University of Virginia Library

The recent decision by President
Nixon to pursue deployment of a
"revised" anti ballistic missile
system (ABM) comes as a shock to
many thousands of concerned citizens
who have been actively working
to reduce military expenditures
and the spiraling arms race. Mr.
Nixon's decision is an obvious sop
to the military contractors involved
in this costly and ineffective program.

It is useless to write letters or
send petitions to President Nixon
because he has already made his
position clear but the entire project
can still be defeated or delayed if
enough individuals who are opposed
to the system will take the
time to write to their United States
Senators. President Nixon has admitted
that the vote in the Senate
will be close and a little effort by
those opposed to ABM just might
make the difference.

I particularly urge all residents
of Virginia to write to Senators
Spong and Byrd since neither of
these gentlemen has taken a position
on the system. It is unlikely
that proponents of the ABM can be
defeated in the House of Representatives
and this is why all efforts
must be expanded to influence
wavering U.S. Senators and to
bolster those who have come out
against deployment of the system.
It is vital that all members of the
Senate understand that large segments
of a responsible electorate
are against ABM. They won't know
this unless you tell them.

Another important effort by
those opposed to ABM should
include direct grass roots appeals to
friends and neighbors. They should
be urged to write their Senators
before debate on the system is
terminated. Concerned students
could accomplish this without too
much difficulty in their hometown
neighborhoods over the spring vacation.
When writing to your Senators
or talking to friends, you should
stress the following points:

1. Status of Missile systems

By 1968, the United States had
4,200 long-range deliverable nuclear
weapons and the Soviet Union had
1,200, according to former Defense
Secretary Clark Clifford. Since 400
of these weapons could destroy up
to one-fifth of the Soviet population,
as former Defense Secretary
Robert McNamara had earlier testified,
the United States now has
more than 10 times the destructive
power required to wipe out 50
million human beings.

If the Soviet leaders are rational,
they should have long since been
deterred against attacking the
United States by the certainty of
devastating retaliation. If they are
not rational, no changes in our
arsenal of overkill are likely to
deter them.

Likewise, if the Chinese leaders
are rational, they will not be
tempted to use their small supply
of nuclear weapons against the
United States once they develop a
delivery system. If they are not
rational, no shifts in American
military policy are likely to affect
them.

2. The ABM would spark
another spiral in the arms race

Despite Mr. Nixon's assurances,
it is likely that the deployment of
even the revised ABM system will
bring some kind of Soviet response.
The simplest response would be for
the USSR to increase the number
of its missiles, which in turn would
encourage the United States to
build more missiles and to expand
the ABM system.

3. The ABM would strengthen
the Soviet military-industrial complex

A decision by the United States
to build an ABM system would
tend to confirm the pessimistic
assessment of American intentions
which are the stock-in-trade of
those in the Soviet Union with a
vested interest in military production
and hard-line responses.

4. The ABM would devour
vitally-needed resources

According to Deputy Defense
Secretary Paakared, the minimum
Pentagon estimate for the "revised"
ABM system is 6 billion. Senator
Stuart Symington has estimated the
real cost as close to $10 billion and
past experience with military contracts
indicates that the cost will be
even higher than this. Estimated
costs for the "thick" system which
Mr. Nixon has not ruled out, vary
between $40 and $100 billion -
not counting fallout shelters. A
close examination of the President's
news conference revealed that new
programs for the cities and against
poverty have been reduced from a
"priority" to an "option." The
question of where our resources are
to be utilized in the coming decade
is involved in considering the ABM.

5. The ABM is unlikely to work
against nuclear attack

Most scientists who are not
subsidized by the government believe
the radar of the ABM system
can be rendered inoperative by
metallic chaff, nuclear explosions,
or both. Without radar, there can
be no ABM.

6. The ABM is Contradictory

Proponents of the ABM are
divided on whether the system is
designed against China or Russia.
The current purpose now seems to
be directed towards protecting a
small part of America's deterrent
strength against a limited attack by
China or the Soviet Union. It is
probable that a limited attack by
China would be directed against
urban areas and not against the
missile sites protected by ABM. Mr.
Nixon also indicated that the
revised ABM system would be
designed to insure that at least part
of America's retaliatory missile
force is preserved to strike back at
the aggressors. It is highly unlikely,
however, that a Soviet or Chinese
attack could destroy a significant
portion of America's Polaris nuclear
force in the U.S. arsenal of
retaliatory weapons. Nor can the
bulk of America's land based
weapons be defended by the
planned system unless expansion is
anticipated and expanding the
system again raises the question of
priorities and resources. The best
defense we can have is an agreement
with our adversaries to reduce
offensive and defensive weapons
systems and the development of
ABM is not a step in this direction.

7. Opposition to ABM is a
Bipartisan Effort

Individual Senators opposed to
ABM include distinguished members
of both political parties and
this opposition cuts across traditional
liberal-conservative lines.
Prominent Republican opponents
include Senator John Sherman
Cooper of Kentucky, Senator
Charles Percy of Illinois, Senator
Jacob Javits of New York, Senator
Edward Brooke of Massachusetts,
and Senator Barry Goldwater or
Arizona. Prominent Democrats include
former Vice President Hubert
Humphrey, the Senate Majority
Leader Mike Mansfield, Assistant
Majority Leader Edward Kennedy,
Senator George McGovern, Senator
Eugene McCarthy, Senator William
Fulbright and influential supporters
of the Vietnam War including
Senator Allen Ellender and Stuart
Symington.

If you feel, as these gentlemen
do, that deployment of an ABM
system is not in the national
interest, you should write or wire
your United States Senators now.
Defeat of this system is vitally
important if the priorities of
America are to be changed.