renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (renner ) (01/29/84)
#N:uiucdcs:29200067:000:2498
uiucdcs!renner Jan 28 12:25:00 1984
One of the most damning arguments against the Pershing II missile, one
that I hear occasionally from those actually trying to form a coherent
argument against the NATO missile program, is that it greatly increases
the chance of accidental war by forcing the Soviets to adopt a "launch
on warning" strategy. This strategy is applicable when the enemy has
missiles accurate enough to destroy your ICBMs in their protective
silos, and fast enough so that they will arrive before you can check
whether the enemy has actually launched. The 5-minute flight time of
the Pershing II, combined with its reputed accuracy, is supposed to put
the Soviets in a position where they must either "use or lose" their
missiles if there is a chance that the Pershings have been launched.
I used to think it was a pretty good argument. Then I read that "US
officials have not released the exact range of the Pershing IIs, but it
is believed to be approximately 600 miles."[1] This means that the
missiles will reach no further than western Ukraine. I don't know
where the Soviets keep their big ICBMs, but they sure aren't all in
western Ukraine. The Pershing *can't* be a counter-force threat
because it can't even reach the target! (The cruise missiles, by the
way, can't be used for counter-force because they take hours to
arrive.) I have read that the Soviets threatened to change to
launch-on-warning if the Pershings were deployed; why didn't I read
something like: "Although the Soviets have said they will be forced to
adopt a launch-on-warning strategy if the Pershing missiles are
deployed, this is probably not true as the Pershings cannot reach
Soviet ICBMs." It seems to me that fair reporting would require telling
all the facts, not just the ones that argue against cruise/Pershing.
Meanwhile, the Soviets are busy installing new SS-22s in East Germany.
(The SS-20s are already in place.) These have the same range and
flight-time as the Pershings. They can reach targets in France and the
UK, presumably putting the French missile force at risk.
Ballistic-missile submarines in port would also be targets.
So. NATO puts in missiles which cannot be a counter-force threat to
the Soviets. The Soviets put in missiles which could be a threat to
the French and the British. Which do you see on the front page, and
which gets 1/16th of page 5, and why?
Scott Renner
{ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner
---------------------------------------------
[1] Chicago Tribune, January 19, 1984, page 5.tpkq@charm.UUCP (Timothy Kerwin) (02/07/84)
> Meanwhile, the Soviets are busy installing new SS-22s in East Germany. > (The SS-20s are already in place.) These have the same range and > flight-time as the Pershings. They can reach targets in France and the > UK, presumably putting the French missile force at risk. > Ballistic-missile submarines in port would also be targets. But, of course, the British and French missiles are not to be counted at the intermediate range arms talks!