OCR Text |
Show ft ffilioB lei iff fesk President Reagan announced an-nounced his long awaited de cision on MX last Friday, and to the surprise of almost al-most everyone, he proposed putting the ten war-head nuclear nuc-lear missile inexlstingMln-uteman inexlstingMln-uteman and Titan silos instead in-stead of Nevada and Utah. The specific deployment sites and number of missies to be deployed were not readily available. However, it was expected that about 30 missiles would go in Missouri, Arkansas and Arizona in Titan silos by 1986 with the possibility of up to 100 eventually being deployed. The message also called for 50 B-l bomber to be built, and to completely revamp re-vamp the early warning system. As part of an overall stra tegic military deterrance package, four actions will be pursued in modernizing ICBM forces. 1. The so-called Multiple Protective Shelter basing scheme for the MX missile will be cancelled. 2. The U.S. will continue to develop MX and deploy at least 100 missiles although a smaller number initially. 3. The U.S. will pursue research and development on three promising long-term long-term basing options for MX. The devllopment programs will be structured to allow for selection for deployment of one or more of the options by 1984. a. Continuous Airborne Patrol Aircraft, a surviv-able surviv-able long endurance aircraft that could launch MX. (Continued on Page 5) HERE'S TORE ABOUT MX DECISION b. Ballistic Missile Defense De-fense system (ABMs) that could actively defend land-based land-based MX missiles. c. Deep Underground Basing to deploy MX in survivable locations deep under ground. 4. In the near term, the U.S. will deploy a limited number of MX missiles as soon as possible. In Titan, or Minuteman silos that will be reconstructed for much greater hardness to nuclear effects. In cancelling the MPS bas -ing mode outright, the administration ad-ministration cited "serious military drawbacks and that MPS does not solve the basic problem, which is the current cur-rent vulnerability of the Minuteman andTitan force." A program to deploy 100 MX missiles in 1,000 shelters shel-ters would not be survivable against today's threat, much less the Soviet forces that . are likely to be deployed in the mid-1980s the offical said. The Administration admits ad-mits we are not yet sure how well ballistic missile defenses will work: what they will cost, howSoviet ballistic missile defenses-- which would almost certainly be deployed in response to any U.S. missile defense system sys-tem --would affect U.S. and allied offensive capabilities and what would be the political politi-cal ramifications of altering alter-ing the ABM Treaty." The administration admits basing MX in Titan or Minuteman Min-uteman silos is not a long term solution. The MX missile mis-sile would be ready in 1986 ahead of long-term basing. "We cannot afford to put off MX, a much stronger and more accurate missile than Minuteman, and continue con-tinue the decade-long pattern pat-tern of postponement, vacillation, vac-illation, and delay," the official of-ficial said. "Early deployment deploy-ment of MX will break the Soviet monopoly on prompt counter-ICBM capabilities. Reconstructing silos would force the Soviets to develop more accurate missiles and might well keep them from achieving a high confidence counter -MX capability until the late 1980s, but which time we will have a better system.',' Pentagon officials say no time has been lost by the recent reevaluaton of bas ing options, and that 1986 remains the operating target tar-get for the system, although there will be a push to deploy the. initial MX missiles sooner. Final decisions on deployment deploy-ment methods will be made no later than 1984. The official of-ficial said It is very conceivable con-ceivable that varying methods meth-ods of deploying the MX could finally be adopted. He refused to rule out any location if Deep Underground Under-ground Basing is selected. "We will put them where -ever may be the most appropriate," ap-propriate," he said. The plan, however, brought immediate criticism from Sen. John Tower, R-Texas, R-Texas, power chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committe, and many other congressional and military leaders. "It provides for far less capability than I would have expected.'Tower said." In my view, this program seriously ser-iously degrades the planned modernization of our land-based land-based leg of the Triad. The MX decision appears to have been made within a small circle without the coordination coordina-tion of the best technical and military experts." |