OCR Text |
Show . i Vli j ' MI Missile Destructivs Fewer : Enough To 'Blow Your Mind'. By GARY R. BLODGETT Why is the MX Missile site in west-central 'Utah, right at ourown back door? WHAT WILL be the benefits, if any? What are the increased dangers? Air Force Brigadier General Forrest McCartney, Penta- ' gon spokesman for the proposed project, had a few of the . answers but by all means not all of the answers for the above questions when he addressed a group of interested " persons and Wasatch Front Regional Council members last week in Bountiful. THE GENERAL was open and frank to discuss any " question put to him; he was not evasive. But there were very few questions allowed in the one-hour time limit after . the Air Force had presented "its side" of the story by use ..." of Pentagon-prepared slides. I was able to talk to the general for a few minutes following the meeting. The general was on a tight schedule (mass meeting at the Salt Palace at 7 p.m.). but he did respond openly to all questions I asked. THE GENERAL was frank to admit that "We had all better pray every night that the proposed MX Missile site being discussed is never used as a retaliation to an enemy attack. "If it is." he said, "there won't be much left for those who survive. The destructive power of the enemy would be so great that it would all but annihilate this country." ASKED IF the same wouldn't be true of the United States retaliatory attack on the enemy, the general responded: re-sponded: "Of course it would. It's absolutely frightening to me. and I'm sure it would be to the public to know what devastating pow er we (as well as the Russians) have in our current armament. And the potential of the new MX Missile Mis-sile would just blow your mind." HE THEN explained that each of the 200 MX Missiles planned for deployment in the Utah-Nevada project will carry 10 warheads (thus the MX) and each warhead will have the equivalent of one million tons of destructive power. That's 15 times the total destructive power of the two Atomic Bombs dropped during World War II and several times more destructive power than all of bombs dropped during all of World War II. : AND REMEMBER, that's just one MX missile. There are 200 in the planning stage. Add this to the Minuteman, Polaris and other missiles that the United States and its allies have ready for deployment, deploy-ment, if necessary, and the amount of potential destructive power would blow the mind of a mathematician. FOR EXAMPLE, it's public knowledge that there are 1,500 Minuteman Missiles ready for firing at this very minute. Each missile is equipped with a two-megaton (or larger) warhead. That's a minimum of 3,000 megatons or 300 million tons of TNT destructive power. BY 1989 when the MX project, as planned, is ready for deployment you can add another 20 billion tons of explosive power. That's 2.3 billion, not 23 million tons of destructive power that could be launched simultaniously by just the MX and Minuteman Missiles. ADD TO this the potential of the unknown (by this writer) Polaris and other missiles ready for discharge and it's certain the total potential destructive power of our missile systems alone would far exceed 2.5 billion tons. And the general nodded his head in the affirmative when asked if the Russians don't also have this kind of armament in their systems ready for immediate launching. "OUR ONLY hope to deter war with Russia or any other foreign country is to be so prepared that no other country will want to attack us." the general emphasized. "The United States, as proclaimed by the President, will never be the aggressor in a nuclear war. We will only retaliate." BUT EVEN 10 years ago when I traveled with the Air Force to visit Minuteman Missile sites throughout Wyoming Wyom-ing and South Dakota, the news media was told that the Minuteman Missile force was enough to deter war. Today, the Minuteman Missile fleet is inadequate almost obsolete when you put it to the side of the proposed MX program. AND IT'S a natural concern that the Russians are not going to "stay at home" as long as they feel that they can invade and take over neighboring countries at will. What will be the next step? Will the Russians hesitate to start a nuclear war? Let's hope they will think twice about it and then decide against it. GENERAL McCartney pulled no bones about the '980s "being a time of sacrifice for everyone." "There's no question but what there will be many sau i-fices i-fices to Utahns during the construction of the proposed MX project," the general admitted. "Any time you add 75 ,000 to 85,000 persons maybe more to an area with new housing and all that goes with it, there are going to be problems." HE SAID the federal government would do all it could to provide funds for adjustment of the "impacted areas" caused by the MX project. On the brighter side, the general said Hill AFB would probably play a "major role" in the MX program which would involve a substantial increase in employment. THE GENERAL said the Utah-Nevada site was chosen because it best meets the Air Force's "criteria" for needs isolated and desolated area away from the metropolitan population: valleys, mountains, and flat lands which are ideal for deployment and hiding of the missiles; ample water supply nearby: and relatively close proximity to gravel, steel, sand, etc.. that are essential in construction of the site. But why is the proposed site in our back door, rather than a site similar to this area located in New Mexico, Wyoming. Montana or the Dakotas? WE ALREADY have a major "attraction" to a missile attack in Hill AFB. opponents will argue. But then so do the above mentioned states. That's where our Minuteman Missiles are primarily located. Yes. it's human nature to want to be left alone. Give the problems to someone else. BUT WHETHER or not the MX site is officially determined deter-mined to be in Utah-Nevada as proposed, there's one thing certain: We have got to have it, or something like it. I'm not military-oriented let alone military-whitewashed military-whitewashed but common sense tells me that the only way to deter the Russians from an all-out nuclear war is to be better prepared than they are. IT'S LIKE the story of the school-yard bully and the little fellow who was always being picked on until the little fellow picked up a club and told the bully, "this is my equalizer." If we want to prevent a nuclear war and stay alive, being , better prepared than the enemy appears to be the only j answer. |