Strategic Arms Reduction Talks
Jeffrey Record’s analysis, “Without Mobility, START Won’t Go” (Op-Ed Page April 27), has two flaws. He ignored some important facts and he answered the wrong question.
Record essentially answered a question about what missile system is best for deterrence. The right question is “How do we make the world safer?”
Record feels that without the mobility of the multibillion-dollar new Midgetman, we will lack deterrent capability and therefore we should stop progress on the START talks. He gets so caught up in making his case that he seems to have forgotten that the U.S. already has the majority of its strategic nuclear deterrent on highly mobile and relatively invulnerable submarines.
Deterrence is the ability and the will to inflict unacceptable damage on the Soviet Union. In light of the destruction that would follow, I cannot attest to our will to use the weapons; but we certainly have the means to deter, with or without the Midgetman.
If our goal is a safer world and not a new weapons system, then the key question is whether we have the will to capitalize on the current opportunity to improve relations with the Soviets. A START agreement is a mutual step toward better relations that in the long run will reduce the need for deterrence. We ought to be clear about our objective and then not be deterred.
JACK OVERALL
La Canada
Start your day right
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
