Navy Plan for Control of Missile Warheads Assailed

In the first sign of a looming interservice conflict, the Navy has put forward a plan that would give it control over more than four-fifths of the ballistic missile warheads permitted under the strategic arms reduction treaty being negotiated with the Soviet Union, eight Democratic congressmen concerned with military issues charged Thursday.

The treaty is intended to reduce the total number of nuclear warheads permitted in the United States and Soviet strategic arsenals, and the legislators, led by House Armed Services Committee Chairman Les Aspin (D-Wis.), expressed concern that the Navy’s proposal would allocate too many warheads to submarines.

This would leave too few warheads for land-based missiles and thereby upset the balance in the “triad” of land-based, submarine-based and bomber forces, they told President Bush in a letter released Thursday.

Aspin and the other congressmen also complained that the Navy’s plan “seems incompatible with the current arms control framework.” They called on the White House to come up with a coherent strategy for allocating the warheads that serves U.S. strategic military needs and does not conflict with the proposed treaty.

“Under scenarios proposed to Congress,” the letter said, “the Navy would retain over 4,000 strategic warheads” in its missile submarines. START, the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks, will permit a total of 4,900 missile warheads (as well as about 1,100 bomber-carried nuclear weapons), which leaves only 900 missile warheads for the Air Force.

Although starting earlier than expected, a battle royal between the Air Force and Navy has been long expected over the issue of how to divide up the smaller nuclear “pie” that will exist after the treaty is concluded. Its aim is to reduce these weapons by 50% in the mid-1990s.

Numbers at Present

At present, the Navy’s submarine missiles carry about 6,700 warheads and the Air Force has 2,350 warheads on its land-based missiles.

Simply cutting each of those forces by 50% is not feasible, in part because the Navy has been building its submarines bigger.