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
Pledge of Ultimate Cutbacks
Is Designed to Stem Drive :
for Freeze in Arsenals
-
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.
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
RhetieperceivedasaSwietadwmtage
n nuclear weapons or had reached an
rgrerment from Moscow for the subrtantial 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
nuclear weapons that reduces the risk
of war, lowers the level of armaments
and enhances global security," the
President said. "We can accept no
less."
On other foreign questions, Mr. Reagan made these points :
QHe praised the wide turnout in the
elections last Sunday r a constituent
assembly in El Salva , saying it was
inspiring. He noted that he had heard of
a w m a n who insisted on standfng in
line to vote even after being hit by a
ricochetingbullet. But he refused to say
what hetaould do if a right-wing governmeat tooh power and did away with
previous social changes.
QThe United States is continuing to
watch developments in Poland. The
President revealed no new Mtiatives
and said it was necessary that the Russians understand that "there could be a
carrot along with the stick, if they
straighten up and fly right."
QOn the Middle East. Mr. Reagan
said he hoped that recent clashes h the
West Bank between Israelis and Pales
tiniam would not slow progress in the
negotiations between Egypt and Israel
for Palestinian self-rule in the occupied
area. He said he hoped for progress in
those talks after Israel turns over the
rest of Sinai to Egypt on April 25.
In his openine statement, Mr. Reagan
seemed to gu out of his way to combat
an impnssiar that bb was uninterested
in annsoontrol and wan interested only
in building up Ammlca'r military machine.
He said he had seen the world
"plunged blindly into global war" twice
&
In his lifetime. He s d d 4 , "I share thg
determination of today's young people
that such a tragedy, which would be
rendered even more terrible by the
monstrous inhumane weapons In the
world's nuclear arsenals, must n e w
happen again."
In talking about the Soviet Union, the
President also seemed conciliatory in
his prepared opening statement that he
read rather rapidly.
Hesaid the successful outcome of the
United States space shuttle mission this
week reminded the world "of the great
the human pace can achieve
when it harnesses its best mfnds and efforts to a positive goal."
"Both the United States and the
W e t Union have written proud chap
ters in the peaceful exploration of outer
space," he said, "so I tnvite the Soviet
Unionto in with us now to subs^
tially E 4 . t ce nuclear weapons and
make an important -b
for
lasting peace on earth."
The President's statement contrasted
with the sharp attack on the Soviet
Union that he made in his first news
conference last year, in which he said
M e t leaders had made a virtue out of
lylng and cheating and could not be
trusted.
When asked ii his 15 months in o w
hadledhirntochangehisop~mabout
the Russians, he said, "No, I don't think
they've changed theirhabits."
He said the Russian8 were experkno
Lnn a "demerate situation economicalIF as a r d t of the military buildup
that "has left them on a very narrow
4
Lelge."
He said that as a reeult eamomic
problems made the the Rwiarn, vulmerable to economic sancttom by the
west, such as the withholding of
xedits. Be pointed out that thts was
being urged on the allies by the Ad&
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
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
Brahnev plan would only harden an already overwhelming Soviet edge in nuclear weaponry in Europe. Thesoviet Union,
for example, now has 300 SS2O-missides in
place and capable of being targeted on
Western Europc-up from 100 in 1979-Ground Zero, a nuclearaducation group. while.p~TOcurrently has no land-based
The main reason for the growth of the missides that can hit the Soviet Union.
movement is increasing wn&rn that po- "What [Baahnevl is tallung about,"
litical leaders of both sumrwwers-cste- charged White Hsuse Counsellor Edwin
cia& since the she\& of the S A L ~11 Meest, "is a situation where, two-thirds of
treaty in 1980 and the failure to resume the way through a football game, one side
talks since then-have moved, with mu- is ahead 50 to 0, and they want to freae
tual belligerence, toward a direct confron- the score for the rest of the game.'.' Both
tation that could trigger a nuclear war. Reagan and M s a e were somewhat overThose worries were, in a sense, symbol- stating the case, Since NATO dOCS have
iud by a rhetorical exchange between aircrafl- and submarine-based missiies
Ronald Reagan and Leonid Bruhnev last that partly offset the Soviet advantages
week that probably did more to augment
There was something else to Brczhsuperpower tensions than to ease than. nev's proposal: a vague but ominous
Spealung to the 17th Congress of Soviet warning to the US. that seemed to harken
Trade Unions, the medal-bedecked Sovi- back to the days of an earlier showdown
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
new 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
The frrc2c would last until an arms agree- would arise a real additional threat to our
ment was reached with the US., or until m t r y and its allies." Warned Brahntv:
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization This would compel us to take retaliatory
began deploying 572 new Pershing II and steps that would put the other side, incruise missiles in Europe, which is now cluding the United States itself, its own
scheduled to take place in late 1983. temtory, in an analogous position. This
Brczhnev also declared that the Soviet should not be forgotten."
It is precisely that kind of scare talk.
Union would later this year unilaterally
dismantle "a certain number" of its medi- whether emanating from the Kremlin or
from the White House, that is galvanizing
um-range missiles already in plaa.
the nuclear-freeze advocates. For d
l the
ashihgton swiftly rejected obvious reasons, they are uneasy about
Brezhnev's proposals. "A the military intentions of the Soviet
freue simply isn't good Union. Unfairly or not, the Reagan Adenough 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
speech to the Oklahoma state legislature. President on down4bout the prospect of
Instead, Reagan reminded Brczhnev of fighting a "limited nuclear war." M v y
his "zero option" proposal made last Nc+ Americantincluding some with wns~dvember, in which the US. would forgo erable expertise in the area-fear that
placing its new Pershing I1 and cruise mb- their leaden are mom comfortable than
sila on European mil if *Moscow would ever before with the thought of using nuclear weapons. "There is great concern
scrap its arsenal of SS-20 missiles.
M t there are no s e r h i efforts for axma
Concerned that Moscow might pthelcsr score a propaganda coup w t h tts control." says Thomas Habtpd, 48, d i m
proposals, the White House released a de- tor of the Boston-based Physicians for So-
W
2
cia1 Responsibility. "Instead, the Reagan
Administration gives us pronouncements
that nuclear weapons are usable and that
nuclear wan arc winnable." Adds Dr.
Stephen Klineberg, professor of sociology
at Rice University in Houston: "Reagan
has t c d e d not only the Russians, but the
Americans too."
Most of the groups lobbying against
the spread of nuclear weapons embrace
the belief that, as a first step, the US.
should negotiate a bilateral nuclearweapons freeze with the Soviet Union.
The current proposal was written in 1979
by Randall Forsberg, 37, a former editor
for the Stockholm International Peace
Research Institute, who was then studying for a doctorate in military policy and
arms control at M.I.T. "My objective was
to come up with a goal in arms control
that would have grcat appeal," she explains, "It had to be simple, effective and
bilateral in order to involve people."- .
orsberg's treae propod was hrsP
published in April 1980, in a booklet titled Gall to Halt the Nuclear
Armc Race. but it attracted searnt
attention Only aher November 1980,
when voters in three state senate districts
in Massachusetts approved a hezz rcmlution by 59% to 4146, did the proposal
begin to draw wide support. "Whet that
told us," says Randy KeNer, a formu
schoolteacher and antiwar activist, "was
that Ronald Reagan's election was not
necessarily synonymous with support of
the nuclear-arms race." At last count,
freeze resolutions had been passed in 257
town meetings in New England. 31 city
councils, and six state legislatures.
Perhaps the most significant local
freeze campaign involves the m e d
California initiative, which would require
the state's Governor, reflecting the will of
the people, to advise the President that he
should propose to the Soviet Union an immediate halt to the "testing, production
and further deployment of nuclear w s a p
mu ... in a way that san be verified by
both sides." The brainchild of Liberal ACtivist Harold Waens, boord chairman of
the La Annelts-bared F a c m E s u i ~
F
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
even mention radiatioa. Once a bomb is
launched, it w i l l be an d o u t war urd w
community in the U S will be exempt"
In Chicago,Kmlc 350 profcggn flwl
42 colleges and rmive1.sities have banded
Chitogether since Janumy to form m.
cqp Area Faculty for a Freeze. "This is a
fint for me," said B ~ c Winstem,
e
a Vnivenity of Chicago physicist .who pined
the group. "I've never gotten mvdvcd before, but finally I can oec where I can
make a difference." In Slth Dakota,
which has 150 missile sites and an imping military payroll, eight city anmcils
have so far passed their own nuclearfreeze rrsolutions. "South Dakota h the
last place pople think something Wre this
would be & i i on." says Tim Langley, dirator of the South Dakota
Peace and Justice Center. "But
thesewhasgrownhmthatm
arc entering a new phasc of the
arms race, that we .re getting
ready to fight. nuclear war.St. Paul, Minn., Bonnie Iverson,
37. a mother of two,, b y dlecting s i g n a t m for her state's
freeze rrsolution. "I get nervous
about going door to door." she
m ~ d q ..hrt it's a
I bp
lieve in. It's the notion of what
would happen to the land and all
life. If nuclear war happens, I hope the
bomb hits right here b u s e 1don't want
to live to see it"
The strength of the antinuclear sentiment is especially surprising in the South,
considering the .region's traditional conservatism and its dependence on the military for its livelihood. Ln at least six of the
region's states, the largest single employer
is the Department of Defense. The board
of supemisom in Loudoun County, Va.,
adopted a nuclear-freae rrsolution last
week, 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
I
,TIME, MARCH 29.1982
7
Nancy Smwmq whae uate is homc to
IPoreidonalkikfPaory8DdtheXUtion's only wapons-g.de plutonirmn
pt.nt~instnllrrtionsbavebetnherr
fayam,butIdothinL~~pdopk.n
now ueannfatably aware that h t h
CarolimpLyrafugeWrrotethanwe
would wish in nuclear matters." Emore ccmpfkabk has ban the rrceptim
given to faur dronclad Buddhist monks
from J a m , who arc trudging along highways in the South chanting prayers af
peace. The monks belim that the ground
they~wUbe~Eromnuclcar
war, they began their pilgrimage h
New Orleans last Januasy and h o p to
reach New Yak City by Juue. "We have
been met with great interest," said Jinju
Moorishita last week, after being greeted
by 150 well-wishwho walked to the
ouWrirtsdALhens.Gr,inagaturcof
welcome. "People do wt ignae ra."
eligiora kadm and groups have
' played an incrraJingly important
8
role in the movement. At l a s t 70
Roman Catholic bishops (of the
368 in the US.) have spoken out against
the arms race a in favor of a nuclear
Ereeoe, and the hierarchy's umbrella aganization, the ~ a t i o n a lConferena of
Catholic B k h . dam to vote on a major
statement abo;t bklear war at its annd
meeting in November. Bishop Leroy
Matthiesen of Amarillo, Texas, has even
urged Catholia working at a nearby
nuclear-mapons asscrnbiy plant to amsider switching ptu, and has set up r
510,000 fund to help workers who quit the
plant far m o d rcesons
Protestant churches have ban equally outspdrm. The National Council d
Churches, which represents 40 d o 1 1
Protestants,supports a bilateral nucla!
frecre. The 1.6 million-mcmber Ameri-
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
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:
E W Y A R D T E U E R , ~ o f t h
b r m b a d a R e a g a ~
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
. dance.
~
smoral
~ ~d d e r a t i o n s that now threatens
to prcject ra into an a b y s of fantasy, in
which a nuclear war is thought of as possible and even survivable.
dvbar: I h o p [the n u c l e a r - f m m o v l
mentj will not become UI important
force. I hope more sense will prevail. If
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
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 committee 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 critical 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