Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 58
l
The FuTu re of Arms Control
Marvin ·. Go~clberger
Preclicting the future is a mug's
game. Who could have predicted a Gorbachev, a Reykjavik, or the
Reagan Star Wars speech 5 years ago? But despite the ever-present
possibility of the unexpected, it is important for us to think very
hard about what the future might hold for arms control and the role
it may play in the continuing quest for world peace.
We normally think about arms control as the effort to achieve the
following objectives: (~) to reduce the risk of war; (2) to limit
damage, should it occur; and (3) to lower the costs of maintaining
a military establishment. Most often, we couple the term arms
control with (disarmament. Yet this need not necessarily be the case
in the sense that, for example, the risk of war might be recluced by
the deployment of a more nearly invulnerable weapon system.
Without getting into Talmudic arguments, it seems clear that what
we are interested in discussing is the various steps that can be taken
to avoid annihilation and the destruction of our civilization. A
mathematically rigorous definition of arms control is not really very
interesting in this light.
58
OCR for page 59
59
FUTURE OF ARMS CONTROL
The Past of Arms Control Triumphs and
~ Missed! Opportunities
I am not an historian, and I shall make no attempt to go back to
ancient times in exploring the past of arms control. Instead, ~ will
begin with July 17, 1945, the day after the first nuclear bomb test
at Almagordo. Leo Szilard sent a petition to President Truman on
that day that said
If after this war a situation is allowed to develop in the world which permits rival
powers to be in uncontrolled possession of these new means of destruction, the
cities of other nations will be in continuous danger of sudden annihilation. All the
resources of the United States, moral and material, may have to be mobilized to
prevent the advent of such a world situation.
Wise words; but unfortunately, we were not able to mobilize those
moral forces, and the threat of mutual destruction is what the United
States and the Soviet Union face and in fact have faced for the past
35 years or more. I shall use most of this space to discuss those
aspects of arms control that relate to the special dangers to humanity
poser! by nuclear weapons. Yet this is only part of the problem of
international security, and if we ever achieve some of the drastic
cuts in nuclear weaponry that have been discussed here, many deeper
issues that may be even less tractable will have to be considered.
The truly grand opportunity to virtually eliminate nuclear weapons
came with the so-called Baruch plan developed by Bernard Baruch,
Robert Oppenheimer, Dean Acheson, and David Lilienthal and
presented to the United Nations in 1946. The proposal wouIc! have
placer! all the nuclear resources of the world under the ownership
or control of an independent international authority, which would
conduct its own inspections and would have jurisdiction over all
stages of nuclear weapons manufacture. Once the machinery was in
place, the United States would surrender its nuclear arsenal. The
large majority of UN members supported the plan, but the Soviet
Union objected to the ownership, staging, and enforcement provi-
sions. Their own verification provisions were deemed altogether
inadequate, and the negotiations became deadlocked. This was a
tragedy.
The next great opportunity for a profound step was in connection
with the decision in October 1949 to embark on a crash program to
OCR for page 60
60
REYKJA VIK AND BEYOND
develop thermonuclear weapons. Many are un(loubteclly familiar
with the history of the famous report of the General Advisory
Committee to the Atomic Energy Commission chaired by Robert
Oppenheimer. This committee pointed out that there was no military
requirement for such weapons because goon! of
OCR for page 61
61
FUTURE OF ARMS CONTROL
year, the Soviets two or three. We might have compromised on
four or five but Khrushchev die! not want to discuss the matter at
that time and Ormsby Gore, Kuznetsov, ant! Bill Foster took very
rigid positions on the inspections. Kennedy was anxious to get an
agreement (as was Khrushchev) after the Cuban Missile Crisis anc!
was unsure of his political clout in being able in this country to face
clown Senator Richard Russell and the Joint Chiefs of Staff who
were very leery about any treaty. Ultimately, with McNamara
playing a central role, the Chiefs reluctantly went along with the
LTB although they exacter! a heavy price in clolIars for maintaining
a full test regime readiness (in case the treaty had to be abrogated
anc! a commitment to a vigorous unclergrouncI test program.
McNamara feels now that there was virtually no possibility of
convincing them to embrace a CTB at that time. Needless to say
the structure of our strategic forces wouict have been quite different
hac! testing stopped in 1963; in my opinion, we may have hac! more
stable and survivable weapons systems.
One of the early questions that came up in connection with
unclergrounc} testing had to do with the idea of decoupling the
explosion of a nuclear weapon from the surrounding earth by setting
it off in a big hole anc} hicting the otherwise distinct seismic signal.
This technical possibility was seized on by treaty opponents who
argued that the Soviets would cheat and thus gain some advantage
over us. ~ mention this only because potential Soviet cheating is
frequently raised in connection with treaties. It turns out that digging
an adequate hole with clirt volumes of the orcler of the great pyramids
is hare} to do clandestinely. Another relatecI cheating mode was to
set off a bomb during one of the big earthquakes that the Soviet
Union has in gooc! supply. The point I want to make here is the
absurdity of the iclea, analogous to that of testing behind the moon,
that by a few tests that had a high probability of being cletected
anyway, the Soviets couIcl gain a serious military advantage. This
issue comes up over and over again in arms control history. We
always insist that we must have some large number of tests for one
or another weapons clevelopment that the Soviets, we say, can
accomplish with a few cIanclestine tests under the most clifficult
. .
cone citrons.
OCR for page 62
62
REYKJA VIK AND BEYOND
There are two other treaties that have been successfully negotiated
ant! are of the greatest importance, both historically and right now.
These are the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) signed in July 1968
and entered into force in March 1970, ant! the ABM treaty, signed
in May 1972 and entered into force in October 1972.
The purpose of the NPT was to prevent the spread of nuclear
weapons by forbidding the transfer of nuclear weapons to the
national control of any country that did not already have them and,
further, to initiate provisions designee! to prevent the diversion of
nuclear materials from peaceful to weapons use. I think the fact that
there are today only 6 admitted possessors of nuclear weapons rather
than the 20 or so one might have predicted 25 years ago is a measure
of the value of the NPT. It is worth pointing out that Article VI of
the treaty states that the parties will pursue in good faith measures
relating to the cessation of the arms race and to nuclear disarmament.
Of course, as is often noted by nonmember states, the number of
weapons in the world has increaser! since the NPT came into force.
Most people believe that a CTB prohibiting testing is the only way
to prevent the emergence of aclditional nuclear-weapon states. There
are also those who say that Israel might provide a counterexample
to this belief. It might be well to remember thar the wet non thnt
destroyed Hiroshima hac! never been tested.
-r
The ABM treaty of 1972 has served the true national security
interests of the United States very well. There are those who disagree
with this statement, but they are in the minority as well as being
wrong. Although, unfortunately, there has been a great increase in
the number of strategic warheads since 1972, a full-blown offense-
clefense arms race has been avoided. We wasted only $7 billion on
our now mothballed ABM installation at Grand Forks, North
Dakota. The Soviets continue to upgrade their 100 launcher system
around Moscow, but that does not really cause much concern. The
treaty has allowed a research program that was actually initiated at
the same time as ballistic missiles were introduced (contrary to some
opinions, defense did not begin with the Reagan speech on March
23, 1983) and that has enabled us to reassure ourselves on the
technical assumptions about defense capabilities that underlie the
treaty. Although we might have expected that with no significant
OCR for page 63
63
FUTURE OF ARMS CONTROL
ballistic missile defense, both the United States ant! the Soviet Union
might have cut back or at least not increased their offensive force,
this has, of course, not happened. The absence of defense has also
elevated the importance of ant! concern by the Soviet Union for the
strategic nuclear forces of Great Britain, France, and China.
Let me close this review of past arms control efforts with two
brief remarks. The unratified SALT II treaty of 1979 wouic! have
put a useful cap on the strategic arms race, and although it did not
have the deep implications of the ABM treaty, it was important and
should have been enacted. As many know, the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan caused President Carter to ask to have the treaty
withdrawn from consideration for ratification in the Senate; it was
later deemed by Ronalc! Reagan in the 1980 presidential campaign
to be fatally flawed. The other comment is about the treaty that
never was—the one banning MIRVs or multiple indepenclently
targeted reentry vehicles. In 1968 much work hacT been done on the
idea of not deploying this rapidly evolving technology which
appeared to be the exclusive province of the United States. Unfor-
tunately, before it could be explorecl in any serious diplomatic way,
the Soviet Union invaded Czechoslovakia. This was followed by
the change of administrations. Ambassador Gerry Smith actually
pursued internally a so-called SWWA Stop Where We Arc
proposal that wouIc! have precluded U.S. MIRV deployment ant!
forbidden Soviet testing and deployment. He raised the question
with Secretary of State Rogers as to whether or not MIRV deploy-
ment by both sides might be a very dangerous development.
Unfortunately, concern over Soviet ABM activity and the pressure
of the technological imperative (whatever can be built must be built)
led us to deploy MIRVs, and in the characteristically mindless
manner of the arms race, the Soviets responded with their own
MIRVs to penetrate what by that time was a nonexistent U. S. ABM
system following the ABM treaty. Clearly, Ambassador Smith's
worst fears have been borne out.
The reason for my dwelling so long on the past is that in
contemplating the future of arms control it is important to recognize
some of the irrationalities and peculiar forces that have shaped the
present dilemma, which casts such a long shadow on the future.
~ .
OCR for page 64
64
REYKJA INK AND BEYOND
The Future of Arms Control
There are many critics of arms control objectives and the arms
control process. We certainly have not seen great progress in Towering
the risk of war, although some helpful technical steps like the
Washington-Moscow Hotline have been taken. Clearly, there has
not been much in the way of limiting the damage that would result
if nuclear war occurred. The latter failure is obviously connected
with the awesome destructive power of nuclear weapons. As Dr.
Panofsky noted in his introduction, one Trident 2 submarine with
optima] targeting can cause 30 million-50 million deaths, and we
might have 10 or more on patrol at any one time.
Why, then, do we persist in arms control? What kinds of alternative
paths can we imagine to try to achieve the ultimate goal of removing
war or the threat of it as an instrument for gaining national objectives?
We could work toward changes in the international order. We could
simply try to win the arms race, that is, become so powerful that
the Soviets wouicl quit racing. We could try taking unilateral steps
toward disarmament and hope that the Soviets would follow suit.
We could try to work toward President Reagan's impenetrable
shield put our faith in that technological "fix." The bottom line
in my opinion, however, is that there is simply no way other than
arms control that offers real hope for progress in the near future.
On the other hand, this does not mean we should not raise questions
about the process and look for new approaches, learning from the
experiences of the past.
Some ofthe benefits of arms control are not emphasized sufficiently
because they are difficult to quantify. The very negotiating process
itself builds up a momentum and the hope that a current, modest-
Tooking agreement may pave the way subsequently for a more
profound! one. The negotiators on the two sicles and all of those
who back them up—the intelligence agencies, the diplomatic estab-
lishments, and, in particular, the military leaders eventually develop
a creep commitment to what is perceived as a mutually advantageous
agreement, and they become powerful advocates for the agreement
as well as guardians against any proposed violations. Negotiations
have the effect of reducing uncertainties about each other's forces
because these must be precisely stipulated and agreed upon from the
OCR for page 65
65
FUTURE OF ARMS CONTROL
beginning. There is some reason to believe that success in the arms
control arena will lead to other areas of agreement between the
United States and the Soviet Union the reverse of the kind of
linkage usually talked about. For example, in April 1987 in Moscow,
although the INF issue was central, Secretary of State Schultz and
Foreign Minister Shevardnadze initialed an agreement on space
cooperation.
Now. what of the critics who. while admitting some of the
~ · r
'_ ~ , ~ .~ . . .
concrete achievements ot arms control and the spin-offs just referred
to, remain unconvinced that the positives outweigh the negatives?
Line ot the shrillest criticisms by the hawks in the United States is
that arms control treaties lull the country into such complacency
that we will no longer support programs essential for our defense.
This is a bizarre argument that is insulting to the military and
political leaders entrusted with our national security. The facts of
the matter simply do not support these worries. The military in the
past has ensured a commitment to undiminished or even increased
spending on relevant programs. The so-called safeguard provisions
~ noted in connection with the limited test ban treaty are a good
example.
The dovish critics of arms control make a different argument.
They accept the premise that one must have something to bargain
with if the negotiations are to be carried out on the assumption that
additional weapons or superior performance would be advantageous
to the possessor. The problem the doves see is that the need tor
bargaining chins mav lead one side or the other or both to acquire
~-o~ -v - r ~ -
unneeded weapons. This aspect of the process is exacerbated by the
inordinate length, at least historically, of negotiations, during which
weapons systems acquire momentum and constituencies and become
virtually unstoppable. Finally, weapons that are not included in a
particular agreement are pursued with unusual vigor to combat
potential critics. Some critics thus view the whole arms control
process as a means for legitimizing the arms race.
The slow pace of the traditional arms control process has occa-
sionally led some people to suggest that the United States try to be
somewhat bolder in unilateral disarmament initiatives, one of the
alternative paths ~ mentioned earlier. One can argue that the size
and relative survivability of our strategic forces is so great that even
OCR for page 66
66
REYKJA VIK AND BEYOND
if the Soviets were to continue building ant! we were to stop, it
would make no significant difference in the strategic confrontation,
particularly today, when there are no defensive systems. There are
naturally serious questions about such a proposal. How great a force
disparity could we tolerate without incurring military risk? Would
anything like this be politically acceptable?
There is another type of unilateral action we could take that is
related to the cliscipline we exercise on the evolution of new weapons
systems and the seriousness with which we take the arms control
implications of these systems. Let me list some questions that should
always be addressed in this connection. I have a feeling I first heard
of this approach from a CTSAC member Dr. Garwin, perhaps, or
Dr. Panofsky. Nevertheless, with all due credit to whomever, the
questions are pretty obvious.
· If a new system were developed by the United States and a few
years later was initiated by the Soviets, would our net security be
served by having it deployed against us? (MIRVs are an example of
a system that might have failed this test.)
· Would a new system (for example, a hard-site ABM system
with a break-out potential) make existing or projected arms control
agreements more difficult to police?
· Would a system being proposed as a bargaining chip (e.g.,
Grand Forks, North Dakota) be one we really wanted on its merits?
· How does a proposed new system affect strategic stability? Will
it increase or decrease the advantage of striking first? If it enhances
the advantage to a first striker, how does it help our security?
· Does the system have obvious countermeasures? Is it cheaper
to counter than to build? (Need ~ mention SDI in this context as
one that might flunk this test?)
Richard Garwin has remarked that one must make such consid-
erations a part of the educational process for our future military
leaders. In addition, there shouIc! not be an adversarial relationship
between the military and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
or any other part of the national security establishment.
In suggesting the need for better criteria for weapons, ~ am
reminded of some of the arguments supporting the MX: (~) it was
necessary for us to proceed with the MX to demonstrate national
OCR for page 67
67
FUTURE OF ARMS CONTROL
will; (2)
and (3) it was necessary as a bargaining chip. These arguments
struck me as being, respectively, silly, irrational, and cynical, hardily
the nrescrintion for sound decision making.
Let me turn now to some things that seem likely to be on the
arms control agenda in the future and then conclude with some
general observations on several topics that are not usually subsumed
under the arms control rubric but that are, in fact, terribly important.
First, there is the series of issues raised by Reykjavik, issues that
are largely unresolved as yet. On the basis of the Shultz visit to
Moscow and subsequent events, there is a reasonable presumption
that an agreement is in the offing on intermediate-range nuclear
forces (INF) and shorter-range missiles. Obviously, in the words of
Yogi Berra, it's not over 'til it's over, and it may yet be deja vu all
over again. Militarily, the weapons systems involves! are in my view
of dubious value, but the negotiating movement such an agreement
would produce would be important. The symbolic significance of
literally destroying a weapons system would be quite significant.
Clearly, as evidenced by this seminar, the concept of drastic cuts
In strategic nuclear forces that was touted in various although not
always clear forms at Reykjavik is very much at the center of current
interest. Given the complexities alluded to in our discussions here,
it is clear that this item will be with us for quite a while. I am
somewhat amused to recall in connection with deep cuts that there
were many people who hooted in some derision when George
Kennan, about 6 years ago, suggested that we should cut strategic
forces by half.
The recent Soviet proposal that the United States and the Soviet
Union conduct weapons tests at each other's test site is very
interesting. If such tests come to pass, the way may be paved, by
increasing verification confidence, first for ratification by the United
States of the Threshold Test Ban and the Peaceful Uses treaties and
then perhaps serious motion toward a CTB. Given the relative
maturity of nuclear weapons design and the possibility of assessing
weapons reliability without tests, it is hard to believe that our security
or that of the Soviets would be threatened by a CTB. The gains are
significant psychologically for the rest of the world and the non-
NPT nations in particular. In addition, of course, various potentially
it was necessary to match the Soviet hard-site kill capability;
--- rip r-
.
OCR for page 68
68
REYKJA VIK AND BEYOND
mischievous weapons developments like x-ray lasers, for exam-
plc could be foreclosed.
Obviously, the whole set of issues associated with strategic defense
will be part of any future arms control agenda. For the moment the
critical item is preserving the integrity of the ABM treaty. The so-
called broad or legally correct interpretation of the treaty advocated
in some quarters of the Reagan Administration would appear to be
a major obstacle to achieving any of the significant cuts in offensive
forces discussed here. The role of defense in an era of recluced
offenses will require much analysis and eventually difficult negoti-
ations.
There are a number of other obvious foci for arms control activity
in the years to come, including, for example, antitactical missile
defenses, cruise missile issues, the implications of mobile or con-
cealable strategic weapons, conventional force reductions, and mul-
tilateral negotiations involving all the major nuclear powers, partic-
ularly if the superpowers significantly cut their strategic forces.
There is more than enough work to be done, which leads me to the
final portion of my discussion.
The current unsatisfactory, unstable, and dangerous situation in
which we find ourselves did not develop suddenly. In both the
United States and the Soviet Union the situation evolved through a
series of steps that frequently were taken for domestic or international
political reasons virtually unconnected to real strategic military
objectives. There are a number of culprits: the scientists who failed
to communicate adequately to the public the realities of nuclear
weaponry; the infatuation of the military with the power of these
new gadgets and their inability to recognize that there was no way
to use this power to capture a city or a country destroyed in a
nuclear war is not really very important; the dynamics and momen-
tum of the arms race in the United States; the military-congressional-
inclustrial complex; the xenophobia and insecurity of the Soviets;
their past and present harsh and aggressive policies, both internally
and toward their neighbors; their own military-industrial complex;
and the general aura of mistrust with which the United States and
the Soviet Union regard each other. Altogether, there are no shortages
of explanations; nevertheless, it is often hard to accept the collective
madness that has led us to where we are.
OCR for page 69
69
FUTURE OF ARMS CONTROL
The arms control efforts we have engaged in for nearly 30 years
have been aimed at extricating us from this mess in a safe and stable
way. In spite of the immense amount of work that has gone into
the effort, T feel that what has been lacking is a coherent, clear-cut,
and overarching long-range vision of what our objectives are. We
have attempted to do things one at a time first this kind of a treaty,
then that one, and so forth. T once tried to pose the following
question to CISAC and, T think, also to our Soviet counterparts:
The time is n years from now, and the Uniter! States and the Soviet
Union are at peace in a crisis-stable ant! secure relationship. Can we
define that new era in some cletail, that is, what is n, and how do
we get there from here? The question is easy to pose but not as easy
to address. In this country, we have a recurring problem in Tong-
range planning caused by the presidential electoral process. Thus,
we practice arms control interruptus every 4 years. Institutions
outside the government such as the universities and the various think
tanks can help develop long-range policy. But there is a strong
resistance on the part of people in government to outside advice,
and a mechanism for analogous considerations is also necessary
inside the system.
In the short run, we have to survive; thus, the kind of technical
arms control efforts I discussed earlier must be pursued vigorously.
In a real sense, these things, although very important, are secondary
issues. We are actually only buying time. There are no technical
solutions to our dilemma; there really are no impenetrable shields
or magic bullets. World peace will have to be based on many factors
that lie outside traditional arms control. Things like technological
change, regional rivalries, Third World sociopolitical evolution, and
the diminishing oil supply are all part of the picture, which is a
rapidly changing one. Technical and economic forces are dramatically
changing our biosphere; witness the destruction of the rain forests,
the destruction of the ozone layer, and the CO2 buildup. All of these
issues in various ways will have a profound influence on international
security, more profound in the Tong run than that poses! by nuclear
weapons. The effects of history, the politics and sociology of strategic
rivalries the linkages between economics and defense, ant! the
v
. ~ · ~ . '1' ' . ~ ~ .
stresses posed by the Inequalities ot living stanuaras are orner aspects
ofthe problem. Tackling these issues is going to require the combined
OCR for page 70
70
REYKJA VIK AND BEYOND
efforts of physical and life scientists as well as political and social
scientists, engineers, lawyers, (loctors, and businessmen. The phe-
nomena are truly complex and the time available for understanding
them ant! translating this understanding into policies to avoid disaster
is very short. If war doesn't get us, overpopulation or some form
of environmental disaster will. Insteac! of trying to make nuclear
weapons impotent and obsolete, let's work to make them irrelevant.
We scientists have a special responsibility. We must help to develop
in a public that is largely scientifically and technically illiterate an
understanding of nuclear weapon realities ant! of the host of major
questions with a strong technical component. In our universities,
we must help to educate students with a serious and broac! background
in security issues. There is more than enough for us to clot
The problem of trying to achieve a peaceful worIcl has been with
us for a Tong time. If we do not blow ourselves up, it will continue
for a long time. But it is important to remember that we are not
dealing with a physics problem that we can abandon if it gets too
tough and then work on something else. This is the problem; it will
not go away, and we cannot allow ourselves to become discouraged,
easy though that may be. There are some glimmerings of hope in
the air anc! the absurdity of a presumably civilized society wasting
nearly a trillion clolIars a year on arms throughout the world, to say
nothing of the human talent diverter! from the real problems of
survival on an underresourced and overpopulates! planet, finally
seems to be sinking in. As Victor Hugo saicl, "An invasion of armies
can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come."
Let's get on with it!
Representative terms from entire chapter:
arms race
