Congressional Research Service The Library of Congress NUCLEAR WEAPONS FREEZE MOVEMENT: ISSUES FOR NATIONAL DEBATE IP0195N Is the American public increasingly against nuclear weapons? Are U.S. and other world leaders paying too much attention to arms production and too little attention to arms control? Have the fear and likelihood of a nuclear war increased? These issues are being debated in local communities and increasingly among U.S. policymakers. The grass-roots movement to "ban the bomb" has already been endorsed by over one million people through local and State referendums. A recent Gallup poll concluded that over 314 of Americans favor a 50% reduction in nuclear arsenals by both the Soviet Union and the United States. The nuclear weapons freeze movement has recently gained the attention of Congress. On March 10, 1982, Senate and House resolutions were introducted which requested the President to negotiate an immediate nuclear weapons freeze with the Soviet Union, followed by major reductions on both sides. Another congressional proposal calls for the President to negotiate with the Soviet Union a long-term, mutual and verifiable nuclear forces freeze, but at equal and sharply reduced force levels. This Info Pack presents background information on the recent peace crusade and examines both the desirabilities and potential dangers inherent in such proposals to freeze or reduce nuclear weapons. Also included are relevant Reagan Administration responses to these various proposals. We hope this material will be useful. Congressional Reference Division COMPLIMENTS OF Gene Snyder Articles reproduced with permission of copyright claimants. Mr. RV'S aPening st.- naS irompsdbyamoyementfmarmclear rsac that has gathered wide national ddqand the support of same 170 nembof CQlgress. In opposition to BIDS THE RUSSIANS JOIN IN he pmposal for an early freeze, Sena- on, John W. Warner. Republican of {irginia, and Henry M. Jackson, Derm Pledge of Ultimate Cutbacks aat of Washington, introduced a pr+ &, supported by 56 other samtors, Is Designed to Stem Drive : htroulddelayafnezermtil.ftatbe ~nitedStates had either caught up witb for Freeze in Arsenals RhetieperceivedasaSwietadwmtage n nuclear weapons or had reached an rgrerment from Moscow for the sub- rtantial raiuctions that the President !ailed for again tonight. WASHINGTON, March 31 - Presi- lmporLsntxnitl8tive' dent Reagan said tonight that he in- TIE President called the Wamer- tended to reduce stores of nuclear radmm pmposal "an important move weapons dramatically. He called on the m the rigi~tdirection" and an "impor- Swiet Union to join witb the United tant initiative." States in such cuts and "make an im- In his statement, Mr. Reagan said portant breakthrough for lasthg peace plans were being completed fn W& memill." tngm for the eventual start of talks I.a nationally televised news amfer- with the Soviet Union on mhcbg encefnnntbeEastRoornoftbeWhite strategic arms. In answer to a question, House, the President sought to OOunter be@d he hoped that the talks eould start this summer but, alluding to the Ttmrscript of news session, page A22. martial law Govement in Poland, he said the timing would depend on "the ip pressure from those seeking a treeze in ternatid situation." Other officials Swiet aad American atomic arsenals have said the beginning of talks depend now by saying that such a move would on there being w sharp worsening of deprive the Soviet Union of an incentive thesituation in Poland. to negotiate a memhgtd reduction. He "1 want an agreement on strategic said the Russians had "a definite mar- gin of superiority" wer the United Cm~ooP8geA23,Columnl States in nuclear weapons. SOURCE: The New York Times April 1, I982 p.A1 ,A23 Reagan Says He Plans to Reduce ~uClear~&nsStores Dramatically Continued From Page 1 In his lifetime. He sdd4, "I share thg determination of today's young people that such a tragedy, which would be nuclear weapons that reduces the risk rendered even more terrible by the of war, lowers the level of armaments monstrous inhumane weapons In the and enhances global security," the world's nuclear arsenals, must new President said. "We can accept no happen again." less." In talking about the Soviet Union, the On other foreign questions, Mr. Rea- President also seemed conciliatory in gan made these points : his prepared opening statement that he read rather rapidly. QHe praised the wide turnout in the Hesaid the successful outcome of the elections last Sunday r a constituent United States space shuttle mission this assembly in El Salva& , saying it was week reminded the world "of the great inspiring. He noted that he had heard of the human pace can achieve awman who insisted on standfng in when it harnesses its best mfnds and ef- line to vote even after being hit by a forts to a positive goal." ricocheting bullet. But he refused to say "Both the United States and the what hetaould do if a right-wing govern- Wet Union have written proud chap meat tooh power and did away with ters in the peaceful exploration of outer previous social changes. space," he said, "so I tnvite the Soviet QThe United States is continuing to Unionto in with us now to subs^ tially E4.t ce nuclear weapons and watch developments in Poland. The make an important b- for President revealed no new Mtiatives lasting peace on earth." and said it was necessary that the Rus- The President's statement contrasted sians understand that "there could be a with the sharp attack on the Soviet carrot along with the stick, if they Union that he made in his first news straighten up and fly right." conference last year, in which he said QOn the Middle East. Mr. Reagan Met leaders had made a virtue out of said he hoped that recent clashes h the lylng and cheating and could not be West Bank between Israelis and Pales trusted. tiniam would not slow progress in the When asked ii his 15 months in ow negotiations between Egypt and Israel hadledhirntochangehisop~mabout for Palestinian self-rule in the occupied the Russians, he said, "No, I don't think area. He said he hoped for progress in they've changed their habits." those talks Israel turns He said the Russian8 were experkno 4 after over the Lnn a "demerate situation economical- rest of Sinai to Egypt on April 25. IF as a rdtof the military buildup In his openine statement, Mr. Reagan that "has left them on a very narrow seemed to gu out of his way to combat Lelge. " an impnssiar that bb was uninterested He said that as a reeult eamomic in anns oontrol and only problems made the the Rwiarn, vul- wan interested merable to economic sancttom by the in building up Ammlca'r military ma- west, such as the withholding of chine. xedits. Be pointed out that thts was He said he had seen the world being urged on the allies by the Ad& "plunged blindly into global war" twice istratfon. Asked whether a nuclear war would bd wianable or "SUrYivable," Mr. Rea- gan said, "I just have to say that I don't believe there could be any winnefil." If there was a nuclear war, Mr. Reagan said. "everybody would be a loser." Mr. Reagan declined to say pffdealy how the United States would respond if the Russians moved to place nuclear weapons in the Western Hemisphere. Any such move would be "in total viola- tion" of agreements reached in 1962 la the Cuban missile crisis, he said. Mr. Reagan also said tbat Cuba and perhap Nicaragua were the only places where the Russians mieht prt nucle8rweapoasinthishemispbars. The President decbed to reply fn & tail to statements about nuclff weap ons by Leonid I. Blw?hm?,th6 Saviel leader. hlr. Reagan said the statements were part of a Soviet "propaganb CamPam-'' Pro and Con A Reeze on Nuclear Weapons? YES-The arms race "could subject NO-It "would perpetuate an unstable the entire world to holocaust" situation" that increases the risk of war lnterview With Interview With Senator Richard R. Burt Mark 0. Haffield Republican, Director of Politco-Mhtary Of Oregon Affa~rs,Department of State Q Senator Hatfield, why are you sponsoring a proposal in Q Mr. Burt, why is the Reagan administration opposed to a Congress that calls upon the superpowers to put a freeze on nuclear-weapons freeze? nuclear-weapons construction? A There are two basic reasons: A Because the U.S. has had superiority in nuclear weap The first is that we think it would lock us into some ons ever since World War 11, when the Soviets didn't even military disadvantages. In Europe, the Soviet Union has a have the bomb, and yet it is evident that the more nuclear force of 600 intermediate-range missiles with 1,200 war- weapons we build, the more they will build. And the result heads. The Soviets thus have a massive capability to target is less security in the world. Nuclear superiority is not only a our allies. The U.S. has no equivalent systems. Further- meaningless term in the age of multiple overkill, it is a more, the Soviet Union has developed over the last 15 years hindrance at the bargaining table. a new generation of intercontinental ballistic missiles which Now not only do the Soviets have the bomb, but by the threatens a large fraction of our existing land-based missile end of this century an estimated 60 nations will be capable force. Again, we have no equivalent capability. We cannot of building nuclear weapons. We must halt this kind of allow these disadvantages to continue in perpetuity. madness. It could subject the entire world to nuclear holo- Secondly, the administration believes that we can do caust-the end of the planet.