STATEMENT BY SENATOR JOHN HEINZ
THE U.S. SHOULD ABIDE BY SALT II
The unilateral U.S. decision to abandon the SALT II ceilings seems
superficially attractive as a way of punishing the Soviet Union for arms
control violations.
However, breaking out of these limits plays to the
Soviet's far greater advantage in rapidly deploying large numbers of
strategic weapons.
Going beyond the numerical limits creates a huge new
"window of vulnerability" to Soviet offensive nuclear capabilities.
Such
a course is directly counter to America's national security interests,
makes the Presidents' goal of a verifiable nuclear arms reduction treaty
nearly unobtainable and risks a multi-billion dollar arms race in which
everybody loses.
From Ronald Reagan's inauguration in 1981 until late in 1986, the
Administration followed a policy of abiding by the limits on the number of
missile launchers and bombers of the unratified Salt II Treaty, as long as
the Soviets did the same.
However, last November the U.S. broke the
limit of 1,320 multiple-warhead missiles and bombers with cruise missiles
when it deployed the 131st B-52 bomber modified to carry cruise missiles.
Many of us in Congress supported President Reagan's policy of
informal restraint.
After this policy reversal, 57 Senators wrote to the
STATEMENT BY SENATOR JOHN HEINZ
PAGE 2
President urging him to abide by the SALT ceilings.
The U.S. Joint Chiefs
of Staff have consistently endorsed the view that the U.S. was more secure
with the limits than without them.
past fall, so did President Reagan.
Before abandoning these limits this
In June, 1985, the President stated,
"despite the Soviet record over the last years, it remains in our interest
to establish an interim framework of truly mutual restraint as we
pursue...the ongoing negotiations in Geneva."
Adherence to the limits was sound reasoning then and it remains so
now.
There is no evidence that the Soviets have exceeded the SALT
ceilings.
To the contrary, Defense Department figures show that the
Soviets have destroyed 556 nuclear-armed missiles and bombers to remain
under the SALT ceilings.
On the opposite page, my colleague, Senator Humphrey, correctly
observes that the Soviets have committed other serious arms control
agreement violations.
These include development of the new SS-25 missile,
and unauthorized data encryption.
I believe that these violations require a strong response.
The U.S.
is already responding directly to the SS-25 by developing the new
Midgetman missile.
This is a proportional and direct response to the
Soviet violation that assists in retaining strategic parity with the
Soviet Union.
STATEMENT BY SENATOR JOHN HEINZ
PAGE 3
While building Midgetman ensures that the U.S. will not fall behind
the Soviet Union, abandoning the numerical SALT ceilings does the opposite
by inviting an additional nuclear arms competition that we are illequipped to contest.
The Soviets are much better positioned to break out of SALT and
renew an arms race than we are.
Their strategic weapons production lines
give them a dramatic deployment advantage.
While the Congressional
Research Service estimates that both sides could dramatically increase
their nuclear inventories in an all-out race. -Qnt in all likely
scenarios the Soviet Union can race ahead faster then the U.S.
In the
best case, the U.S. would trail the Soviets by 3,000 strategic warheads by
1995.
Scrapping the SALT limits invites a massive arms race America
cannot win.
No one doubts that the U.S. could eventually match any Soviet buildup.
But in the meantime, our security would suffer and v1 we would waste
untold billions of dollars.
And because it is difficult to imagine an
arms reduction treaty, as the President seeks, being successfully^)
negotiated as both sides gear up additional production lines, the chances
of a new arms control agreement would be farther away then ever.
/
S
Up until
6
a few months ago, the President acknowledge the Soviet break-out
advantage.
Since the Soviet advantage has not changed, our policy should
not change.
If additional negotiating leverage with the Soviet Union is
STATEMENT BY SENATOR JOHN HEINZ
the goal, a far better alternative, which I strongly support, is a
vigorous Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) .
Recently, Senators Chafee, Bumpers, Leahy and I introduced
legislation which would continue the policy of informal restraint.
This
legislation would deny funding for any US weapons above the SALT ceilings,
This restriction would end immediately if the Soviets break the limits^
should continue observing.
This legislation does not preclude meaningful responses to
Soviet violations.
However, the U.S. should not allow a desire to punish
the Soviet for arms control violations by scrapping the only existing
framework for restraining the nuclear arms race that is not to our
advantage.
If mutual reductions are to be negotiated tomorrow, mutual
adherence to SALT II needs to be maintained today.
Senator John Heinz is a Republican from Pennsylvania