ment.
Sandhurst-trained most leading European circles see December NATO decisions to deploy Pershing and Cruise missiles as the probable leading cause of the soviet action in Afghanistan. US-Chinese negotiations over technology are similarly seen as factor. Could you comment on lese two aspects of the present military situation?
Let's take China first. When US defence DIOWI visited China, the aim was to establish common points for harmonisation of US and Chinese militarv policv. with a view toward an eventual war against the Soviet Union.
une visa was oreanised perore Soviet troops entered Afghanistan. Contrary to what sullC say. soviet move was not the cause of the intensified US-Chinese negotiations; the contrary is the case The second cause of the action in Afghanistan was the decision to install the Euromissiles about understood that the Euromissiles are not theatre nuclear DUl are weapons. deployed to destroy targets well within the USSR.
As a result unev canot be term ed tactical but are strategic, and thus cause an imbalance in the world strategic balance of forces This destabilised the international situation.
laci inat ine Us senate refused ratify SALT as couchs signiticant in this regara. DAli li implea reacning a level of equilibrium in strategic 'THE Soviet Union is engaged in a massive build-up of its armed forces and will soon achieve a position of superiority from which to threaten the security of the Western World. We have no choice but to increase defence spending., So runs the argument employed by the Tory government to justify their decision to buy five billion pounds worth of Trident submarine-based missiles and to allow the United States to deploy Cruise missiles in this country.
The Soviet Union replies by charging the West with initiating the new round in the arms race and cites the refusal of the US to ratify the SALT II arms limitation agreement to back up their claim.
Who can we believe? One man specially qualified to shed some light on the conflicting claims Washington and the Kremlin is Italian general Nino Pasti, who recently retired from military duties with the NATO command to become a member of parliaBut Pasti is a retired military man with a difference: he was elected as a candidate of the Italian Communist Party. And his views on Afghanistan, Cruise missiles, and rearmament, which are set out in the following interview, would no doubt throw our general staff, not to mention Margaret Thatcher and co, into paroxysms of rage.
forces: parity. It is this parity which the prevents war given unar each siof can inflict annihilation other. ratify meanin to of the deploy calls the deployment Euromissiles is therefore that the US attempting to supailurily The Pershings and Cruises can hit targets within Russian territory.
This is not a quantitative problem. over warheads in Europe. and Cruise is a qualitative change in lne equlorum.
Given that the Soviet cannot and will not accept this, the arms race, which carries with it the danger of a world war which would endanger the whole human race.
The NATO argument and propaganda to the effect that Euromissiles welC achieve parity following deployment of the SS20 is simply false, for the following reasons The SS20s are theatre nuclear weapons which cannot reach They are a modernisation of the SS4 and SSS whose precision and functions were outdated.
SS20 warheads carry three the SS4 and the SS5. Each SS20 missile carries three warheads.
The ratio of replacement is one new warhead for every missiles, a fact recognised officially Ine us and Europe. astonishes me is the replacement of SS4 and SS5s by SS20s. 'II States has replaced their systems no less than several times.
It is important to Kissinger said wnen ne was in of one always ready to fire -Vladivostock in November 1974. During the signing of the interim the accord he declared in a press con ference that it was the USA which means convinced the clude theatre nuclea of overall negotiations, although the Soviet side wished to do so achieve Using the argument that theatre nuclear weapons could not reach Soviet territory shares weapuls, nissueer asker that they not be included, whereas nuclear Gromyko wanted to negotiate on The Pershing theatre weapons.
June Western Europe the deployment of Union Pershing and Cruise means only a much heavier targeting of Europe by Soviet missile weapons.
The new missiles can reach Soviet territory within launch, lure the precious little time to decide on world war. Some have described recuired the this situation as a Cuba crisis in reverse.
Yes, it is a Cuba missile crisis in US reverse.
But if we look at the other part of the equation. at China. every bit of new technology given is a threat equivalent to the Euromissiles and cal ve a cause or war.
The SALT!! agreement does not three old include provision for the USSR's weapons aimed That is the reason why the SS20 wa made mobile. According to US intelligence sources, ne nated Line lola amoun or solus are amn ed at China.
Now the note wildl technology to China. increases thi danger of war. Look at the change in strategic posture of the USA during the period 1973-79 Before, it was based on massive retaliation. A strategy of 'countercity': it vou attack me and destro my cities I will do the same with your cities; so war was impossible. In 1973 Schlesinger invented thi 'counterforce' presupposed a destruction of the enemy unrouen a suronise auack Today, the USA warheads and the USSR has 5,000. ¡ne soviets nave more tarow eithe chimp not for tack cities, countervalue strategy which aim at wiping out the military forces of the enemy. be able to hit Many or anem ls more errective 1o have the same throw-weight but that throw-weight with fewer.
From the standpoint of military strategy, snarinors, Machiavelli, and the down- military tradition of the founding fathers, the US strategy appears bankrupl, because as soun as the USSR Soviets not to inweasons m standpoint minutes Sovie Union release all its missiles -against China.
more than half nuclear war.
We must consider the increase early warning system.
system.
doctrine. This has 10,000 This requires that they small targets and many missiles than to have American monitors on their With a range of 4,500 miles, the America wil give Britain the al to strike many more targ w. UK siles will threater Russian targets from an area tou times the size of that available t he more vulnerable Polaris boat not suprisonnes dive acept and travel faster radar system a US launch it will - so the US missues wilt be stakine emory shos It seems that the reason for the USA's strategic posture is that they are preparing for a limited tactical that the US could blind the Soviet possibility strike The US is making progress in this direction Farc only 20 pel orcach Ine soviel eariy warning But the Soviets will realise that.
Trident warhond TRIDENT: THE LONG-RANGER PRESIDENT Carter has just approved a plan which significantly shifts the em. phasis of the United States nuclear strategy - and increases the possibility of a nuclear war!
Presidential which Carter initialled weeks requires the US Command priority to the destruction of Soviet military and governmen a largers. curacy of the new generation o warheads - to within 200 fee arte 2,000 miles makes this possible.
Jargon The US will no longer rely on "deterrence based on the maluans assured destruction' - military jargon Soviet Union oul eaen orner's cities "The new directive is founded on the belief that it is possi bie to nave a nuclear war ol sulle duration explained Harold Jackson in the Guarolon 'and that the selective picking off of the Soviet capability to wage such a wal will serve as a detterent.' Or, put another way, the scittlive capabilly Soviet missile sites means that the United States can start and win such a war
----- pull-quotes -----
35 YEARS SAIGE AND I TANK FAI HE HORROR OF TE NORLD HAS THROSHIMA LEARNI A VALUABLE LESSON
US steps up war preparations