(3 of 3)
That is the fruit of "old" research, you no doubt would reply. But shortly thereafter, two very promising "new" research weapons systems probably can be fielded. By 1978, for instance, it is anticipated that the first squadron of B-1s, an advanced intercontinental bomber, could be flown. At about the same time, we could have an entirely new sub marine missile system, the ULMS (undersea long-range missile system), operating in millions of square miles of ocean area, vastly complicating an enemy's anti-submarine problem and able to reach the Soviet Union from such protected areas as, say, the Mississippi River. True, all this can happen only if Congress keeps providing the necessary funds. But here, too, balance would appear to contribute to continued credibility.
I am sure there is no disagreement concerning the dan gers to both the Soviets and to ourselves in the continuing strategic arms race; nor is there disagreement about hopes for an enforceable SALT agreement to curb the race. Good arguments can be made for more funds without "scaring hell out of the customers." My point. Dr. Foster, is that credibility is increased and not decreased by presenting a symmetrical picture of the strengths and weaknesses of both sides. The Soviets are indeed eight feet tall. But so are we.
Respectfully yours, JOHN L. SUELE