Nuclear Weapons Freeze Movement: Issues for National Debate

Congressional Research Service The Library of Congress NUCLEAR WEAPONS FREEZE MOVEMENT: ISSUES FOR NATIONAL DEBATE IP0195N I s t h e American p u b l i c i n c r e a s i n g l y a g a i n s t n u c l e a r weapons? Are U.S. and o t h e r world l e a d e r s p a y i n g t o o much a t t e n t i o n t o arms p r o d u c t i o n and t o o l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n t o arms c o n t r o l ? Have t h e f e a r and l i k e l i h o o d o f a n u c l e a r war i n c r e a s e d ? These i s s u e s a r e b e i n g d e b a t e d i n l o c a l communities and i n c r e a s i n g l y among U.S. p o l i c y m a k e r s . The g r a s s - r o o t s movement t o "ban t h e bomb" h a s a l r e a d y b e e n e n d o r s e d by o v e r one m i l l i o n p e o p l e t h r o u g h l o c a l and S t a t e A r e c e n t G a l l u p p o l l c o n c l u d e d t h a t o v e r 314 o f Americans referendums. f a v o r a 50% r e d u c t i o n i n n u c l e a r a r s e n a l s by b o t h t h e S o v i e t Union and t h e United S t a t e s . The n u c l e a r weapons f r e e z e movement h a s r e c e n t l y g a i n e d t h e a t t e n t i o n o f C o n g r e s s . On March 1 0 , 1982, S e n a t e and House r e s o l u t i o n s were i n t r o d u c t e d which r e q u e s t e d t h e P r e s i d e n t t o n e g o t i a t e a n immediate n u c l e a r weapons f r e e z e w i t h t h e S o v i e t Union, f o l l o w e d by m a j o r r e d u c t i o n s on b o t h s i d e s . Another congressional proposal c a l l s for t h e President t o negotiate with t h e Soviet Union a l o n g - t e r m , m u t u a l and v e r i f i a b l e n u c l e a r f o r c e s f r e e z e , b u t a t e q u a l and s h a r p l y r e d u c e d f o r c e l e v e l s . T h i s I n f o Pack p r e s e n t s background i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e r e c e n t p e a c e c r u s a d e and examines b o t h t h e d e s i r a b i l i t i e s and p o t e n t i a l d a n g e r s i n h e r e n t i n such p r o p o s a l s t o f r e e z e o r r e d u c e n u c l e a r weapons. A l s o i n c l u d e d a r e r e l e v a n t Reagan A d m i n i s t r a t i o n r e s p o n s e s t o t h e s e v a r i o u s p r o p o s a l s . We hope t h i s m a t e r i a l w i l l b e u s e f u l . Congressional Reference Division COMPLIMENTS OF Gene Snyder A r t i c l e s r e p r o d u c e d w i t h p e r m i s s i o n of c o p y r i g h t c l a i m a n t s . BIDS THE RUSSIANS JOIN IN 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