The Press TUESDAY, JANUARY 24, 1967. Missiles Accord?

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31276, 24 January 1967, Page 12

The Press TUESDAY, JANUARY 24, 1967. Missiles Accord?

President Johnson has, so far, declined to commit the Administration to expensive defences against nuclear attack. Events over the next few weeks may show whether his attitude is justified, or whether the United States must now provide for expenditure on a vast scale to protect strategic areas. Behind the President’s refusal to commit the Administration is the recent improvement in relations between the Soviet Union and the United States. Mr Johnson has always maintained that a primary aim of United States policy is “ to achieve a reconciliation with the “East”. The extent to which this desire may be reciprocated is not known. The Kremlin is not communicative, except that indirect approval may be read into Russia’s sharing of hopes for quick ratification of the treaty banning nuclear weapons from space, and apparently for the early completion of a nuclear non-proliferation treaty, towards which very considerable progress has been made. Mr Johnson, in his recent State of the Union message, clearly implied that the evidence of Soviet activity in the construction of anti-ballistic missile systems was not conclusive. One such system was said to have been started for the protection of Moscow, and it was suggested that other large Russian cities would be similarly encircled. On grounds of cost alone, it would certainly seem wise to treat reports of that nature with caution. Many influential Americans in and out of the Administration—the Defence Secretary, Mr McNamara among them—are with Mr Johnson in resisting panic demands for American counter-action. They have argued that an anti-missile programme of questionable value—based, moreover, on disputed evidence of Soviet intentions —could cost the American people up to 40 billion dollars, and would inevitably distort budget planning for years. Mr Johnson, saying that he would ask Congress about the possibility of international agreement on the problem, added that the Administration had a duty to slow down the arms race with the Soviet Union, in both conventional and nuclear weapons and defences. “Any additional “ race ”, he said, “ would impose on our people, and on “ all mankind, an additional waste of resources, with “ no gain of security on either side Whether the Russians would respond to a suggestion for a limitation of nuclear arms, which is presumably what Mr Johnson has in mind, is another question. But so much is at stake, Mr Johnson feels, that at least he should await the outcome of a fresh approach to Moscow to curb the arms race. The cost of new defence systems would bear more harshly on the Soviet economy than on the American. The Administration should have little difficulty in persuading Congress to give time for further study of the arms problem in talks between the two Governments. Congress must realise that Russia and the United States are the only Powers with large-scale nuclear striking capacity—and that neither wants a form of combat which could mean mutual annihilation.