutting

nlo\ ements in the past?

arms spending, thereby helping to

E\ en before President Reagan's

relieve unemployment, inflation

J u n e 17 appearance in a peaceand high interest rates and to softmaker's role at the special United

e n trims in student loans and soSations session on disarmament,

cia1 programs.

C.S. nuclear activists demonstratEven so, the campaign's main

ed their strength by staging in

strength remains its focus on the

Sev,. Tork their first massive rally.

simply grasped-some critics say

Soaring start. There is no deny"simplistic"-concept of a freeze

ing that the rise of the freeze camon all atomic weapons as the best

paign has been spectacular. In only

means of avoiding nuclear war.

15 months. campaigners have obUnlike European antinuclear

tained nearl) 2 million signatures

protests that center on the U S

on a n t i n u c l e a r - a r m s petitions,

$ Pershing 2 missiles, the American

while recruiting volunteers t o

crusade singles out no specific nugather still more grass-roots supf clear hardware. It calls instead for

port across 48 states.

$ a blanket moratorium to halt the

Reflecting the movement's ris$ arms race. Regardless of \rho has

ing influence. 125 city councils

? the edge now, its arms-control exha\.e passed resolutions endorsing

$ perts insist, the U.S. and Russia

the freeze. along with one or both

both have enough atomic Ireapons

"Well, it got his attention."

housei of 12 state legislatures. Simito finish each other off.

lar endorsements have come from

"By 1984," predicts ~ a n d y~ e h l e r ,

some 200 members of Congress, often tions. The freeze will be on t h e ballot

under s t r o ~ ~

home-district

g

pressures. as a referendum in at least five states, national coordinator of the freeze

>'?t the f u t u r e of the crusade is including such key ones as California, campaign, "so many Americans u'ill

cloudt.d \rlth doubts and difficulties. Michigan and New Jersey, with an- be behind a freeze that the l e ~ . e lof

In its first congressional test on J u n e other five possibly to follow suit. The support today may look like first

9. tht. ~ ~ ~ ~ b l ~ ~

Senate

~ ~ worry

- ~ among

~ n t COP

~ ~professionals:

l l ~ d A base." That could be optimistic, but

Forelpn Relations Committee reject- heavy profreeze vote could carry many analysts agree that the antinued .I ireeze resolution on a near par- over into at least a few close congres- clear outcry that has risen ~learl!.

sional contests where candidates take overnight from little more than a

t! -1i1lti \ate, 10 to 6.

whisper seems likely to persist as a

I I \ , c h depends on how Americans strong positions on the issue.

Despite Reagan's decision to start strong voice on the American scene.

rc,, \ e a n ambivalence in t h e i r

rnlndS between fear of nuclear holo- arms-control talks with the Russians,

caust and danger to national security. Democrats predict that this will make BY DA W D B RICIMRDSOIV

;

Reagan Urges One-Third Cut

in Missile Forces

A s b for Tallis by End of June

By Lou Cannon

Washintton PC& swr Writer

EUREKA, Ill., May &President Reagan,

calling for "dismantling of the nuclear menace," today proposed reducing by one-third

the strategic missile-arsenals of the United

States and the Soviet Union

Speaking at the commencement ceremony

of Eureka College, from which he was graduated 50 years ago, Reagan unveiled a twophase plan of nuclear arms reductions and

urged the Sovieta to join in discussions on

them by the end of June.

'I believe that the West can fashion a

realistic, durable policy that will protect our

interests and keep the peace, not just for this

generation, but for your children and grandchildren," Reagan said to a burst of applause.

The first phase of the president's proposal

. would reduce ballistic missile warheads to

'equal ceilings at least a third below current

levels," with no more than half of these mis-

Source: Washington Post, May 10, 1982. P. A1 , A10, A1 I.

siles baaed on land 'l'hh rould cut the

roughly equivalent level d waahesds .on both

sides from 7,500 to 5,000. A prime goal is

reduction of 'the m a t destabilizing nuclear

systems," a reference to the powerful and

accurate Soviet SS18 and SS19 missiles.

A second phase, on which the president

provided no details, looks to an equal ceilixg

on all strategic nuclear forces, with the apparent but unspecified goals of preventing

either superpower from launching a succesef d first nuclear strike against the other. -"

'In both phases, we shall insist on verification procedures to ensure compliance with

the agreement," Reagan said.

[In Moecow, in an apparent attempt tb

take the edge off Reagan's arms contrd initiative, Defense Minister Dmitri F. Ustinov

said in a sharply worded article in Pravda

that T h e Soviet Union will not allow the

existing balance of forces to be disrupteclWl

See PRESIDENT,All, C d 1

-

@

Reagan Unveils 2-Phase Plan

To Cut Back Missile Arsenals

PRESIDENT, From A1

Speaking to an audience of more than 2,000

packed into a sweltering, metal-roofed gymnasium, the president jokingly remarked that "it isn't

true that I just came back to clean out my gym

locker." Reagan wore the red robes of the honordoctorate he received when he addressed the

commencement class of 1957, 25 years after he

graduated, and he quipped: "Mind :If I try for the

75th?"

In his speech, Reagan said he was willing to

negotiate in good faith on Soviet counterpropoa4 senior administration official said todaythat he expects the Russians to counter with some

proposal to reduce the number of bombers, in

which the United States has a definite edge. The

official said the United States is prepared to negotiate on this issue.

Reagan also hinted that he was willing to accept Soviet President Leonid I. Brezhnev's proposal for a fall summit meeti

'I have already expressed7my own desire to

meet with President Brezhnev in New York next

month," Reagan said. "If this cannot be done I

would hope we could arrange a future meeting

where positive results can be anticipated. And

when we sit down, I will tell President Brezhnev

that the United States is ready to build a new

understanding based upon the principles I have

outlined today."

Brezhnev, who is 75 and ailing, has rejected a

June meeting, calling instead for a 'well prepared

sulpmit" in October. Administration officials said

last week that the president was prepared to accept such an offer, adding that Brezhnev's health

,appeared to be the main obstacle to such a meeting.

Until today, the 71-year-old Reagan has declined to make any reference to the health of the

Soviet president. But in his speech to the Eureka

.graduating class Reagan made an oblique mention

of Brezhnev's condition, saying that "both the currenZ and the new Soviet leadership should realize

-[that] aggressive policies will meet a firm western

response."

While Reagan was calling for "a new start toward a more peaceful, more secure world," he repeated many of his favorite accusations against

the Soviet Union, which he referred to as "a huge

empire ruled by an elite that holds all power and

privilegew and fears that this power is slipping

from its grasp.

T h e Soviet empire is faltering because rigid,

,centralized control has destroyed incentives for

innovation, efficiency and individual achievement," Reagan said. "Spiritually, there is a sense

of malaise and resentmentw

The president said that despite its social and

.+

economic problems, "the Soviet dictatorship has

forged the largest armed force in the world" He

repeated his longstanding view that a military balance is needed to counter this force but also said

that the West would respond with expanded trade

and other forms of cooperation if the Soviet

Union embarked on peaceful policies.

Reagan called attention to the situation in Poland, where he said the Soviet Union has "refused

to allow the people of Poland to decide their own

fate, just as it refused to allow the people of Hungary to decide theirs in 19.56 or the people of

Czechoslovakia in 1968."

If martial law is lifted, political prisoners released and a dialogue restored with the Solidarity

Union, Reagan said the United States was prepared to join in a program of economic support

for Poland.

But the speech bristled with skepticism about

Soviet intentions.

"Unfortunately, for some time suspicions have

grown that the Soviet Union has not been living

up to its obligations under existing arms control

treaties," Reagan said. "There is conclusive evidence the Soviet Union has provided toxins to the

Laotians and Vietnamese for use against defenseless villagers in Southeast Asia And the Soviets

themselves are employing chemical weapom on

the freedom fighters in Afghanistan"

The timing of today's speech was dictated in

part by the president's desire to demonstrate in

advance of his European trip next month that he

is serious about discussions with the Soviet Union

that would lead to reduction of nuclear weapons

and also to take the initiative on the arms control

issue away from advocates of an immediate nuclear weapons "freezen at present levek

The president offered no prospect for quick or

easy succesa

"The monumental task of reducing and reshaping our strategic forces to enhance stability will

take many years of concentrated effort," Reagan

said. 'But I believe that it will be possible to reduce the risk of war by removing the instabilities

that now, exist and by dismantling the nuclear

menace."

Administration officials mid they hope the discussions will proceed at a brisker pace than the

negotiations that led to the SALT I treaty signed

in 1972 or the SALT I1 treaty, which was withdrawn by President Carter in 1979 after it became

clear that the Senate would not ratify it. The negotiations leading to that ultimately unsuccessful

effott

- took seven years.

Keagan said that he had written to Brezhnev

outlining his proposal and directed Secretary of

State Alexander M. Haig Jr. to approach the Soviet government proposing initiation of the strategic a m reduction talks (START) "at the earliest opportunity."

"We will negotiate seriously, in good faith, and

carefully consider ail proposals made by the Soviet Union: Reagan said. "If they approach these

negotiations in the same spirit, I am confident

that together we can achieve an agreement of enduring value that reduces the number of nuclear

weapons, halts the growth in strategic forces, and

opem the way to even more far-reaching steps in

the future."

Reagan's return to the small liberal arts college

from which he graduated in 1932 was a sentimental occasion He has come baqk to Eureka-as

movie actor, governor of California and political

candidate-many times since he left Illinois. During a speech at Eureka in October, 1980, Reagan

referred to the years he had spent at the college as

the happiest of his life.Often, Reagan has said that those who share'

the memories of a small college enjoy a richer tradition than many graduates of larger, betterknown universities.

"If it is true that tradition is the glue holding

civilization together, then Eureka. has made its

contribution to that effort," Reagan said. "Yes,it

ia a m d l college in a small community; it is no

impersonal assembly-line diploma mill. As the

years pass. . you'll find the four years you have

spent here living in your memory as a rich and

important part of your life."

After his speech, Reagan went by helicopter to

Peoria, where he attended a reunion of the Eureka

clasn of '32, shaking hands with each of the 37

fellow alumnae who attended and theiu spouses.

One former classmate, Karl Meyer, who m m e d in

the same fraternity house with Reagan, said he

wea "honest, poor, a helluva nice guy."

.

Plan Could Help Ease War Fears

By Michael Getler

to what maat people would call 'the arms

race." The new pro&

probably will still

Pnsident Reagan's dramatic new p r o p - mean footing the bill for expensive new MX,

ab yesterday for big reductions in Soviet and Trident I1 and cruise missiles as well as new

American nudear missiles could, if accepted B1 and Stealth bombera

For example, administration officiah say

by Moscoci~,go a long way to reducing the

fear d nuclear war.

the United States will propose that each side

If tbe president succeeds in getting the gradually reduce to about 850 the total of

Soviets to reduce their stockpile of big land- missiles based in underground silos and on

baeed m h i h that threaten this country's missile-firing submarines. Such a reduction

would be gradual, taking perhaps five or 10

News Analysis

yeare. The United States now has roughly

1,700 such mimiles and the Soviets 2,400.

But the officials also say privately that

t o m of smaller missiles, then Americans can

breathe easier. The temptation of either side those future 850 U.S. missiles could well be

to strike first would be greatly reduced and 200 bii new MX missiles and 650 of the new

maybe eliminated because neither side-4- 'hide& II missiles. These could replace the

ter reductionti-fwould have an obvious ad- - existing 1,000 Minuteman land-based

- ICBMs and hundreds of the current PoVal'ws

SO in one sew, the plan ia a would-be seidon undersea miyjilea

Similarly, while the United States is prestep to nuclear de-escalation

See ARMS, Alb, Col. 1

But it will almost certainly not be an end

-wsunmr

,

ARMS, From A1

pared to discuss bombers and cruise

missiles in the new talks with Moscow, these w e a m will come under

ceilings rather than be eliminated.

Thus, the new B1 and Stealth bbmb

em are still viewed aa aecessary replacements for the old and existing

B52s.

In other words, although no details were discussed about what the

United States might give up in the

negotiations, the administration believes that if America ia to have

smaller forces, they must be tharoughly modernized that they continue to deter attack and are able b

retaliate with confidence if necessary.

Reagan alluded to t h i in his.

speech when he talked of "tbmanumental task of reducing and reshaping our strategic forces to enhance stability.. ."

In briefing reporters yesterday on

the president'r proposah officials

said the idea wat?ito keep them clear

and understandable so they can

'command public supparts That will

nat be easy because the subject b

extremely complex and because SOviet and American rniaaik f o w

have bii differencea

In general terms, whet the preb

'ident is proposing is a plan that

stresses eventual equality in striking

power and aeeks, above all, to reduce

or remove the big Soviet lead over

the United %tea in very large landbased missiles

.

Of the roughly 2,400 Soviet missiles, 1,400 are land-based. Thia includes 308 of the huge SSl& each

Moet importantly, however, Reagan then asks that 'no more than

half of those warheads be land-

basedw This means roughly 2,500

warheads on land-based missilea

of which carries 10 atomic warheads.

The United States has nothing to

This ia crucial because the Sovieh

match this weapon. There are also

have 72 percent of their 7,500 or so

450 four-warhead SS17 and six-warwarheads on land-based missileshead SS19 missiles.

more than 3,000 of them on the 308

The 1,700 U.S. .misiiles include

S S l b w h i l e the United States has

the land-based Minutemen and 52

only 22 percent of its nuclear punch

older Titan missiles already schedbased on land with the rest on subuled for retirement. The rest are on

marines and bombers.

submarines. Many U.S. specialists

Essentially, the administration is

say the American missile force is less

trying to force the Soviets away from

of a threat to Moscow's missiles than

continuing its emphasis on those

the Soviet f o y pases to this counthreatening land-bad systems. The

try.

idea is that M m w would have to

Oficiala say that each side now

pay a very high price, within the

has roughly 7,500 individual waroverall allowed ceilings, to keep

heads on land and sea missile f o r m

many land-based missiles as o p d

Until now,a figure of roughly 9,000

to submarine-bad miseilea Thia

warheada for the United States and

would also complicate any plans for

between 7,000 and 8,000for MOBCOW a surprise attack

has been used in official statements.

Becauae submarine missiles am

The difference, officials say, is that

less accurate &d therefore less

threatening, and also because they

the 7,500 figure does not include

are less vulnerable and therefore do

bornbe carried on long-range bomb

not have to be fired quickly, they am

era of both sides. The initial thrust

generally not viewed as ones putting

of the U.S. p r o p d is to focus on

a hair-trigger on nuclear war. The

the matt destabilizing weapons,

new US. Trident II and Soviet 'l)tdeaning Soviet land-based missiles,

phoon missiles now in development,

which are most accurate and therehowever, will have greater accutacy

fore the graveat threat to knock out

and thus could also treatee to knock

the Minuteman in a first strika

out missile siloa

The president propoees reductions

to an equal ceiling 'at least a third

below current levels* of warheads. in

effect, this means a cutback from

7,500 to around 5,000 warheads on

all missiles on both sides.

Aside from warheads, the preaident has also called for "significant

reductions in missiles themselves:

which officials privately say means

an eventual ceiling of about 850

land- and sea-based missiles for both

sides. This obviously will require far

greater Soviet than American at:

backs.

These missiles and warhead cuts

are meant to be part of what the

president called "the first phaaeWof

the strategic arms reductions talks,

or START.

Reagan made no public mention

of bombers, an area in which ths

United States has sizable advantages. These weapons, and cruiae

mhilea that fly like jet planes, an,

also considered leas threatening becam they take hours to reach their

targets and are therefore unlikely to

be used in a surprise first strike.

Under questioning, briefing officiah said Washington "wae prepared

to deal with bombers throughout

both phases* of the START talks,

since Moscaw obviouaty wiIl raiee the

iseue. They eaid miee misailea

would also be dealt with but declined to say how or when.

Because Russian land-based missila are so much bigger than their

American counterparte, the Soviets

also have a roughly 3 4 - 1 advantage

in so-called 'throw-weight," meaning

the lifting power for hurling either

big warheads o!' Iota of them at targets. Therefore, the president wid,

in the second pheae of START he

also wants to equalize throw-weight,

bringing both sides below curredt

American levela

Because equalizing throw-weight

would mean forcing the biggest possible reductiona on Moecow rather

than the United States, some Pentagon officials argued strongly that

this should be the paramount consideration State Department officials, with support from the Joint

Chiefs of Staff, are said to have argued privately that such an initial

focus would make the proposal seem

hnplausible bo friend and foe alike.

esterd day,

however,

ofticiais

stressed that no one's arguments

were ignored and that cutting mie

siles and warheads ia one way.of cut

ting throw-weight.

And what about the Russians?

The Soviets undoubtedly will reject

the initial US. offering and argue

that the United States seeks to protect ita bomber and cruise missile'

edge and deploy the new MX and

Trident while the Soviets are asked

to give up the relatively new force of

land-based ICBMa that h e carried

them to such prominence in global

power politics. The Sovieta will a h

probably we the proposals as an

American effort to push the stra*

competition to submarines, whem

US. technology also has an edga

The administration, to the cfiagrin

of critia, bas taken well over a year

to come up with this proposal but

hrrs made ita general views known

from the atart. Oficials said yesterday the plan "won't come as a major

aurpriae* to Moscow and they expect

tcrlks to begin late &xt month .

The Soviete, ae pewed from here,

ham aerioue ednomic problink,

coming changes i/ leadership, prob

lema in Ppland @d elsewhere. Thia

couldrnaketabtotrytoatbt

'calm down the'nuclear threat eeem

appealing. When asked what the

United States w d d give the Soviete, officia)r & not mention MX or

B1. Rather, they say, 'an incentive

to reduce tk risk of nuclear war."

Soviets Hit

The Soviet h i o n was expected to advance its

own package of proposals for forthcoming talks.

US. Plan

On Arms

But Kremlin Hints

Proposal Could Be

A Basis for Talks

By Dusko Doder

W

P

l

h

l

~

F

m

t

~

~

MOSCOW, May 10-The Soviet

Union received President Reagan's

strategic arms control p r o p 4

today with skepticism, but indicated

broadly that it was prepared to consider them as a basis for resuming

t a b with the United States on reducing nuclear men&

.' The government news agency

Tasa carried a preliminary list of

Soviet reservations using largely crit- ,

ical remarks by various American

figures. It said Reagan's speech appeared to demonstrate that he was

not interested in 'mutdly acceptable decisions" but was rather 'indicative of the United States attempts to eecure for itself unilateral

military advantagan

But shortly afterward, the government news agency Novosti distributed to Western reporters the text of

a commentary that restated similar

suspicions but said "the very f a d of

American readinm to come back to

the negotiating table can be welcomed, for it is better late than never?

. "As for the Soviet side, it is always

[ready] for talks," it added.

Soviet sources familiar with

Kremlin strategic policies said Reagan's proposals were scrutinized

carefully. Moscow's respon*, they

mid, could come only after the Sovieb receive 'detailed explanations"

of the proposals.

The sources also emphasized that

*some fundamental thingsn from the

1979 Soviet-American strategic arms

limitation treaty "would have to be

retainedn in the new round of t , .

It appeared doubtful that preparations could be completed by late

June, when Reagan proposed that

the talks open, although the Kremlin

clearly would like to resume the strategic dialogue with the United States

The first Soviet reports of Reagan's speech

came 24 hours after he delivered it yesterday, proposing a two-step plan in which both sides initially would reduce by one-third their arsenals of nuclear warheads on land- and sea-based intercontinental ballistic mis iles.

The Soviets were briefed on the new proposals

on Saturday, when U.S. Charge d'Affaires Warren

Zimmermann. called on the Soviet Foreign Ministry to deliver an outline of Reagan's speech and

the president's message to Soviet President

Leonid Breahnev.

Ostensibly quoting American critics of Reagan's

plan, Tass gave a list of Soviet concerns saying the

president's proposals aimed "at making the Soviet

Union give up more than the United States."

The Tass report, from Washington, quoted sev'eral American politicians, weapons experts and

prese commentaries as being critical of the president's proposals. It quoted former secretary of

state Edmund Muskie as saying the proposals

were aimed a t undermining disarmament, while

the United States was attempting to achieve superiority over the Soviets.

Tass also quoted Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (DMaw), who criticized the fact that the Reagan

plan would enable the United States to continue

its rearmament program.

Moscow's concerns about the plan included its

exclusion of long-range bombers and intermediate-range cruise missiles. Tass said this gave "far

too little evidencen that Reagan was serious about

curbing the arms race since the programs such as

those developing the MX, Trident and cruise missiles and the B1 bomber would continue.

Yet the core of the president's plan-the proposed reduction by one-third in the number of

warheads on both sides-appeared to be the principal concern because it seemed to suggest an entirely new focus to strategic arms control.

In previous negotiations, the two sides focused

on the number of launchers, or k g e missiles,

whme numbers could be monitored by the socalled national technical means, or spy satellites

and other sophisticated electronic spying. Warheads in previous agreements were covered by set

sublimits.

in the preliminary analysis here, Reagan's plan

to make the warhead the basic unit of counting:

the Strategic balance would imply on-site inspection, something Moscow has been reluctant to accept. ~t was pointed out, however, that Brezhnev

stat& publicly that he was prepared to accept

some form of weapons inspection other than those

by "national technical means." It was

unclear how the verification of warheads could be

accomplished, but some U.S. sources suggested a

form of international supervision.

Reagan's proposal also provided that not more

than half the retained warheads be land-bawl.

The Soviets, who in contrast with the Americans,

.rely heavily on large, land-based missiles,

in

greatPCfor the Soviet Union than for

this

binjre55ir77i

,:;",

the United Statea

Service. Librzry of c ~ ~ , ,!:jib

: ~ ~ :

"

'

Perirl7ri.n

Boon

See MOSCOW, AM, Cd.1

of

C:2i-17t

Source: Washinpton Post, May 11, 1982 p. A1. A16.

20

Neither Tass nor Novosti gave detailed accounts of Reagan's proposals. Both charged that

they did not meet the basic Soviet requirement

that any Soviet-American st ategic arms agreements should observe "the principle of equality

and equal security."

"What also makes one wary is the opinion

voiced by political analysts to the effect that underlying the president's need for an impressive

speech were tactical motives of current policy

rather than principles of peace considerations,"

Novovti commentator Gennacly Cerasimov said.

He suggested that Reagan's propmals were

aimed at offsetting the antinuclear movement in

Western Europe, where Reagan will be visiting

soon.

According to diplomatic ohservers, Reagan's

straightforward and simple formula could prove

an effective way to disarm antinuclear groups in

the West.

Soviet sources said privately that the plan may

have a "psychological effect" in the' struggle for

popular opinion. It makes it almost impossible for

Mmcow to reject it outright.

As one source put it, the issue of arms control

'is far more complex than the number of warheads." Another source described the latest U.S.

prupcaals as a "new zero option," a reference to

the prwident's speech last November in which he

proposed the abolition of all new intermediaterange missiles in Europe.

That proposal led to the current Soviet-American talks in Geneva. According to the Soviets, the

Geneva talks have not moved off dead center as a

result of U.S. "intransigence." Under Reagan's

proposal, the United States would not deploy 572

new medium-range nuclear missiles in Europe

next year if the Soviet Union dismantle all its

medium-range missiles aimed at Western urope.

Soviet sources also showed serious skepticism

toward some American asqessments suggesting

that the new Reagan plan marked a shift in his

dealings with the Soviet Union. According to this

view, "great dangers" may be hidden hehind the

president's conciliatory stance, and a citreful study

of hi3 propmals was required hefore Moscow could

take a definitive positi~n.

"The president's so-called initiative," Tass said,

"in no measure affects the wltole complex of strategic nuclear weapons, hut draws only one narrow

aspect from it."

Despite all reservations, Novust.i noted that

"the president expressed hilnself for dialogue . .

. . The Soviet side expressed itself for dialogue

with the new US. administration in February of

1981, a month after he assumed office."

'

E