Missiles for NATO

The next war, cried Nikita Khrushchev last week, will be "fought on the American continent, which can be reached by our rockets." Khrushchev was presuming a long-term Soviet lead in 5,000-mile intercontinental ballistic missiles. His presumption ignored one fact: if launched from a NATO base on the European continent, a U.S. 1,500-mile intermediate-range ballistic missile has, so far as Russia is concerned, all the bang of an ICBM. Last week, in a major policy decision, the Administration decided to push toward allowing NATO that big bang, even if it means changing the McMahon Act.

The questions, given urgent appraisal in the White House, National Security Council and Pentagon, were these: 1) Can the U.S. provide enough IRBMs for NATO's European bases, and 2) If so, should it be done? The answers:

Can It Be Done? Yes, with qualification. Thor, the Air Force IRBM, is in its first production stages. The first operational unit (about 16, by present tables) could be deployed in Europe by the middle of next year. Within two years, a monthly output of 100 Thors is considered feasible at a cost of less than $1,000,000 per bird. The Army Jupiter is an equivalent IRBM weapon--and also a good one. But no production line now exists for the Jupiter; those fired so far were "hand-tooled." i.e., individually assembled. Question still to be resolved: whether to concentrate exclusively on Thor or Jupiter or build both.

Should It Be Done? Yes, without qualification. NATO's Lauris Norstad was perhaps first and foremost in grasping the logic of launching IRBMs from European bases. His proposition, pushed hard during a trip to Washington last week: the IRBMs would be under the control of the Supreme Allied Commander for Europe (currently, the U.S.'s Norstad). Since only SACEUR could order the weapons into war, no individual nation, bent on some strictly nationalistic adventure, could toss them off into the wild blue yonder. NATO's IRBM launchers would be manned by European troops--but they would be under NATO's exclusive command.

Norstad's proposal was an outgrowth of the U.S.-United Kingdom agreement at Bermuda last March, in which the U.S. promised to provide Britain with IRBMs (but without nuclear warheads*), to replace the firepower of its dwindling military manpower. It will be placed before the December meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Paris.

Once in operation, the NATO missile ring would give a vital resurgence of strength to the NATO defenses. The missile launchers themselves will be highly mobile and difficult to spot, hence all but immune to attack by Khrushchev's vaunted rocketry. In the event of a Russian missile attack on cities, the NATO rockets would be sure to respond. Thus, thanks to the IRBMs, the powerful deterrent now provided by the U.S. Air Force (see cover story) and Navy will be extended into the age of total missilery--a period beginning in two to four years when the Russians might be tempted to think that rocketry had given them the balance of power and freedom to attack.

* This agreement would require no change in the McMahon Act, as amended by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. However, an Administration move to turn nuclear warheads over to allies without U.S. personnel in control (as has been seriously considered) would require revision of the law, which prohibits the transfer of military nuclear material, and the transmission of information about the design and fabrication of atomic weapons to any other country.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.