aye #

PEACE — THE MAJOR CHALLENGE OF THE 1980s

Balance of
terror —

From page 5

American strategic, or nuclear forces are based
upon three separate and independently acting com-
ponents: 1) land-based ICBMs and ‘“‘tactical’’ nuc-

lear weapons, 2) an air-borne nuclear bomber fleet,
the Strategic Air Command, and 3) some 100 nuclear

submarines constantly on station off Soviet shores, .

and capable of launching a wave of nuclear missiles

sufficient to destroy the USSR. During the 1980s,
each leg of this strategic ‘‘triad’’ will come in for.
Massive expansion and re-fitting. Some of the key |

weapons systems:

e The Trident: A new, submarine-borne missile
with MIRVed (multiple) warheads. The Trident has
twice the range of the Poseidon missiles which it is
now replacing, and the Pentagon calculates that this
will increase by a factor of ten the ocean space within

_ which the sub can hide and fire its missiles. Within the

next two years, anuclear submarine — also called the
Trident — will begin entering service. The new Tri-
dent submarines will carry twenty-four Trident mis-
siles each. That amounts to a 50% increase in nuclear

firepower over the old Polaris class nuclear sub- —

marines which they are replacing.

e The Neutron Bomb: Not really a “‘bomb’’ as »

such, the neutron bomb is known as an ‘‘enhanced
radiation weapon’’. This means that it has a relatively
small blast effect, but generates far more deadly neut-
ron radiation than standard nuclear weapons. The

_ N-bomb is designed to be used in surface-to-surface

tactical missiles and even in artillery shells. In other

words, it is intended for use in “‘conventional’’ war.

situations, against columns of tanks, or troops.
Therein lies its great danger, as more and more ex-

‘ perts are pointing out, since it would tend to blur the

distinction between conventional and nuclear war-

fare, thus making escalation from one to the next

much more probable. :
e The Cruise Missile: Another weapon now in use
that threatens to rupture any hope of stabilizing the

_ arms race is the Cruise missile. Armed with a nuclear
warhead, the Cruise missile is capable of flying at high

subsonic speeds and extremely low altitudes in order
to evade radar and hit its target with great accuracy.
Cruise missiles are relatively cheap to produce, and
therefore can be deployed in great numbers. The Pen-
tagon claims that it is a ‘‘tactical’’ as opposed to a
“‘strategic’’ weapon, and therefore should not be in-
cluded in the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks. This
simple deception could make a mockery of future
attempts at nuclear disarmament. Any limitation of
big ‘‘strategic’’ nuclear missiles would be meaningless
if the Americans developed the ability to blanket
another country with small, nuclear-armed Cruise
missiles fired from bombers, ships, submarines, and
surface launchers.

e The MX Missile Program: The largest and most
costly missile effort ever undertaken by the United
States, the MX is essentially a system of missile laun-
chers which would constantly move underground,
thus reducing their vulnerability to attack. While
military and government personnel are debating the
‘‘usefulness’’.of this program, most observers agree
that the main result of the $36-billion project will be to

| force the Soviets to embark on a similar effort of their

own, thus driving the arms race spiral up another
notch.

e The Pershing IF: A medium-range “‘battlefield’’
nuclear missile which NATO, after fierce. internal
debate, decided late last year to deploy in Europe. In
adopting the weapon, NATO turned a deaf ear to
Soviet pleas that the Pershing II would upset the

precarious balance-of-forces in Europe, and compel .
them.to launch a program to upgrade their own nuc- -

lear capability. With the Pershing II, for the first time
U.S.-controlled ‘‘battlefield’’ missiles will be able to

strike targets deep inside the USSR. Besides repre-

senting a significant advance over previous weapon-
ry, this development makes a mockery of the
NATO-sponsored concept of “‘limited nuclear war’’,

or the idea that nuclear weapons in any future war

might be confined to strictly battlefield uses, and that
an exchange of big, inter-continental ballistics mis-
siles could be avoided.

— Fred Weir

ee

nee enna Nice

“YES

TO TALKS FOR -
DISARMAMENT AND PEACE §

TO NEW US NUCLEAR MISSILES _

IJ SY IN EUROPE $

PROPOSALS TO STOP THE DRIFT TO WAR

DISARMAMENT

‘At times it may seem there is very
little happening to challenge the
massive world arms build-up, the
threat of nuclear war, and to
counteract the frightening
capabilities of new weapons.

But for millions of people around
the world, the struggle for peace is a
continuous activity. For them and
for all the world’s people there are
gratifying pinnacles of effort to con-
firm that the struggle can be won.

The signing of the SALT II
(Strategic Arms Limitation Talks)
agreement by Brezhnev and Carter
in Vienna in June of 1979 was such a
high point. The fact that it ran ag-
round in the U.S. Senate and has not
been ratified is cause of angry and
persistent demands by people
everywhere.

Proposals for Peace

The encouraging draft resolution
on measures to lessen the war
danger, presented to the United Na-
tions in September by the Soviet
Union was another such high point

along the road fo détente, disarma-

ment and peace.

* The successful holding of the
Parliament of Peoples for Peace in
Bulgaria, in September, with 2,600
participants from 134 countries, re-
sulted: in a compounding of peace
effort around the world — again an
achievement.

Countless multilateral and_bi-

lateral meetings of governments and »

non-governmental organizations, as
well as popular demonstrations and
petitioning show that, while the
peace struggle is not won, such ac-

tions are reasons for optimism that it

can be won.

At the United Nations Special
Session on Disarmament in May
1978, Canada’s prime minister made

some excellent proposals, and Ot-
tawa should be reminded of them
frequently. Trudeau urged: a com-
prehensive test ban to impede the
further development of nuclear ex-
plosive devices, an agreement to
stop the flight testing of all new
strategic delivery vehicles, an
agreement to prohibit all production
of fissionable material for weapons
purposes, and an agreement to limit
and then progressively reduce milit-
ary spending on new strategic nu-
clear weapons systems.

Canada’s. Role

A second Disarmament Session
was agreed to and scheduled for
1982. Canadians should make pro-
posals to the government on. the

stand it will take there.
Emphasis on this side of Canada’s
position would advance the cause of
far more than its support of
NATO’s steadily rising war budget.

The UN has debated many pro-
posals for demilitarized zones and

non-nuclear regions, as well as trans-.

fer of 10% of arms budgets of the
major powers to assistance for de-
veloping countries (a Soviet pro-

posal). The Warsaw Pact, which was ©

established in 1955, six years after
NATO, has formally proposed to the
West the simultaneous disbanding of
the two pacts. It is the NATO side
which displays no interest. _

Among encouraging actions for
peace are the initiatives in a draft
resolution which the Soviet Union
has asked the secretary general to
circulate at the present session of the
UN.

It urges guarantees against the use
of nuclear weapons against non-nu-

_ clear states without nuclear weapons

on their territories. It urges a treaty
prohibiting all nuclear weapons

tests. It calls on all states not tc ex-
pand military-political groupings,. or
set up new ones. As a step toward
reduction of conventional arma-
ments, it would require states not to
increase arms or forces as of Jan. 1.

The Soviet Union is prepared to
reduce numbers of medium-range
nuclear delivery vehicles in its west-
ern border areas if no such vehicles
are further deployed in western
Europe.

It is important for the people of
Canada to know these facts and
there are many, many more, so that
instead of following the lead of the
media of the multi-nationals, they
can step up the demand for mutual
negotiation for disarmament in the
interests of world peace.

People’s Actions

Steps for peace, contrasted to the
multiplication of weapons, ought to
be popularized and followed up with
people’s actions. It has been pointed
out that since World War II, direct
arms costs have exceeded six trillion
dollars ($6,000,000,000,000), almost
equalling the world Gross National
Product for 1975! :

- Going from the general to the nu-_
clear, it was another blow for dis-
armament, when 650 U.S. scientists
petitioned Carter and Brezhnev for
decisive action, noting: “*An all-out
nuclear exchange could be complete
in one hour, and could destroy most
life in the northern hemisphere.”

Regardless of political or
philosophical views, the struggle for
peace is central today to the human
race. An enormous quantity of
ground work has been done toward
its realization. As has been pointed
out, at this juncture the actions of
people united can be decisive.

— James Leech

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—JAN. 9, 1981—Page 9