Winnipeg Free Press

Winnipeg Free Press (Newspaper) - April 20, 1981, Winnipeg, Manitoba Free press monday april 20, 1981 7 my could accelerate the Arm Contro Ivry Over the proposed my strategic missile system has developed in Washington . In this article a Case against my is put by retired Admiral Stansfield Turner who served As director of the Central intelligence Agency under president Jimmy Carter. By Stansfield Turner new York times the changing balance of strategic nuclear forces Between the United states and the soviet Union has in the last few years been a major focus of attention for the american intelligence Community. Until the late 1960s, the United states was militarily stronger than the soviet Union by virtue of its Superior nuclear Arsenal. We Felt secure. The soviets did not and they set out to Correct the imbalance. The result has been that in the last several years All of the Best studies have shown that the balance of strategic nuclear capabilities has been tipping in favor of the soviet Union. The Carter administration recognized this imbalance and developed an ambitious plan to build a Mammoth new intercontinental ballistic missile system known As the my for missile Congress has provided initial financing and already major contractors from California to Massachusetts Are plunging ahead building test Sites and hiring designers and workers. About workers Are Al ready involved. I believe the my project As presently conceived is a serious mistake. The official estimates of the total Cost of the my run from the air Force s billion to the general accounting of fice s billion. Each missile will weigh 95 tons two and a half times More than our most current intercontinental ballistic missile icbms the minuteman Iii and will carry 10 separate warheads. To construct a base for it will require according to some estimates 40 per cent of the country s total Cement production for three years and More dirt will have to be moved and More land sequestered than for the Panama canal. My is also a new concept in icbms. Our present minuteman icbms Are loaded in fixed underground silos of Concrete reinforced to help than with stand nuclear attack. My in contrast will be Semi Mobile. Twenty three Shel ters about a mile apart Are to be built for each my. Each of the 200 missiles will ride on a.201-foot-Long transporter launcher weighing More than a million pounds Over the special highways trom one of its 23 shelters to another. The russians would be forced into a kind of Shell game if they considered an at tack on our icbms each my would Force them to worry about 23 targets rather than just one. The . Strategic strength Strate Gic strength in this context refers to the major Powers centrally controlled nuclear forces which Are targeted against each other is built on three legs known As the triad. Each leg represents a weapons system that is launched differently one from land bases the second from air planes and the third from submarines. Each leg presents the soviet Union with a differ ent problem should it decide to attack. While it might be Able to cripple one leg the inability to Knock out All three should deter the soviet Union from attacking at All. The my specifically strengthens the land is the icbms this leg is important because the size of the warheads and the accuracy of the mis Siles make it the most powerful part of our strategic Arsenal. It is quickly responsive to a decision to launch because the missiles can be maintained in a constant state of readiness and we have reliable instantaneous secure communications to them. It provides minimum warning of attack to the soviet military because the time from launch in the United states to Detona Tion Over the soviet Union would be Only about 30 minutes. The other legs of the triad have different Virtues. Ballistic missiles slams provide greater Assurance than either of the other weapons systems that they will survive a Surprise attack. Submarines can be constantly moving and they Are virtually impossible to find in Broad Ocean areas. Bombers can carry a Large number of weapons so they pro vide great destructive potential and because the bombers themselves can be called Back before they actually launch their missiles this leg of the triad is the most flexible. Most authorities agree that today the land launched icbms our minuteman missiles Are the most vulnerable of our strategic forces because their location is fixed making them easy targets. But is the my the Best replacement the undertaking is so Central to our National Security that it is important that doubts about it be resolved. First what do we mean when we say that the balance of strategic nuclear forces is tipping against us How is that balance measured one quantitative measure is the number of weapons the United states and the soviet Union each has. Here America is clearly ahead we can attack More individual my would be moved regularly Between k storage Points which increase soviet problems of destroying it with icbms such As the one below. Polaris submarines form part of the nuclear missile triad. Targets than the russians can. Another measure is the ability to inflict dam age. Here the soviet Union is Well ahead. The soviets hold both an absolute Lead in total number of icbms and a relative Lead in the ability to destroy missiles that Are housed in hardened silos. This advantage reflects first the fact that there Are 400 to 500 fewer icbms targets in the United states than in the soviet Union. Second it reflects a Basic trend in strategic warfare. Improvements in weapon accuracy Are More than offsetting any efforts to Harden silos. Direct hits can destroy even hardened silos. We could do two things to right this imbalance. We could increase our ability to attack hardened targets in the soviet Union and we could make our icbms forces less vulnerable. But what Ever we do it must not Only Correct the actual imbalance of capability it must also Correct the perception of imbalance. It must be made Clear in the minds of soviet officials As Well As other world leaders that the soviet Union does not have an Edge on the United states in strategic nuclear strength. A major step in doing that is to create the impression that the United states is seriously committed to improving our strategic forces even if in reality some of the actions we take will contribute Only to overkill. Changing the world s perception that we Are falling behind the soviet Union is As important As not falling behind in fact. Deterrence is the key goal of strategic nuclear forces and what will or will not deter a nuclear attack is sometimes More psychological than quantifiable. The my would indeed meet these objectives. It is designed to hit hard targets. It is less vulnerable than minuteman because each missile can shuttle among the 23 alternative launching shelters rather than sit in one fixed silo. And proceeding with the most expensive Public works program Ever contemplated would certainly give an impression that America was serious about restoring the strategic balance. But the my has significant liabilities. One is the response it can be expected to draw from the soviet Union. The current plan is to put 200 my missiles in place and to build shelters. If we presume that the soviet Union will want to be Able to Knock out essentially All my missiles with a Surprise attack As it could our present minute Man icbms it would need More warheads than Are required now for minuteman. Could the soviet Union deploy an other warheads yes easily even under the limitations of the proposed strategic arms limitations treaty Salt the United states would not of course stand still if the soviet Union deployed More warheads. It would probably deploy More mrs and build More shelters. Then the so Viet Union would probably build still More warheads. Where would it All Stop stability is a function not Only of the number size and survivability of weapons but of other characteristics As Well. The More threatening a weapon is the More nervous it makes a Poten tial adversary and the More destabilizing it becomes. A High accuracy icbms is a destabilizing weapon because it can be launched on Short notice because it has a Short flight time and therefore gives Little warning and because it can destroy even hardened targets like icbms silos. Icbms like minuteman and my Are at the most destabilizing end of the weapons spectrum because they com Bine All of these characteristics. Most other systems have some but not All. Thus building the my rather than stabilizing the strategic balance would probably destabilize it further. The United states could avoid the risk that the soviet Union s military response to the my would both offset its effectiveness and Lead to More danger Ous instability by simply cancelling the project. But just deciding not to build the my would also be a serious mis take. It is essential that the United states make a commitment to some clearly defined program lest the nation permit the strategic imbalance to Worsen or allow the perception that it is indecisive undermine what it finally decides to do. It should cancel the my Only under two conditions that it do something else instead and that what Ever it does will meet its strategic objectives. There Are excellent alternatives to the my. The Best would be a diverse mix of systems All of which would be More Mobile than the my and could be deployed in much larger numbers. Both the mobility and the Large Quantity of these systems would make them very difficult for the soviets to attack with Confidence. Intercontinental cruise missiles on a variety of launching platforms would be one ingredient in the mix. A cruise missile is relatively Small some the size of a torpedo it is self guiding and flies in the atmosphere whereas the much larger icbms is shot out into space before it returns to its target. Modern technology will permit the United states to place cruise missiles in Small packages and to give them even greater accuracy and Penet ability than icbms. Other ingredients of the mix would be land Mobile icbms and the existing slams on submarines. The United states ought to develop a Small Road Mobile icbms just As the soviet Union has already done the ours could be deployed in the Remote areas of Alaska for example. It could even be disguised in Large trucking vans and moved around the United states at random. This same icbms could be placed on ships and carried in aircraft As Well. This mix of More Mobile systems also lessens vulnerability better than the my. The less Mobile the system the More vulnerable. The fixed icbms is the most vulnerable strategic system. It cannot move and it is difficult to hide from modern reconnaissance systems. Next to the fixed icbms the Semi fixed my is the most vulnerable. It can move but Only Between fixed shelters whose positions Are Well known to the soviet Union. The my May also fail to achieve the third objective that is correcting Public perception demonstrating a new momentum toward righting the Strate Gic balance. In our democratic society environmental and political activists May Well delay the my deployment limit its size or even prevent its development entirely. If we proclaim publicly that the my is to be our solution to the changing strategic balance and then cannot follow through with an adequate deployment we will have demonstrated that we Are incapable of doing so. How much greater will the corrective measures have to be then to overcome that negative perception the final Issue is whether a mix of More Mobile strategic forces would meet National objectives better than the my. I believe it would. One of the arguments for continued Reliance on icbms is that we need to preserve the concept of a triad of strategic forces icbms bombers and i agree that we cannot rely entirely on one Type of weapon lest some counter to it be developed. I agree too that we do not want to depend excessively on one Arm of Basing lest it become especially Vulner Able. But diversity in these areas should come from a careful mix of the least vulnerable systems that we can devise not by retaining the existing mix no matter what common sense tells us. The proposed set of Mobile systems would be a far healthier and More diversified mix. There is Little time left to reverse the momentum of the my. A prompt but thorough review of where the my May be taking us As Well As what alternatives there Are to the my is crucial to America s Long term Security. Trilingual ism does not impress bureaucrats Lloyd Axworthy got into some hot water last year when As minister of immigration he issued a permit to allow the entry into Canada of a Man who opposition maps claimed had been convicted on three occasions of serious criminal offences outside Canada who had been charged with counterfeit ing in Toronto and who had skipped bail before being convicted and imprisoned. The Man was driven to the . Border by customs officers who went through the ritual of deporting him so that he could step Back across the line legally and be driven Back to Winnipeg by the same officers. One of the minister s Campaign work ers subsequently came Forward As the individual who had gone to Bat for the minister s entry permit claiming that the stones about the Man s criminal activities were exaggerated. Earlier the minister claimed he did not know that another individual admitted to Canada one with a criminal record wanted to come Here to provide entertainment at his brother s hotel. Judging by both incidents it is Clear that Canada s minister of immigration has some ideas about who should be let into the country. He also has some ideas equally firm about who should be kept out. One individual being kept out is Dan Iel Olehy a Swiss citizen fluent in three Fred Cleverley languages who has a Job waiting at m and j farms near Russell Manitoba. The Man who runs the cattle ranch Marshall Glasman has been trying to get Olehy into Canada since last August. He cannot obtain the necessary papers because the Federal government is con Vinced that there Are canadians who should be hired even though the government since last August has failed to Send one suitable applicant to the ranch. Olehy met Glasman in 1979, when the Young Swiss worked at the Manitoba farm for six months As part of a federally sponsored agricultural Exchange program. The two hit it off. Glasman anxious to expand his cattle sales into Quebec considered Olehy s fluency in English French and German to be a particular asset. He offered to help Olehy enter Canada. Last March 23, after attempting to Deal with the government for six months Glasman gave his provincial la speaker Harry Graham a letter in which he pointed out that he needed it Thi an employee within five weeks when the farm s Breeding program was due to begin. He asked Graham s help with the immigration problem. The reply from Axworthy s office to Graham underlines just How difficult it is to Bridge the communications Gap Between bureaucrats and businessmen Farmers. The letter starts out by stating the requirements for immigration and says that areas considered include age education family responsibilities knowledge of one or both of the official languages and an offer of employment which has been certified by a Canada employment Centre indicating that no canadians or permanent residents Are available to fill the the letter says Glasman placed an order with the Canada farm labor Pool in Brandon on october 27, 1980. Glasman claims he filed his first order in August but that it was lost. The letter says five applicants were referred to Glasman. Glasman claims the number was three. He said the first had to be rejected because a medical disability prevented him from holding a Driver s licence the second was a local resident who made it Clear he was interested in Only a Winter Job not full time employment and the third telephoned from Brandon was offered bus fare for an interview but did not accept. The bureaucrats then suggest the Job was not taken because the wages were too Low. It must be remembered that the Job was essentially that of a farm labourer. Glasman originally offered a month a free House farm meat and vegetables free and a vehicle All expenses paid. He subsequently in creased the offer to a month plus the extras. It was not enough for Immi Gration. The letter says this amount is half of what is considered to be a Good general Benchmark for the Type of individual he is looking for. Apparently a person was hired for a position Simi Lar to that being offered by or. Glas Man at a salary of a was the employer the Federal government doonesbury Glasman should not lose Hope. The bureaucracy says the requirement for a French speaking person is not considered to be. A priority. Financial assistance to allow him Glasman to train an individual is also the bureaucracy says that Glas Man s expectations Are a bit High. Although May be in his Opin Ion just the Man he needs As sympathy ethic As we May be to his wishes we do have As much a responsibility in doing our utmost to assist people who Are already Here canadians particular take advantage of the opportunities such As or. Glassman is offer the sympathy May have jolted the bureaucracy into action. On March 4, 1980, More than seven months after being notified of the requirement the Job order has been placed into Clear Ance in the National Job Bank which gives it exposure in All secs in Canada and has also been cleared to All farm labor pools in Manitoba Saskatchewan and for the bureaucracy this was pretty fast. It was Only a month after Glas Man s latest attempt to hire the Man he wanted was rejected. Perhaps his next move should be to get a list of Lloyd Axworthy s Campaign workers. And i quit school boarpaws1awaiocalchap m of the moral Majuro to t uh05ay6wiltm5a my Rel i m Milre 160alon6 Ulm youth Shatone that s what this of me All about my you Burn Tinifu for. Again Bupt All Elf Unity. I ;