Advertisement

U.S. Insists on Right to Missile Sites in Alaska

Share
Times Staff Writer

The Reagan Administration, in its negotiations with the Soviet Union, is demanding the right to base in Alaska about 100 intermediate-range nuclear missiles that would be withdrawn from Europe under any new arms treaty, U.S. officials said Tuesday.

The Soviets have proposed that those mobile missiles be limited to the contiguous 48 states, excluding Alaska and Hawaii. But the United States has replied that it could not accept, as a matter of principle, any geographic restraints on the weapons within its own territory.

More Than Principle

Beyond the principle, however, U.S. officials say that it is only from Alaskan islands that these missiles--which have a range of 1,200 to 1,500 miles--could reach Soviet territory, including key Soviet submarine and other bases on the Kamchatka Peninsula.

Advertisement

There are no plans to deploy the Pershing 2 ballistic missiles or the ground-launched cruise missiles in Alaska, officials emphasized.

They acknowledged that, if such plans are developed, they probably would be opposed by anti-nuclear and environmental groups.

However, they noted that the weapons--now in West Germany, Britain and other North Atlantic Treaty Organization nations--would be placed on military bases and dispersed on special trucks in case of attack, rather than buried in huge silos like the MX intercontinental missiles.

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) confirmed that the Soviets proposed that the missiles be limited to the contiguous 48 states and that the United States rejected that position.

He also insisted that putting the missiles in Alaska would be foolish because of their great vulnerability to surprise missile attack from Soviet submarines patrolling off the coast of Alaska.

‘Tilting at Windmills’

“In my view, there is no possibility of their deployment in Alaska,” said Stevens, who is chairman of the powerful Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee. “Alaskans would not be against it (the deployment), if necessary,” he added, “but it’s totally theoretical and tilting at windmills.”

Advertisement

Nonetheless, the Soviets did seek to limit the deployment area of these U.S. weapons during the complex negotiations on intermediate-range nuclear forces at the Reykjavik summit in October and at the Geneva arms talks.

To date, the Soviet Union and the United States have tentatively agreed to eliminate all their intermediate-range missiles from Europe, while the Soviets could keep 100 warheads in Asia and the United States would retain an equal number on its territory.

Moscow now has 273 such missiles, designated as SS-20s, in the European part of its territory. Each missile has three warheads, for a total of 819 warheads. The United States has 108 Pershing 2 missiles and 176 ground-launched cruise missiles in Europe; each U.S. missile has only one warhead for a total of 284 warheads.

Balancing Soviet Force

In the Asian part of the Soviet Union, the Soviets have 140 SS-20s, with 420 warheads. Of these, the Soviets would retain 100 warheads. The United States would be permitted to retain 100 of the warheads removed from Europe to balance the Soviet force in Asia.

In rejecting the Soviet proposal to put Alaska and Hawaii off limits, U.S. negotiators said that the United States could not divide up its territory into regions where the missiles are and are not permitted, officials said.

Logically, however, this argument may be difficult to sustain, as one official noted, because the Soviets are prepared to divide up their territory into the European part, in which no intermediate-range missiles would be permitted, and the Asian part, where 100 warheads would be allowed.

Advertisement

Verification, Limits

But Alaska is a relatively minor issue in the intermediate-range talks. More significant problems before a full-scale agreement can be reached include verification of the terms of any treaty, limits on shorter-ranged missiles and the duration of any pact.

More importantly, the Kremlin has tied a final agreement to resolution of the much more difficult issues being discussed at separate talks on offensive missiles and bombers of intercontinental range and on the space-based missile defenses of the Administration’s Strategic Defense Initiative.

Advertisement