The U.S. argument for not signing the Salt-II agreement
is that the USSR is ahead in strategic weapons. Are they?

| Have they ever been? Who leads and who catches up?
Here is a portion of remarks by Townsend Hoopes,

former U.S. under-secretary of the Air Force made to a

national conference of the Committee for National Sec-

urity held last November:

: * * *

... Itis basic to understanding of our present predica-
Ment to appreciate that, from the beginning of the nuc-
lear era, they have repeatedly strained their scientific
and material resources to catch up with us in the nuclear

arms race — not, I think, so they could initiate nuclear
- War, but so they would not be subject to the coercion of
our nuclear dominance. Time and again they have drawn
‘Near to a position of rough parity in order to establish the
necessary condition (as they see it) for a genuine arms

determined American breakthrough which catapulted.
= United States into yet another significant weapons
ead.

They were not first to deploy MIRV, or to proclaim a
Counterforce doctrine, or to develop long-range cruise
Missiles. In numbers of launch vehicles they have now
Overtaken us by a small margin, but the supposition that
they are driving to achieve a position of supremacy from
which to intimidate and coerce us — or if the mood suits
them, to attack us — is based on highly abstract war-
gaming, unrelated to the political realities of decision
| making in the Kremlin. It is also based on the thinnest

documentation. The Soviet leadership is fully aware of
-the futility and peril of trying to corner the other super-
Power. The strongest evidence of this is their signing of
the SALT II agreement and their adherence to its terms
Over the past 18 months, while our own. fragmented
System has fumbled with the question of ratification.
The most significant fact about the treaty, painstak-

Teflects an agreed balance point, a shared perception of

tion agreement, only to be faced with yet another -

ingly negotiated over a period of many years, is that it’

Scuttling the.myths behind the arms race

an acceptable strategic equality as between the parties.
The two forces are not precisely equal; there are asym-
metries in the shape and mix and number of weapons, but
these reflect different perceptions of need and different
problems — for example, the USSR confronts not only
NATO Europe and the United States, but also China —
and the asymmetries are not strategically important. —

The treaty by its terms breaks the momentum of the
present Soviet buildup, a fact of which the Soviet leaders
are hardly unaware. By signing the treaty, they affirmed
their willingness to freeze their ‘‘heavy”’ missiles, to
limit warheads per missile to about one-third of the
number that these missiles could carry, and to accept an
overall limit on land-based MIRVs. Taken together
these agreements for the first time place a finite ceiling on

-the Soviet ICBM force, which poses the principal threat

tous. This, I submit, is evidence both of progress in arms
control and of a Soviet desire for restraint.

Yet opponents argue that these advantages are “‘illus-
ory,’’ and that we must not turn up the arms race as a
means of forcing the Soviets to accept a treaty more
favorable to the United States. It is difficult to imagine a
more reckless and naive proposal by those who presum-
ably desire genuine arms control, or a more cynical and
irresponsible proposal by those who reject any accom-
modation and who seek a permanent and relentless arms

race until, as they suppose, the USSR drops out from

exhaustion. There are opponents of the treaty in both
categories.

If we take this road, let us not pretend ignorance of
where it leads. The Soviets will not stand still while we
up the ante. . .. And by this process of reciprocal escala-
tion, the world will become an ever more dangerous
place. The insecurities will grow exponentially as the
number of warheads increase, as the missile accuracies
improve, and as the absence of arms control agreements
leave both sides without any rational or finite framework
within which to determine the adequacy ofits own deter-
rent forces. As someone else has well said, we will be

yWategic nuclear

Challenge
and response

«
@
Mx ICBM
«
i 2
Peay pie
csheegs
e > Mx 12A ¥ cic mt
FBS Forward Based Systems t minv @
SLCM — Submarine-Launched Cruise Missile ALOM @
ICBM — tntercontinental Ballistic Mivsile asec
SLBM — Subinanne-Launched Ballistic Missle
IRBM - Intermediate-Range Ballistic Mivile
MV - Multiple Reentry Vehicle
MIRV . Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicle '
ALCM Air Launched Cruine Missile
GLOM Ground Launched Crise Misile |
SSBN —Nuclear-Fowered Ballistic Missile Submarine
woo 4

194s

1950 1980. 0

like two suspicious, heavily-armed blind men locked up
in a dark room, with a capacity to inflict infinite damage
on each other and all of the furniture.

And the rest of the world, seeing that the super-powers
are incapable of rational restraint and accommodation,
will intensify their own efforts to build and deploy nuc-
lear weapons.

That such a prospect now confronts us is a measure of
the erosion, that reason and proportion in our national
dialogue have suffered in recent years. It is equally a
measure of the difficulty we face in efforts to restore an
indispensable commonsense to that dialogue and to the
making of national security policy. Such a restoration is
the central purpose of the Committee for National Sec-
urity. And we need your help.

Under this banner the Canadian Peace
Congress is conducting a Canada-wide
‘petition calling upon the Government of
Canada to:

Urgently press the United States for
an early signing of a strategic arms limita-
tion treaty and to start talks on limitation
of medium-range nuclear weapons; work
for simultaneous dissolving of all for-

ame

Marxism-Leninism Today

V atfred Dewhurst

Peace is everybody's business —

What are some of the military provo-
cations, in addition to the first-strike nu-
clear policy, stemming from official
‘Washington? There is the non-rati-
fication of SALT II, which took seven
years to negotiate. There is the new ef-
fort being made to produce and deploy
the neutron bomb. There is NATO's
long-term arms program which will swal-
low up an additional $90-billion by 1995;

cign-based military bases and banning of
Chemical and germ warfare; actively

Support the convening of a European

Conference on military détente and
disarmament, since it is the world’s most
heavily armed area.

* * *

We, in turn, urge every reader of the
Tribune to study this petition and if in
agreement, sign it and get your work-
Mates and friends to sign it also. We ask
this because it is far beyond the re-
Sources of the Peace Congress to under-
take such a task alone. We ask you to
take the petition to your place of work, to
your union meeting or community
Organization for endorsement and assis-
tance in securing signatures.

The Peace Congress has set a goal of
One million signatures. It is an ambitious
goal and necessarily so, because Canada
is tied to the expansionist aims and milit-
ary machine of the USA through NATO
and NORAD. This being the case, the
federal government, sensitive as it is to
big business and reactionary Tory pres-
sures, will not necessarily act to stem the
_ drive to war. Therefore it is up to the

ordinary people to help the Peace Con-
gress reach the goal of one million
names. The achievement of this goal
would be a powerful expression of Cana-
dian public opinion, that would assuredly
be heard by those who hold the seats of
power in our land. :
: * * *

We consider it to be a sacred respon-

‘sibility of concerned Canadians to make

peace their business, for never has man-
kind been so close to World War Three.
The destruction, killing and maiming
which occurred during World War Two
would pale into insignificance in com-
parison to that of a world nuclear war. As
public consciousness becomes more and
more aware that the world is teetering on
the brink of a nuclear catastrophe, so
mounts a growing tide of concern.
Such concern is growing in volume
with every passing day in the countries of
western Europe —: Great Britain, the

Federal Republic of Germany, France,

Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Nor-
way and Spain to mention some — as

_ well as the United States, Japan and

Canada.
. In the socialist countries, public con-

cern is unanimous that there must never
be a world nuclear war.
* #* *
in western Europe hundreds of thou-
sands of ordinary people are campaign-
ing vigorously for the right of every man,
woman and child to live in peace and
security. While, at the same time,
responsible public figures in both East
and West are engaged in an unflagging
search for ways and means to put new

‘life into the policy of détente and to break

the deadlock on disarmament.

On the other hand, the Pentagon bel-
ligerently elaborates its military strategy
based on a first-strike nuclear policy. For
what? To regain world superiority in
armed might to aid U.S. imperialism in
its unrelenting drive to obtain greater
power and influence throughout the
world. Warlike threats directed against
other countries and peoples are now al-
most a daily White House occurrence.
Since the Reagan administration came to
power in the U.S., such threats are
accompanied by cynical comments that
there are greater and more decisive
things at stake than to live in peace.

* * *

the creation of a rapid deployment force
for action wherever so-called American
interests dictate; the build-up of U.S.
military strength in the Persian Gulf; and
the boost in the construction of foreign-
based U.S. military bases.

All of these facts of military build-up
and provocative actions by the U.S. .
Government and military, are the basis
of the deep concem that is building
throughout the world.

* * *

To sign the Peace Congress petition,
and to get others to sign, is an action to
help prevent world nuclear war. It is an
action to help end the dangerous arms
race. It is an action to help open the way
toward total and complete disarmament
based on the equality of security for all
countries big and small.

It is an action to help peace triumph
over war! 7

N.B. Get your copy of the Congress peace
petition from your local peace committee,
or write to the Canadian Peace Congress,

- 671 Danforth Avenue, Room 301, Toronto

M4J 113. -

a

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—APRIL 24, 1981—Page 5