Centre for Defense Information on Cruise:

U.S. Cruise missiles represent a quan-
tum jump ahead of the Soviets, and will
create dramatic and destabilizing effects
on both conventional and nuclear war-
fare, concludes a study recently released
by Washington’s Center for Defense In-
formation (CDI). If allowed to go ahead,
the report says, the ‘“Cruise missile era”’
will be a time of escalating fear, distrust
and suspicion between the U.S. and the
USSR, even though the need has never
been greater to build a new relationship
based on a concept of mutual security.

The study, entitled ‘‘The Cruise Mis-
sile Era: Opening Pandora’s Box’’, ap-
pears in a recent issue of CDI’s public-
ation, The Defense Monitor (Vol. 12,
No. 4), and deals exhaustively with the
technical details of the new generation of
Cruise missiles, the U.S. military’s plans
for their deployment, and the implica-
tions for global security.

“Cruise missiles’’, says the CDI re-
port, “‘provide a new military dimension
for war planners. These weapons offer
beguiling economic advantages. Because
of their high accuracy, mobility, and
modest cost ($2- to $6-million each) U.S.
Cruise missiles will soon be available in
large numbers for massive precision at-
tacks against targets in eastern Europe,

the Soviet Union, and elsewhere in the
world.

Aims to Surround USSR
“Within three years the U.S. will

completely surround the Soviet Union

with very accurate, extremely destruc-
tive Cruise missiles. These nuclear-
armed Cruise missiles launched from
ships, submarines, bombers, and land
bases in Europe, will be able to attack
Soviet ICBM’s and military-industrial
targets virtually without opposition be-
cause U.S. Cruise missiles will fly largely
undetected under Soviet radar.

*‘By the time the Soviets build a capa-
bility to detect current American Cruise
missiles the U.S. probably will have per-
fected the promising ‘stealth’ technology
which nearly negates radar ability to de-
tect aircraft or Cruise missiles in flight.

‘*U.S. plans call for the construction of
9,000 Cruise missiles. More than 5,000 of
them will carry nuclear weapons, but
since they probably will be indistinguish-
able from those carrying conventional
weapons, prudent military planners in
eastern Europe and the USSR will as-

sume all are carrying nuclear weapons. .

‘The introduction of large numbers of
Cruise missiles into the force structure of

Cruise missiles.

Model of Cruise Missile Launcher based on existing Boeing 747. It could carry 72

the NATO nations will place a hair trig-
ger on the weapons of all countries in
volved. Theoretically, no U.S. Cruise
missiles will be launched without orders
from the U.S. president, but once limited
use of nuclear weapons is authorized it
will be difficult to restrain widespread
use throughout Europe.

“The same characteristics that make
this new weapon so militarily attractive
will also make it virtually impossible for
any nation to determine the number, lo-
cation and type of warhead in one
another’s Cruise missiles. Thus the
Cruise missile era could see the death of
arms control. Because of their sophisti-
cated guidance system, large numbers,
and ability to penetrate elaborate Soviet
air defences, Cruise missiles will be seen
by the Soviets as first-strike rather than
retaliatory weapons: When both the
U.S. and the USSR have vast numbers of
nuclear Cruise missiles, the danger of
nuclear war will be greatly increased and
the security of both much reduced.”

Calls For Complete Ban

The CDI report concludes by calling
for a complete ban on production and
deployment of sea-launched Cruise mis-
siles (SLCM), ground-launched Cruise
missiles (GLCM), and the negotiation of
stringent controls on the deployment of
the air-launched variety (ALCM).

“The major obstacle to such agree-
ments’, the study notes, “‘is not the
basic characteristics of the Cruise mis-
sile, but the current unwillingness of the
U.S. to limit a weapon in which it holds a
clear lead, an edge not likely to last more
than half a decade. U.S. attempts to gain
military advantage with a large force of
long-range nuclear Cruise missiles will
inevitably prompt a crash Soviet Cruise

TRIBUNE PHOTO — JOSE KAUFMAN

‘Major obstacle unwillingness of U.S.
to limit weapon in which it holds lead’ ©

missile program, something they seem
already to have begun.

“The record of the arms race shows
clearly that neither side can long main-
tain a significant technological advantage
in a particular type of weapon. The ©
Reagan Administration must reconsidet ©
its opposition to limiting Cruise missiles
before their proliferation irrevocably
overwhelms any chance for effective,
mutually beneficial arms agreements.’

We have no desire, nor for that matter any right to
get mixed up in the internal affairs of local unions, but

we can’t avoid saying something about the disgraceful :
goings on in Local 1005 United Steelworkers Of ©

America.

Bang on with the opening of negotiations for the
Stelco chain the president of the Stelco Local, repre-
senting the overwhelming majority of the chain’s
members, is removed from his post by a one vote

_ Majority, 66 to 65.

The 66 people represented about 0.7 per cent of the
union’s membership which had elected Taylor two
years ago by a 70 per cent majority. Since the actions
of the meeting we are informed that more than 6,000
members from the plant have signed a petition de-
manding Taylor be reinstated in his position as presi-
dent. The U.S. union leadership has agreed to order
his reinstatement providing the Ontario Director,

_Dave Patterson, gives the order his blessing. Patterson
has countered by throwing the matter back into the
hands of the International.

At any time such a display of inner union bickering
and power politics would be most unfortunate. At the
point at which negotiations with the Stelco chain have
just opened, with the company clearly intending to
demand concessions from the union, it is tragic.

Lying behind the divisions in the local was a split
which took place in the Taylor caucus prior to the last
elections. The caucus, which tended to be knocked
together on the basis of electability rather than policy
and program, split on the eve of the elections over the

question of who got what position. The split-away
group kept the name of the original caucus, “‘labor

PACIFIC TRIBUNE— SEPTEMBER 2, 1983—Page 4

Labor in action

William Stewart

unity’’ and has since set out to prove that its in-
tentions are the opposite to its name.

The local has scarcely been able to operate for the
entire two-year period faced with accusations,
charges, invective, manoeuvring, name calling, per-
sonal abuse, innuendo. Most of the members have
simply decided to stay away from meetings because of
the continual bickering that goes on. It must be said,
that while the overall aims and policies of Mr. Taylor
coincide with the needs and interests of the member-
ship, his style and individuality make him an easy
target for opportunist elements in the local.

Style and personality aside however, the question
which is being decided in the big Stelco local is
whether the break with right-wing leadership and con-
trol and the strengthening of the rank and file, demo-
cratic character of the union is going.to continue, or
whether the union is going to be brought back under
the control of the right-wing oriented International
union. Central to this is whether or not the tough,

‘principled bargaining stance adopted by the union in

its last bargaining, and the involvement of the
membership in the entire process, is to continue, or
whether the traditional top level, make-deals-with-
the-management bargaining is to be resumed.

The election of Dave Patterson as District Six direc-

Pay heed to membership in Local 1005

tor, and Cec Taylor as president of Local 1005 of the
Steelworkers Union represented a significant break in
the right-wing control of that union and has opened up
the possibility of moving the union more and more
into the centre of the fightback. Anything that gets in
the way of that process taking place in basic steel must
be combatted.

This column may not always agree with actions
taken either by Dave Patterson or Cec Taylor, and we
are sure the opposite is true. However that should not
blind us to the positive aspects of their leadership nor
allow us to forget that the right wing is very actively
stirring up the pot and speculating on the divisions
which are bound to occur in the process of forging a
new kind of leadership in the industry. Nor should we
ignore the role being played by Stelco in fanning divi-
sions and antagonisms in their worker’s ranks in order
to weaken the union in the face of bargaining.

We would hope that all those would-be leaders in
Stelco and other positions of responsibility in the
union will be guided by the actions of the more than —
6,000 Stelco workers who have demanded the rein-
statement of their president. Those workers know
whereby they speak.

It behooves the genuine left in Stelco to begin to
mobilize the membership to attend local union meet- —
ings to put their house in order and to stop a small
rump group from preventing the orderly operation of
their local.

It seems to us that the elected leaders of the union —
should consider to what extent they have been drawn
into playing cat and mouse with an unprincipled op-
position, and look at finding the ways to place the day
to day operation of the local before the membership.

That’s where the solution lies. .