‘Huge Cuts in Missiles?’

Simon Ramo quickly dismisses the offer made at Reykjavik to eliminate all offensive ballistic missile weapons. I do not much like the particular offer President Reagan made there, but I do think that the idea of a ban of ballistic missile weapons deserves better than peremptory dismissal on the basis of arguments whose validity does not withstand careful analysis. Ramo’s dismissal of a missile ban because we could not ensure compliance is just such an argument.

There are two steps that would allow us to hold the danger of cheating to acceptable levels without the need for intrusive and complex verification measures. We can maintain an “effective enough” non-ballistic-missile nuclear deterrent force and we can deploy an “effective enough” ballistic missile defense. If we can guarantee the survival under attack of that deterrent force then we need only be concerned about whether bombers and cruise missiles can penetrate in sufficient numbers.

The lessons of history are that it is foolhardy to belittle that force, especially when one weapon is often a sufficient number. Which Soviet or U.S. leader would be willing to gamble that the bombers and cruise missiles won’t get through?

To guarantee the survival under attack of the deterrent force we would want to deploy a ballistic missile defense system. But, instead of, as Ramo predicts, massive reductions in ballistic missile forces and an installed defense system in each country that would be designed to counter the reduced offensive threat (including, of course, the threat of cheating), why not elimination of ballistic missiles weapons and an installed defense system in each country that would be designed for the simpler task of countering just the threat of cheating?

BERNARD SPRINGER

Encino