NO "LIMITED" MISSILE DEFENSE

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

In calling for a "limited" missile defense that would not accelerate the U.S.-Soviet arms race, the CRIMSON has asked for something that is presently both unnecessary and impossible. Unnecessary because those for whom the CRIMSON would buy the system will not have ballistic missiles for a decade--in the case of China--and are not about to attack us--in the case of France. Impossible, because even a limited system would eventually have no less impact on Soviet offensive preparations than the prospect of a minor Soviet defense is already having on our offensive weapon expenditures. Long lead times for the construction of deterrent forces being what they are, both sides would, for all practical purposes, have to accept a minor missile defense as the thin edge of a wedge--and all would respond accordingly.

The CRIMSON should have suggested that we wait until we see the Chinese threat more clearly lest we pointlessly stir up a U.S. Soviet competition that may be less easily aroused, one can hope in later years. Jeremy J. Stone