orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (05/10/85)
From the New York Times, May 8, 1985:
***************************************************************
........
Mr. McFarlane [Reagan's National Security Adviser] conceded
that the SSX24 was not considered a violation of any treaty but
a new missile that would "exponentially complicate the problems
of deterrence and of arms control as well" because it could be
deployed anywhere in the Soviet Union and thus be difficult to
detect.
.........
Mr. McFarlane said the missile, which is permitted under the
1979 strategic arms agreement as a counterpart to the American
MX missile, is in "an advanced state of testing and one could
expect deployment in the near future."
***************************************************************
Neither the MX nor the SSX24 violate any arms agreements.
However *both* should be stopped.
Mr. McFarlane's comments about the potential problems of
verifying arms control with the SSX24 are especially ironic
in light of the Reagan Administration's unequivocal support
for Cruise missiles which will be one of the most difficult
nuclear weapons to verify ever developed.
There is no more reason to suppose the SSX24 would be any harder
to verify than the MX missile in a mobile basing mode would
have been. It is still an ICBM requiring launch platforms
which are not easy to hide.
tim sevener whuxl!orb