DISARMAMENT FEATURE The myth of the ‘Soviet threat’ The following is reprinted from a brochure, Deadly Standoff: The U.S.- Soviet Military Balance distributed by SANE. “*...we must remember that it has been we Americans who, at al- most every step of the road, have taken the lead in the development of (nuclear) weaponry. It was we - who first produced and tested such a device; we who were the first to raise its destructiveness to a new level with the hydrogen bomb; we who introduced the multiple warhead; we who have declined every proposal for the renuncia- tion of the principle of ‘first use’ ; and we alone, so help us God, who have used the weapon in anger against others, and against tens of thousands of helpless non- combatants at that.” -George Kennan former ambassador to the USSR under Pres. Eisenhower Exaggerated claims of Soviet milit- ary strength and American weakness have abounded since the Cold War began over 30 years ago. In the early 1950s claims of a - “bomber gap” led to the development of our B-47 and B-52 strategic bomber force. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the ‘‘megaton gap’”’ and “missile gap” became the excuse for accelerated de- velopment of our Minuteman intercon- tinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). All these gaps proved to be false after subsequent ‘examination. (Former science advisor to Pres. Eisenhower, George Kistiakowsky, gives a firsthand account of mythical gaps in ‘‘Hazards of Soviet Scare Stories,”’ Christian Science Monitor, Jan. 17, 1977. See also Tom Wicker’s “‘Beware of ‘Gaposis’,’’ New York Times, Jan. 9, 1981.) Yet these mythical gaps all accomplished the same thing—the expansion of U.S. nuclear forces and the acceleration of the arms race. The 1970s were filled with new “gaps’’ which led President Reagan to pledge ‘nuclear superiority” for the United States. The result is an unpre- cedented transfer of our tax dollars from social programs to the military, moving us ever closer to doomsday. Despite the common misconception ‘that the Soviets are ahead of us militar- ily, our two countries are roughly equal in strength. In many critical areas the U.S. and our NATO allies are ahead, and in other areas, the USSR and its Warsaw Pact lead. According to the De- fense Department’s annual report for FY 1982: ‘‘...while the era of U.S. superiority is long past, parity—not U.S. inferiority—has replaced it, and the United States and the Soviet Union are roughly equal in strategic nuclear power.” ALLEGATION: The Soviets have out- spent us for years, and we must drasti- cally increase the military budget to catch up. : FACT: There is disagreement over who Spends more on the military, as Chart I Shows. But all sources agree on one thing: our NATO alliance has consis- tently outspent the Warsaw Pact and continues to do so today. According to the U.S. Arms Control and Disarma- ment Agency, NATO outspent the War- saw Pact by at least $207 billion during the 1970s. Sen. Proxmire recently said on the floor of the Senate: It is time that the American public understands that these quotes about being outspent by the USSR are just plain inaccurate. They are nonsense, balderdash, phony, fake and I might add, un- true. : ALLEGATION: The United States is arsenal is concentrated in land-based silos, making them more vulnerable to attack. Acomparison of East and West must include not just the U.S. and USSR but the NATO and Warsaw Pact alliances as well. By this measure, the West has . many advantages. The non-U.S. coun- tries of NATO have over three times the population of their Eastern counter- parts. Likewise, the non-U:S. NATO countries contribute 38% of total NATO defense expenditures, compared to 9% for non-Soviet Pact countries. Strivings Official US Government ne MILITARY SPENDING (Billions of US Dollars) R150 NATO | NATO 100. = 50 Stockholm tInternationai Peace Research Institute - _ World Priorities _ - Source: World Military and Social Expenditures 1980, ca becoming vulnerable to nuclear missile attack. ; FACT: While the Soviets have more strategic missiles than the U.S., our missiles have 2,000 more nuclear warheads on them (9,000 compared to 7,000 for the Soviets, according to the Department of Defense Annual Report for 1982). Moreover, U.S. nuclear weapons are broadly dispersed in land- based missiles, submarines and bom- bers. Over half of our weapons are de- ployed aboard invulnerable sub- marines. In contrast, 70% of the Soviet for greater independence in Poland and other Eastern countries also pose prob- lems for the Warsaw Pact. “One quarter of all Russian ground forces are deployed along the Sino- ‘Soviet border. Latest Pentagon esti- mates show 135 Soviet divisions facing Europe and 45 divisions facing China. Similarly, nearly one-third of the Soviet Union’s new SS-20 nuclear missiles are . aimed at China. In contrast, the U.S. is strengthening military ties with China. The presence of large potential enemies to both the East and West is an impor- EUROPEAN THEATER NUCLEAR WEAPONS _ (Number of Warheads). | NATO/FRANCE Psgoo: Pest es oS {Shortrange f *000 f(canreach . L Eastern Europe)| ! : 4,000 a oes rh 3,000 2.000 r 1,000 Source: Center tor Defense Information ., 1981. For background, see The Defense - The Department of Defense has called tant factor in assessing Soviet milit ry capability. ALLEGATION: ‘number one.” FACT: It is true that the Warsaw Paget has a greater number of ships tha NATO (1,800 compared to: 1,500). But according to the Defense Department, “Gross numerical comparisons are Our navy is no longer misleading, since they do not account! - for size or capability.” NATO’s Ships are larger, with greater Naval firepower and more sailors—801,000 compared to 502,000 for the Warsaw Pact. Moreover, the Soviet navy has li. mited access to the seas and few Over- seas ports. The 1982 Annual Report of the De. fense Department states: “Our Navy remains the best in the world.” ALLEGATION: The Soviet Union has an overwhelming nuclear and conven. tional advantage in Europe. FACT: NATO and France have 7,999 ‘nuclear warheads designed for use in| Europe, compared to 4,000 for the Soviet Union. (Based on the Center for Defense Information estimate as of October Monitor, Vol. IX, No. 2, March 199. ) The U.S. has a larger number of short- range ‘‘tactical’’ weapons, while the USSR has more medium-range mis- siles. The conventional force balance js roughly equal. NATO/France have 2,123,000 ground troops in Europe, com- pared to 1,669,000 for the Warsaw Pact. The Warsaw Pact has the lead in tanks—26,300 main battle tanks com-: pared to 17,053 for NATO. NATO Offsets this advantage by deploying more sophisticated weaponry, including over © 193,000 precision-guided anti-tank mis- siles. © , According to the Defense Depart- ment, ‘NATO still retains its Overall - qualitative edge” in Central Europe. Do the Russians cheat? Many Americans mistakenly be. lieve that the Soviet Union has a history of cheating on arms control treaties. this charge ‘‘nonsense” and has found that the Soviets have an excellent re- cord of compliance with arms contro] agreements. (The SALT Syndrome: Charges and Facts Analysis of an Anti- SALT ‘Documentary’, a report pre- pared by the Department of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff, State Department, Central Intelligence Agency, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and the National Security Council, Re- printed by Center for Defense Informa- tion, The Defense Monitor, Vol. IX, 8A) In the case of SALT I, a Standing Consultative Commission comprised of U.S. and Soviet officials has monitored the agreement for nearly a decade. While questions have periodically been _ raised, no formal charges of treaty vio- lations have been made by either side. Sophisticated satellite technology ena- bles detection of weapons production and testing. Zero Nuclear Weapons The arms race will continue un- abated unless concrete steps are taken to begin negotiated reductions. Because we currently have parity with the Soviets, now is the time to freeze pro- duction of nuclear weapons. Neither side can win the arms race. The only realistic solution is for both countries to negotiate meaningful, mutual arms re- duction toward the eventual goal of “zero nuclear weapons.”’