Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
323153545
label
Disarmament Address to the Nation 9/27/91 [OA 8329]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
323153545
contentType
document
title
Disarmament Address to the Nation 9/27/91 [OA 8329]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
13772-011
collections
Records of the White House Office of Speechwriting (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Speech Backup Chronological Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
323153545
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
31d3a31627979225
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
S
S
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin:
Speechwriting, White House Office of
Series:
Speech File Backup Files
Subseries:
Chron File, 1989-1993
OA/ID Number:
13772
Folder ID Number:
13772-011
Folder Title:
Disarmament Address to the Nation 9/27/91 [OA 8329]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
26
21
6
4
September 26, 1991
MEMORANDUM FOR DAVE DEMAREST
FROM:
JENNIFER GROSSMAN
SUBJECT:
MATERIAL FOR TOMORROW'S SPEECH
Many of the Cold War's historical speeches have had had a
line, a slug or slogan, that helped preserve their potency
for future audiences. Witness "an iron curtain has descended,' "
"man must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind.'
The truly explosive message of this speech deserves some silver
bullets. Some suggestions
(re. abolishing weapons) THAT CAN STILL MAKE WAR \ BUT CAN
NO LONGER MAKE SENSE.
WE HAVE UNTIL NOW ACHIEVED PEACE THOUGH STRENGTH WE NOW
HAVE THE CHANCE TO ACHIEVE STRENGTH THOUGH PEACE.
**Kennedy: nations do not mistrust each other because they are
armed, they are armed because they mistrust each other. (maybe
we can play around with this, e.g. it has often been debated
whether nations mistrust each other because they are armed, or
whether they are armed because they mistrust each other...)
OPPOSITION FROM THE RIGHT, how we can turn this around, steal their
thunder:
--we have always insisted on peace though strength, we
were right. now we may reap the harvest of strength
throught peace. we have always followed the path of
measured deterrence, not mindless buildup. we were
right. now we may follow that triumphant principle to
its logical conclusion.
JFK: on joining a race for peace, not war
RESONANCE
"we stood where duty required us to stand" (now let us walk where
destiny requires us to lead)
part of something larger than ourselves
QUOTES
1)
"Events, which are the arguments of God, are stronger than
words, which are the arguments of men."
"Beveridge the "Brilliant" 1898
2)
"Destiny is not a matter of chance, it is a matter of choice;
it is not a thing to be waited for, it is a thing to be
achieved."
--William Jennings Bryan, 1899
3)
(When asked the secret of his success, Wayne Gretsky replied)
"I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has
been.
"
4)
"
and they shall beat their swords into plowshares
nation
shall not lift up sword against nation, neitehr shall they
learn war anymore."
5)
REAGAN ('87 UN address) : "[DeTocqueville] predicted that the
two great powers of the future world would be, on one hand,
the United States, which would be built, as he said, 'by the
plowshare,' and on the other, Russia, which would go forward,
again, as he said, 'by the sword. Yet need it be so? Cannot
swords be turned into plowshares?"
6)
"What kind of man would live where there is no daring? I
don't believe in taking foolish chances, but nothing can be
accomplished without taking any chance at all."
-Charles Lindbergh
7)
Ambassador Bush at Gloucester County Community College, May
7, 1971:
"You know the vision that was in the mind of the UN's founders
-- how they dreamed of a new age when the great powers of the
world would cooperate in peace as they had as allies in war,
and would take the lead in stopping aggression."
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
September 27, 1991
ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE NATION
The Oval Office
8:02 P.M. EDT
Good evening. Tonight I'd like to speak with you about
our future, and the future of the generations to come.
The world has changed at a fantastic pace, with each day
writing a fresh page of history before yesterday's ink has even
dried. And most recently, we've seen the peoples of the Soviet Union
turn to democracy and freedom and discard a system of government
based on oppression and fear.
Like the East Europeans before them, they face the
daunting challenge of building fresh political structures, based on
human rights, democratic principles, and market economies. Their
task is far from easy, and far from over. They will need our help.
And they will get it.
But these dramatic changes challenge our nation as well.
Our country has always stood for freedom and democracy. And when the
newly elected leaders of Eastern Europe grappled with forming their
new governments, they looked to the United States. They looked to
American democratic principles in building their own free societies.
Even the leaders of the USSR republics are reading The Federalist
Papers, written by America's founders, to find new ideas and
inspiration.
Today, America must lead again, as it always has, as
only it can. And we will. We must also provide the inspiration for
lasting peace. And we will do that, too. We can now take steps in
response to these dramatic developments, steps that can help the
Soviet peoples in their quest for peace and prosperity. More
importantly, we can now take steps to make the world a less dangerous
place than ever before in the nuclear age.
A year ago, I described a new strategy for American
defenses, reflecting the world's changing security environment. That
strategy shifted our focus away from the fear that preoccupied us for
40 years, the prospect of a global confrontation. Instead, it
concentrated more on regional conflicts, such as the one we just
faced in the Persian Gulf.
I spelled out a strategic concept, guided by the need to
maintain the forces required to exercise forward presence in key
areas, to respond effectively in crises, to maintain a credible
nuclear deterrent, and to retain the national capacity to rebuild our
forces, should that be needed.
We are now moving to reshape the U.S. military to
reflect that concept. The new base force will be smaller by half a
million than today's military -- with fewer Army divisions, Air Force
wings, Navy ships, and strategic nuclear forces. This new force will
MORE
- 2 -
be versatile, able to respond around the world to challenges -- old
and new.
As I just mentioned, the changes that allowed us to
adjust our security strategy a year ago have greatly accelerated.
The prospect of a Soviet invasion into Western Europe, launched with
little or no warning, is no longer a realistic threat. The Warsaw
Pact has crumbled. In the Soviet Union, the advocates of democracy
triumphed over a coup that would have restored the old system of
repression. The reformers are now starting to fashion their own
futures, moving even faster toward democracy's horizon.
New leaders in the Kremlin and the republics are now
questioning the need for their huge nuclear arsenal. The Soviet
nuclear stockpile now seems less an instrument of national security,
and more of a burden. As a result, we now have an unparalleled
opportunity to change the nuclear posture of both the United States
and the Soviet Union.
If we and the Soviet leaders take the right steps --
some on our own, some on their own, some together -- we can
dramatically shrink the arsenal of the world's nuclear weapons. We
can more effectively discourage the spread of nuclear weapons. We
can rely more on defensive measures in our strategic relationship.
We can enhance stability, and actually reduce the risk of nuclear
war. Now is the time to seize this opportunity.
After careful study and consultations with my senior
advisors, and after considering valuable counsel from Prime Minister
Major, President Mitterand, Chancellor Kohl and other allied leaders,
I am announcing today a series of sweeping initiatives affecting
every aspect of our nuclear forces on land, on ships, and on
aircraft. I met again today with our Joint Chiefs of Staff, and I
can tell you they wholeheartedly endorse each of these steps.
I will begin with the category in which we will make the
most fundamental change in nuclear forces in over 40 years -- non-
strategic or theater weapons.
Last year, I cancelled U.S. plans to modernize our
ground-launched theater nuclear weapons. Later, our NATO allies
joined us in announcing that the Alliance would propose the mutual
elimination of all nuclear artillery shells from Europe, as soon as
short-range nuclear force negotiations began with the Soviets. But
starting these talks now would only perpetuate these systems, while
we engage in lengthy negotiations. Last months' events not only
permit, but indeed demand swifter, bolder, action.
I am therefore directing that the United States
eliminate its entire worldwide inventory of ground-launched short-
range, that is, theater nuclear weapons. We will bring home and
destroy all of our nuclear artillery shells and short-range ballistic
missile warheads. We will, of course, ensure that we preserve an
effective air-delivered nuclear capability in Europe. That is
essential to NATO's security.
In turn, I have asked the Soviets to go down this road
with us -- to destroy their entire inventory of ground-launched
theater nuclear weapons: not only their nuclear artillery, and
nuclear warheads for short-range ballistic missiles, but also the
theater systems the U.S. no longer has -- systems like nuclear
warheads for air-defense missiles, and nuclear land mines.
Recognizing further the major changes in the
international military landscape, the United States will withdraw all
tactical nuclear weapons from its surface ships and attack
submarines, as well as those nuclear weapons associated with our
land-based naval aircraft. This means removing all nuclear Tomahawk
cruise missiles from U.S. ships and submarines, as well as nuclear
MORE
- 3 -
bombs aboard aircraft carriers. The bottom line is that under normal
circumstances, our ships will not carry tactical nuclear weapons.
Many of these land and sea-based warheads will be
dismantled and destroyed. Those remaining will be secured in central
areas where they would be available if necessary in a future crisis.
Again, there is every reason for the Soviet Union to
match our actions -- by removing all tactical nuclear weapons from
its ships and attack submarines; by withdrawing nuclear weapons for
land-based naval aircraft; and by destroying many of them and
consolidating what remains at central locations. I urge them to do
SO.
No category of nuclear weapons has received more
attention than those in our strategic arsenals. The Strategic Arms
Reduction Treaty, START, which President Gorbachev and I signed last
July was the culmination of almost a decade's work. It calls for
substantial stabilizing reductions and effective verification.
Prompt ratification by both parties is essential.
But I also believe the time is right to use START as a
springboard to achieve additional stabilizing changes.
First, to further reduce tensions, I am directing that
all United States strategic bombers immediately stand down from their
alert posture. As a comparable gesture, I call upon the Soviet Union
to confine its mobile missiles to their garrisons, where they will be
safer and more secure.
Second, the United States will immediately stand down
from alert all intercontinental ballistic missiles scheduled for
deactivation under START. Rather than waiting for the treaty's
reduction plan to run its full seven year course, we will accelerate
elimination of these systems, once START is ratified. I call upon
the Soviet Union to do the same.
Third, I am terminating the development of the mobile
Peacekeeper ICBM as well as the mobile portions of the small ICBM
program. The small single-warhead ICBM will be our only remaining
ICBM modernization program. And I call upon the Soviets to terminate
any and all programs for future ICBMs with more than one warhead, and
to limit ICBM modernization to one type of single warhead missile --
just as we have done.
Fourth, I am cancelling the current program to build a
replacement for the nuclear short-range attack missile for our
strategic bombers.
Fifth, as a result of the strategic nuclear weapons
adjustments that I've just outlined, the United States will
streamline its command and control procedures, allowing us to more
effectively manage our strategic nuclear forces.
As the system works now, the Navy commands the submarine
part of our strategic deterrent, while the Air Force commands the
bomber and land-based elements. But as we reduce our strategic
forces, the operational command structure must be as direct as
possible. And I have therefore approved the recommendation of
Secretary Cheney and the Joint Chiefs to consolidate operational
command of these forces into a U.S. Strategic Command, under one
commander, with participation from both services.
Since the 1970s, the most vulnerable and unstable part
of the U.S. and Soviet nuclear forces has been intercontinental
missiles with more than one warhead. Both sides have these ICBMs in
fixed silos in the ground where they are more vulnerable than
missiles on submarines.
MORE
- 4 -
I propose that the U.S. and the Soviet Union seek early
agreement to eliminate from their inventories all ICBMs with multiple
warheads. After developing a timetable acceptable to both sides, we
could rapidly move to modify or eliminate these systems under
procedures already established in the START agreement. In short,
such an action would take away the single most unstable part of our
nuclear arsenals.
But there is more to do. The United States and the
Soviet Union are not the only nations with ballistic missiles. Some
15 nations have them now, and in less than a decade, that number
could grow to 20.
The recent conflict in the Persian Gulf demonstrates in
no uncertain terms that the time has come for strong action on this
growing threat to world peace.
Accordingly, I am calling on the Soviet leadership to
join us in taking immediate concrete steps to permit the limited
deployment of non-nuclear defenses to protect against limited
ballistic missile strikes whatever their source without
undermining the credibility of existing deterrent forces. And we
will intensify our effort to curb nuclear and missile proliferation.
These two efforts will be mutually reinforcing. To foster
cooperation, the United States soon will propose additional
initiatives in the area of ballistic missile early warning.
Finally, let me discuss yet another opportunity for
cooperation that can make our world safer.
During last month's attempted coup in Moscow, many
Americans asked me if I thought Soviet nuclear weapons were under
adequate control. I do not believe that America was at increased
risk of nuclear attack during those tense days. But I do believe
more can be done to ensure the safe handling and dismantling of
Soviet nuclear weapons. Therefore, I propose that we begin
discussions with the Soviet Union to explore cooperation in three
areas: First, we should explore joint technical cooperation on the
safe and environmentally responsible storage, transportation,
dismantling, and destruction of nuclear warheads. Second, we should
discuss existing arrangements for the physical security and safety of
nuclear weapons and how these might be enhanced. And third, we
should discuss nuclear command and control arrangements, and how
these might be improved to provide more protection against the
unauthorized or accidental use of nuclear weapons.
My friend, French President Mitterrand, offered a
similar idea a short while ago. After further consultations with the
Alliance, and when the leadership in the USSR is ready, we will begin
this effort.
The initiatives that I'm announcing build on the new
defense strategy that I set out a year ago -- one that shifted our
focus away from the prospect of global confrontation. We're
consulting with our Allies on the implementation of many of these
steps which fit well with the new post Cold-War strategy and force
posture that we've developed in NATO.
As we implement these initiatives we will closely watch
how the new Soviet leadership responds. We expect our bold
initiatives to meet with equally bold steps on the Soviet side. If
this happens, further cooperation is inevitable. If it does not,
then an historic opportunity will have been lost. Regardless, let no
one doubt we will still retain the necessary strength to protect our
security and that of our allies, and to respond as necessary.
In addition, regional instabilities, the spread of
weapons of mass destruction, and as we saw during the conflict in the
Gulf, territorial ambitions of power-hungry tyrants, still require us
- 5 -
to maintain a strong military to protect our national interests and
to honor commitments to our allies.
Therefore, we must implement a coherent plan for a
significantly smaller but fully capable military, one that enhances
stability but is still sufficient to convince any potential adversary
that the cost of aggression would exceed any possible gain.
We can safely afford to take the steps I've announced
today, steps that are designed to reduce the dangers of
miscalculation in a crisis. But to do so, we must also pursue
vigorously those elements of our strategic modernization program that
serve the same purpose. We must fully fund the B-2 and SDI program.
We can make radical changes in the nuclear postures of both sides to
make them smaller, safer and more stable. But the United States must
maintain modern nuclear forces including the strategic triad and thus
ensure the credibility of our deterrent.
Some will say that these initiatives call for a budget
windfall for domestic programs. But the peace dividend I seek is not
measured in dollars but in greater security. In the near term, some
of these steps may even cost money. Given the ambitious plan I have
already proposed to reduce U.S. defense spending by 25 percent, we
cannot afford to make any unwise or unwarranted cuts in the defense
budget that I have submitted to Congress. I am counting on
congressional support to ensure we have the funds necessary to
restructure our forces prudently and implement the decisions I have
outlined tonight.
Twenty years ago when I had the opportunity to serve
this country as Ambassador to the United Nations, I once talked about
the vision that was in the minds of the U.N. 's founders -- how they
dreamed of a new age when the great powers of the world would
cooperate in peace as they had as allies in war.
Today I consulted with President Gorbachev. And while
he hasn't had time to absorb the details, I believe the Soviet
response will clearly be positive. I also spoke with President
Yeltsin and he had a similar reaction -- positive, hopeful.
Now, the Soviet people and their leaders can shed the
heavy burden of a dangerous and costly nuclear arsenal which has
threatened world peace for the past five decades. They can join us
in these dramatic moves toward a new world of peace and security.
Tonight, as I see the drama of democracy unfolding
around the globe, perhaps -- perhaps we are closer to that new world
than ever before. The future is ours to influence, to shape, to
mold. While we must not gamble that future, neither can we forfeit
the historic opportunity now before us.
It has been said, "Destiny is not a matter of chance, it
is a matter of choice; it is not a thing to be waited for, it's a
thing to be achieved." The United States has always stood where duty
required us to stand. Now let them say, that we led where destiny
required us to lead -- to a more peaceful, hopeful future. We cannot
give a more precious gift to the children of the world.
Thank you, good night, and God bless the United States
of America.
END
8:24 P.M. EDT
September 26, 1991
MEMORANDUM FOR DD
FROM:
JAG
SUBJ:
MORE LANGUAGE FOR TOMORROW'S SPEECH
1)
George Washington in his first annual message to Congress in
1790 (i.e. "two centuries ago") coined the famous line:
"To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means
of preserving peace.' (we might use this in qualifying
total disarmament, yet adding something like: "yet to be
prepared for peace, is also one of the surest ways of
avoiding war.' ")
2)
"The future doesn't belong to the fainthearted; it belongs
to the brave.' "
--Reagan, Challenger address, 1986
NOTE:
on beating right-wing critics to the punch, I guess it
all comes down to the essence of what Lincoln meant
when he said: "We must be devoted with all our heart
to the values we defended." Those values have proven
victorious; if we fail to respond to their victory, we
retrospectively discredit their validity.
3)
REAGAN: "After all our struggles to restore America, to
revive confidence in our country, hope for our future,
after all our hard-won victories earned through the patience
and courage of every citizen, we cannot, must not, and will
not turn back. We will finish our job. How could we do
less. We're Americans." ('84 SOU)
4)
REAGAN: "History is no captive of some inevitable force.
History is made by men and women of vision and courage." "
('86 SOU)
10
steps which fit well with the new post Cold-War strategy and
force posture we have developed in NATO.
As we implement these initiatives we will closely watch how
the new Soviet leadership responds. We expect our bold
initiatives to be met with equally bold steps on the Soviet side.
If this happens, further cooperation is inevitable; if it does
not, some reassessment of the dramatic steps I have announced
today, may be necessary.
At the same time, regional instabilities, the spread of
weapons of mass destruction, and as we saw in during the conflict
in the Gulf, territorial ambitions of power-hungry tyrants, still
require us to maintain a strong military to protect our national
interests, and to honor our commitments to our allies.
Therefore, we are planning a significantly smaller but fully
capable military, one that enhances stability but is still
sufficient to convince any potential adversary that the cost of
aggression would exceed any possible gain.
It is vitally important that we implement these reductions
coherently to ensure the right combination of military forces --
balanced, ready, and capable.
The same is true for our strategic forces. We can safely
afford to take the steps I have announced today, steps that are
designed to reduce the dangers of miscalculation in a crisis.
But to do so, we must also pursue vigorously those elements of
our strategic modernization program that serve the same purpose.
We must fully fund the B-2 and SDI program. We can make radical
11
changes in the nuclear postures of both sides to make them
smaller, safer and more stable. But the United States must
maintain a modern strategic triad that ensures the credibility of
our deterrent.
Twenty years ago when I had the opportunity to serve this
country as Ambassador to the United Nations, I once talked about
the vision that was in the minds of the UN's founders -- how they
dreamed of a new age when the great powers of the world would
cooperate in peace as they had as allies in war.
As I see the drama of democracy unfolding today in the
Soviet Union, perhaps we are closer to that new age than ever
before. Today, the Soviet people and their leaders can shed the
heavy burden of a dangerous and costly nuclear arsenal which has
threatened world peace for the past five decades and join us in
these dramatic moves toward increased security and stability.
The future is ours to influence, to shape, to mold. While
we must not gamble that future, neither can we forfeit the
historic opportunity now before us.
It has been said, "Destiny is not a matter of chance, it is
a matter of choice; it is not a thing to be waited for, it is a
thing to be achieved." The United States has always stood where
let it be said that led
duty required us to stand. Now let us lead where destiny
requires us to lead -- to a more peaceful, hopeful future. We
cannot give a more precious gift to our children.
Thank you, and God bless the United States of America.
Services of Mead Data Central, Inc.
PAGE
1
LEVEL 1 - 1 OF 5 STORIES
Copyright 1991 Southam Inc.
Calgary Herald
July 30, 1991, Tuesday, FINAL EDITION
SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. A5
LENGTH: 1965 words
HEADLINE: The end of the Cold War
BYLINE: Ed Timms, Dallas Morning News
BODY:
RAPID CITY, S.D.
The hills of South Dakota are home to silos that store grain - and others
that hold weapons of nuclear destruction.
In all, the 150 Minuteman II missiles of Ellsworth Air Force Base wait
silently for a launch command that seems ever more unlikely. Soon, they'll be
retired.
1991 Calgary Herald, July 30, 1991
These nuclear swords of the Cold War may not literally be beaten into
plowshares.
But when the Minutemen are gone, farmers and ranchers suggest a new use for
the silos - to store grain or as artesian wells.
Linda Eisenbraun's
...
... right moves, then you risk annihilation," said Richard Scribner, an
associate professor with Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service.
= Nuclear saber-rattling" makes little sense, he said, when U.S. forces were
able to demolish the Iraqis with conventional forces.
Even one ICBM would be devastating. The single warhead atop Ellsworth's
Minutemen IIs, for example, is at least 90 times more powerful than the atomic
bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
At ...
EXIS NEXIS'LEXIS NEXIST
Services of Mead Data Central, Inc.
PAGE
2
1991 Calgary Herald, July 30, 1991
These nuclear swords of the Cold War may not literally be beaten into
plowshares.
But when the Minutemen are gone, farmers and ranchers suggest a new use for
the silos - to store grain or as artesian wells.
Linda Eisenbraun's farmhouse is perhaps a half-kilometre from a Minuteman
silo.
"We've lived with them," said Eisenbraun, 43, as she talked with a stranger
through her screen door. "We can live without them."
The demise of the Cold War seems certain.
Baby boomers, who as children learned "duck-and-cover" drills and the dubious
protective qualities of a school desk, apparently have outlived it.
More than 40 years in the making, the U.S. nuclear juggernaut is slowly,
deliberately being downsized.
"We
somehow made the Cold War go away," said Air Force Brig. Gen.
Robert Linhard, a former national security aide to former U.S. president
1991 Calgary Herald, July 30, 1991
Ronald Reagan and a top planner at Strategic Air Command headquarters in Omaha,
Neb.
"In the process, we didn't pay for it with liberty, we didn't pay for it with
a lack of integrity. We stuck to our principles, and we've lived through that
period."
This week, U.S. President George Bush and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev
will meet in Moscow to sign the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, a historic
agreement that will reduce long- range nuclear weapons by 30 per cent.
Yet START still will leave the United States and the Soviet Union enough
weapons to destroy each other several times over.
Political and economic turmoil threaten to dissolve the Soviet Union.
Developing nations, led by President Saddam Hussein's Iraq, keep trying to join
the nuclear club.
On the front lines of nuclear deterrence, the work continues - at least until
the threat is gone.
LEXIS' NEXIS'LEXIS NEXIS
Services of Mead Data Central, Inc.
PAGE
3
1991 Calgary Herald, July 30, 1991
Minuteman II missile crews head for the hills every day from Ellsworth to
descend into concrete and steel cocoons. There, they wait for the launch order
they hope will never come.
The roar of B-1B bombers and KC-135 tankers overhead is background noise for
those who live near the base.
"I don't wake up feeling easier now versus two or three or five years ago,"
said Capt. Norm Pallister, 29, a B-1B pilot at Ellsworth.
"We still go out and practise what taxpayers pay us to do. I don't think
we're going to be letting our guard down at all in the future."
At the same time, this Air Force Academy graduate and father of four is
willing to call the outcome of the Cold War.
"I think we won," he said. "You could say, 'Well, nothing happened. How can
you say we won?' But that has been our job, to deter any kind of a conflict,
particularly with the Soviet Union. And that is exactly what we did."
***
(c) 1991 The San Francisco Chronicle, MARCH 17, 1991
from the public library and has the librarian fired because of her political
views.
With some of the leading lights of the town, Earl has opened a steak joint
named the Bull's Eye in honor of the local Air Force men who service the
Minutemen, ''150 nuclear weapons buried under 20,000 square miles of Montana
prairie.'
Dorrie begins waiting tables at the Bull's Eye and moves into an apartment
above Madrid's only drugstore. She hires Margaret Greenfield, the novel's other
central character, as Sam's baby-sitter. Margaret is an 11-year-old with an
active mind and a more active imagination. Her first taste of adolescent
disillusionment is an airplane ride in which she gets an aerial view of Madrid.
Formerly a ''place of layers and mysteries, Madrid now appears 'bald'' and
''gappy,'' 'lost at sea'' in the unsheltering prairie.
By the time she meets Dorrie and Sam, Margaret is accelerating into adulthood
faster than she can assimilate, becoming a source of confusion to her parents
and herself. On the one hand she feels like a desperada: ''Outlaw energy surges
through her. On the other, she tosses frequent, quickie prayers she calls
''ejaculations'' heavenward to negotiate for favors and protection.
LEXIS NEXIS'LEXIS'NEXIS
Services of Mead Data Central, Inc.
PAGE
4
(c) 1989 Time Inc., Fortune, July 31, 1989
13,000 or so nuclear warheads (excluding 10,000 tactical weapons) and the
Soviets about 11,000. Says Steinbruner: "There aren't more than 2,000 targets in
the Soviet Union you can usefully attack." He suggests dropping the limit on
warheads for both sides to 3,000. Kaufmann, convincingly cautious, would keep
4,000.
The ICBMs now in place Minutemen with one or three warheads and MXs with
up to ten bombs each -- sit in silos in the Great Plains, vulnerable to
accurate, multiwarhead Soviet missiles. So the Pentagon is going ahead with
three expensive alternatives for protection: scattering 50 MX missiles on
railway cars in an alert (estimated total cost: $5.8 billion); running 500
Midgetmen missiles around in trucks ($24 billion); and the Strategic Defense
Initiative, whose object seems to have shifted away from building a shield over
the whole country to providing guard dogs to keep incoming missiles away from
the ICBMs.
The Pentagon could abandon all three methods in favor of 500 or so
single-warhead missiles in silos, 3,500 other warheads apportioned among the
Navy's Trident submarines and the Air Force's B1-B bombers, and a treaty with
the Soviets. Under such a treaty both superpowers would eliminate all
multiwarhead missiles accurate enough to vaporize the other side's ICBMs. And if
the Soviets cheat and tuck some silo-busters away? They would also have to
LEVEL 1 - 4 OF 5 STORIES
Copyright (c) 1989 The Christian Science Publishing Society;
The Christian Science Monitor
May 9, 1989, Tuesday
SECTION: EDITORIAL; LETTERS; Pg. 20
LENGTH: 187 words
HEADLINE: Back and Forth on Mobile Missiles
BODY:
The article 'Mobile Missile Debate Heating Up,'' April 3, hits a real hot
button.
The United States currently has the largest mobile nuclear weapons arsenal in
the world. The US Navy promotes its Trident 2 submarine and missiles as
providing the delivery precision of land-based missiles. The cruise missiles and
conventional nuclear bombs on Air Force planes provide a second source of
mobility. If land-based missiles are vulnerable, eliminate them. Redundancy upon
redundancy is overkill.
LEXIS'NEXIS'LEXIS'NEXIS
Services of Mead Data Central, Inc.
PAGE 5
(c) 1989 The Christian Science Publishing Society, May 9, 1989
How can Congress seriously consider two new basing systems for nuclear
weapons when it is struggling to balance the federal budget and find
accommodation with the Soviets on nuclear weapons?
The country doesn't want or need nuclear turtles ( Minutemen) on our
highways or nuclear rail cars (MX Peacekeepers) on our tracks. Deploying these
two new basing systems is a compromise with the devil: You can never win.
Willard B. Hunter, Midland, Mich., Coalition for Peace and Justice
Letters are welcome. Only a selection can be published, subject to
condensation, and none acknowledged. Please address to 'readers write.
I
LEXIS'NEXIS' LEXIS NEXIS