Moscow's Reagan Jitters

...The same questions apply to the USSR, to be sure, but with less force thanks to America's superior ability to retaliate after an attempted Soviet first strike The chief danger is that the Kremlin is apt to counter Reagan's tough new nuclear doctrine by adopting a launch-on-warning policy, with computers rather than people making the decision to turn the firing keys within six minutes of a perceived assault Because computers can also make mistakes, the world would be brought that much closer to the brink of nuclear war Back in the United States, Richard Wilson, a nuclear expert and chairman of the physics department at Harvard, told me "If I were a Russian general, I would be tempted to use a first strike or to launch-on-warning " As matters stand, Wilson observed, both sides would be far more secure "if they absolutely got nd of their land-based [missile] forces" and relied on strategic submarines, which for the foreseeable future are invulnerable to a first strike Although Reagan might find himself with an Air Force mutiny if he tried to do away with all big missiles and strategic bombers, that would be a sensible objective at Geneva Unfortunately, the Soviets, too, would never agree to scrap their land missiles—only 22 per cent of U S missiles are on land, versus 75 per cent of the Russians When the initial Tridents—submarines that are as long as three football fields—go on active duty later this year, the U S will have come a long way toward diminishing the strategic attraction of a first strike for the Soviets Each Trident will carry nearly 200 independently targetable warheads And a remarkable satellite navigation system called Navstar will eventually enable every one of these warheads to hit its target within an unprecedented accuracy of five yards Of course, this makes the Tridents a first-strike weapon?something that gives the decision-makers inside the Kremlin walls the jitters these long Moscow days...

...A TRAVELER'S NOTEBOOK Moscow's Reagan Jitters By Andrew J Glass Moscow The Western sky is still aflame with shafts of crimson light as the clock atop the Spassky Tower in Red Square tolls 11 times A knot of visitors has gathered on thecob-blestones before Lenin's granite tomb They watch in respectful silence while two grim-faced Red Army sentinels, relieved from their hour-long watch, goose-step back into the Kremlin 11 snowed here in June, the tail end of the interminable Moscow winter Then, finally, the cold broke Now, pretty Russian girls have shed Iheir shapeless coats to stroll arm in arm along the vast boulevards in the unaccustomed sunshine, and everywhere balls of fine white lint from Moscow's ubiquitous popular trees float up into a hazy blue But the early summer thaw hasn't improved an East-West political climate that seems chillier today than at any time since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis The aging Soviet leaders appear to have been deeply stung by Ronald Reagan's prediction that Communism is destined for history's ashcan They also know that a few days later, sitting around theNATO summit in Bonn, Reagan said of the Soviets "They may not be fighting us, but they certainly are at war with us " The men in the Kremlin have taken Reagan's remarks during his June European trip as nothing less than a call for counterrevolution Their response has been to unleash a spate of highly personal attacks against him, in marked contrast to the customary Soviet opacity in these matters Izvestia designates Reagan "the present White House boss" and describes him as "an agent of millionaires and a multimillionaire himself " The Soviet-brand Reagan regards with "rare haughtiness the sufferings and deprivations of millions of unfortunate Americans " The citizens of the United States, according to the Soviet government daily, "are now going through hardships unheard ot since the Great Depression And "all ot a sudden Reagan has taken to teaching peoples of the Socialist countries how they should live and work in the future " Beyond this war of words, a Washington reporter on a brief visit to the Soviet Union gets the impression that the Kremlin's chieftains are still weighing quite carefully whether they should undertake any serious business with the Reagan Administration on such vital matters as arms control and an October summit A negative decision, which is at least a 50-50 possibility, would mean that Moscow could go into a long ideological deep freeze in the hope that a warmer spirit will prevail at the White House in 1985 Unlike some Western political figures, Reagan is rarely plagued with self-doubt Ironically, his certainty of the inevitable downfall of Communism is neatly matched in style by the relentless self-righteousness of Communist polemics None of this would matter so much if not for the fact that as nuclear superpowers, the USSR and the U S are between them spending about $500 billion a year to further expand their already ballooning military arsenals Andrew J Glass, a frequent New Leader contributor is head ot the Cox Newspapers Bureau in Washington Many have pointed out that these funds could be better applied to building schools, fighting hunger and disease, or simply to reducing the heavy tax burden borne by both societies With the revived Cold War, American imports of Soviet goods in the first three months of 1982 fell to a measly $58 million, a drop of 63 per cent from the already low 1981 base Out of the productive energy of 265 million Soviet citizens, the U S merely culled a bit of fertilizer, some slabs of palladium, plat-tinum and chrome (used, with the apparent indifference of the Kremlin, for critical U S defense projects) and stud horses If not for the chrome farm failures that have forced the Soviets to import huge amounts of American grain, Moscow's side of the ledger would be no more impressive Russia's rulers continue to be preoccupied with morbid fears of a simultaneous attack by the Chinese in the East and by nato in the West Their suspicions are not allayed by the American President Having acquired a taste for knocking the Soviets over brandy and cigars at $ 1,000 a plate Republican dinners when he was an aspiring candidate, Reagan is apparently now doing his best to convince a queasy Kremlin that it faces a genuine menace Sheer boredom is the most evident problem in this restless society where everyone has learned to make his or her private bargain with state power The Soviet system provides jobs for all, even though there is clearly not enough work to go around Americans could provide some ennui-reducing trade and tourists That, in turn, could help open a society hungering for more contact with the West Reagan isn't interested in that approach, however Instead, he is busy pushing Pentagon plans to deploy nuclear weapons capable of a crippling first strike against Russia's missile forces The explicit new goal is to be able to launch an attack of stunning accuracy, wiping out the Soviet ability to respond m kind If security is the goal, though, there are less danger-prone ways of promoting it serious arms control negotiations, to name just one Since the 1940s, the Soviet Union's industrial base, including its major cities, has been a potential target for American nuclear bombs The reverse has been true as well Threatening civilian centers serves as a deterrent because each side retains the option of wiping out the other side's cities in retaliation for a nuclear attack The United States has also aimed much of its arsenal at the Soviet's strategic nuclear forces, at its conventional military units, and at what one Pentagon paper calls the "organs of Soviet political and military leadership and control ' Questions have arisen whether such a "counterforce" doctrine reinforces or retards U S military strength For example, strategic planners note that any salvo annihilating the entire Soviet supreme command would prevent a cease-fire, even if one were plainly called for, because no one would be alive to give the order The counter-force strategy has nevertheless prevailed, for the Russians have aimed their equally deadly weapons at U S nuclear silos In fact, earlier this year the U S land-based nuclear missiles (all 1,050 of them) for the first time became vulnerable to destruction in a preemptive Soviet attack Despite decades of counterforce targeting, no administration in Washington has, in addition, tried to hold a first-strike sword over Moscow's head since the United States lost its nuclear monopoly in 1949 Undoubtedly, Reagan's decision to strive for that objective is motivated by the new first-strike threat posed by the Soviets' intercontinental SS-18s and SS-19s to the U S land-based missiles Reagan further contends that the U S nuclear buildup is needed because the Russians won't bargain seriously in Geneva on arms controls unless they really feel in jeopardy Reagan's stance is unsettling in Moscow, to put it mildly Some Soviet nuclear experts with whom I've spoken contend that the American President is actually preparing to launch a U S preemptive strike One expert, Henry Trofimenko, recently asked, "What are the guarantees for the opponent that the U S will show restraint, that the American strike will only be retaliatory rather than preventive...

...Upon what can the opposite side count...