Why The Senate Should Rafity SALT II

To the Editor,

As members of the Federation of American Scientists (most of whom are listed as Sponsors) we wish to express disagreement with F.A.S. Director Jeremy T. Stone’s March 11 Op-Ed article, “SALT in Perspective.”

First, we do not believe that the goal of SALT, as purported by Stone, is the SALT process itself. We Believe that the objective of any SALT agreement must be the enhancement of security through progress in limiting strategic weapons. We are less concerned that the failure to ratify the SALT II treaty might have damaging effects of the SALT process than we are concerned that a failure to ratify will be an irreparable setback to the goal of getting the dangerous strategic arms race under control.

Stone apparently belives that recommitting the treaty with the pious exhortation to “try harder” from hawks and doves alike will somehow make a satisfactory agreement more easily attainable than ahs been possible in seven years of negotiations. We believe this view is fundamentally flawed. Soviet leaders, and for that matter those in most other countries as well, will inevitably reach the conclusion that the U.S. government is incapable of agreeing on even modest limitations to its nuclear arsenals. The Soviet military will almost certainly insist on continuing and probably accelerating all current buildups. In the U.S. the hawks will not be alone in insisting on a menu of new weapons programs to match the Soviet Union’s.