Arms  Control The American quest for stability and the willingness of the Soviets to bargain have led to arms control negotiations. That is not a new effort. A history of arms control agreements exists between the two superpowers stretching back to 1959. The first round of Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT), concluded in 1972, produced the Antiballistic  Missile  (ABM)  Treaty  that  severely restricts the deployment of ABM systems by either country.  The  SALT  I  also  produced  the  Interim Agreement on Strategic Offensive Arms that placed limits on the number of strategic nuclear weapons.  That  agreement  was  to  remain  in  effect for  5  years,  but  both  countries  pledged  to  abide by  its  provisions  until  further  negotiations  were c o n c l u d e d . In 1974 both countries agreed to maintain an equal  number  of  strategic  delivery  vehicles. Additionally, they agreed to sublimit the number of  delivery  vehicles  they  could  equip  with multiple  independently  targetable  reentry  vehicle (MIRV) warheads. Those agreements formed the basis for the SALT II agreement in 1979. SALT II continued the agreement of equal limits but lowered  the  level  of  limitation  on  strategic weapons  delivery  systems.  That  new  agreement forced the Soviet Union to dismantle several hundred  missile  launchers.  In  addition,  the SALT II agreement placed sublimits on MIR V ballistic  missiles  in  general  and  on  MIR  V intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) in particular.  A  provision,  which  accompanies the  basic  treaty,    imposes  restraints  on  the development of new and more sophisticated weapons. The United States sees arms control as an important   complement   to   the   strategy   of deterrence.  We  are  seeking  to  reach  an  agreement with  the  Soviet  Union  on  a  Strategic  Arms Reduction Treaty (START). Our objective is to enhance  strategic  stability  through  equal  and verifiable  limitations  on  both  sides.  Despite  some key  differences  on  issues,  we  are  confident  an agreement  can  be  reached. In negotiations the United States will continue to  try  to  limit  American-Soviet  competition  in strategic  nuclear  forces.  The  United  States  will continue  to  pursue  the  basic  objectives  of  strategic deterrence,  adequate  stability,  and  equivalence. That  process  began  with  the  SALT  I  agreement and has progressed through the SALT II and START. Present  Posture The  Soviet  navy  could  pose  the  greatest potential  threat  to  the  U.S.  Navy.  Realistically, however, small Third World navies now pose more  of  an  actual  threat  to  U.S.  naval  forces. Since the U.S. Navy is primarily prepared to engage  the  Soviet  navy,  we  will  compare  U.S.  and Soviet  maritime  missions. The  Soviet  navy’s  primary  mission  is  to  be prepared  to  conduct  strategic  nuclear  strikes  from SSBNs  operating  in  protected  waters  close  to  the Soviet  Union.  The  key  to  carrying  out  that mission  is  strategic  defense  of  seaward  approaches to  the  Soviet  Union.  The  Soviet  navy,  air force, and army will try to control the Soviet Union’s  peripheral  seas  and  key  land  masses. The  Soviets’  aim  in  controlling  these  areas is to deny Western access to areas needed to threaten Soviet SSBNs. The Soviets usually create  sea  denial  zones  up  to  2,000  kilometers from  the  Soviet  mainland.  The  primary  targets in  the  sea  denial  zones  are  sea-launched  cruise- missile-equipped  submarines,  surface  ships,  and aircraft  carriers. Disruption  of  U.S.  supply  lines  to  Europe  and Asia is another Soviet objective. The Soviets will attempt to interdict sea lines of communications (SLOC) and establish sea denial zones. During conflict  the  Soviets  are  expected  to  attack  critical SLOCs  that  link  the  United  States  and  its  allies. The Soviet submarine force plays a primary role in  the  disruption  of  SLOCs. The  U.S.  national  security  strategy  is  based on  deterrence,  forward  defense,  and  collective security.  Forward-deployed  U.S.  and  allied combat  ready  naval  forces  can  provide  a  visible deterrent to any country bordered by an ocean or a sea. These forces operate globally in support of bilateral and multilateral commitments and project military power in support of national policy and interest. U.S. naval forces have four primary  peacetime  objectives: 1. 2. 3. 4. Defending  the  continental  United  States (CONUS)  from  attack Assuring freedom of the seas and pro- tecting  important  SLOCs  from  adversaries Providing regional stability by supporting friends  and  deterring  aggression Functioning  as  a  visible  power  projection force capable of responding to crises and low-intensity  conflicts  on  short  notice anywhere  in  the  world 1-11