·2&& !Lp' IsfiFf 8.1 t ...

~" , "\' '"Dec. 10, 1982 - Hlgb Country News- 7

II

1 i

·1 :

BY DAN WHIPPLE

The MX missile is a "Peace-keeper" because it "insures thatthe Soviets gain no advantage

from initiating an attack."Or, the MX is a "warmaker" because

"it is a new system that no longer justgives the United States the ability torespond to a Sovietattack, but to try tofight a nuclear war andwin it. In politecompany, you can't say we need war-fighting weapons, so they talk insteadabout the 'window of vulnerability'."These are the opinions of the US. Air

Force and the private, non-profit Centerfor Defense Information, respectively.With President Reagan'sannouncementtwo weeks ago that hewanted to deploy100 MXmissilesinhardened silos in the~anching country of southeast Wyom·ing, lillie Cheyenne (pop. 47,000) hasbecome the center of the most impor-tant nuclear weapons debate of thisdecade and perhaps of the century.When you tum off Interstate 80 onto

East Lincolnway in Cheyenne, you drivepast the LittleAmerica motel and truckstop ("Most Credit Cards") and the fan-cier Hitching Post motel, where most ofthe state legislators live during theyearly sessions. If you turn left at thesecond stoplight past them, you enterMissile Drive, which takes you to thegates of F.E.Warren Air Force Base.As the name of the road implies,

Warren is already the command centerfor a large portion of the current U.S.nuclear arsenal. Cheyenne has been liv-ing with the most powerful weapons- known to man since 1958 and local resi-dents have developed a pronounced .indifference to the destructive potentialin their midst. Warren monitors 200 ofthe approximately 1,000 existing Min-uteman III intercontinental ballisticmissile linstallations - 87 in nearbyNebraska, 55 in Coloradoand 48 in south-eastern Wyoming. Warren is oneCheyenne's major employers and is uni-versally considered. a "good neighbor."Under the president's proposal,

Warren would be the command centerfor all I 00 MXmissiles, arrayed in whatthe Air Force calls "Closely Spaced lias-

The basic paradox of nuclearweapons is that they are toopowerful to be used. But ifthis is so, they lose all theirstrategic and diplomatic.value, so we have to keepthreatening to use them.

ing" and what nearlyeveryone else calls"dense pack." Critics call it "duncepack." Dense pack is either the 31st,32nd, 33rd or 34th basing mode pro-posed for MX.No one seems to be terri-bly certain.Dense pack - like all of the other

proposed and rejected basing modes -is an attempt to make certain that US.land-based strategic nuclear weaponscan survive a first assault by Soviet ntis-siles. The concept has essentially twocomponents - incoming missile fratri-cide and superhardened silos.'The missiles would be put in silosabout 170 feet below the surface of theground. They would be arranged on aplot ofland measuring one to one-and-a-half miles wide and 20 miles long. The20 to 25 square mile area would bearranged in a north-south direction.This will be done because any Sovietattack is expected to come over theNorth Pole and this arrangement wouldpresent a narrower' target for Sovietmissiles.One line of defense for the missiles is

the super-hardened silos. According toAir Force Captain Patrick Mullaney:director of public affairs for the BallisticMissile Office, "The silos encapsulate

concrete in strongly confined steel, Inthe past, 45,000 to 50,000 pounds ofpressure per square inch would destroyconcrete. However, with the steel, theconcrete silos have survived the tests."The Air Force has run tests on scalemodels of the silos with the equivalentof a 25 megaton warhead - the sizebelieved to be the most likely used bythe Soviets against the MX. Mullaneysaid the scale model survived the test.The second line of defense is "missile

fratricide." This is the theory that, if theSoviets launch a large number of ntis-siles at the MX dense pack, some willexplode earlier than others, destroyingthose behind them and decreasing theeffectiveness of the attack. Mullaneysaid, "Fratricide is well understood.That is really not in doubt. There aresome very simplistic arguments againstit.We're very confident that a large per-centage of the system will be surviva-ble." Exactly how many of the missilesthe Air Force estimates will survive isclassified ,information.However, since no one anywhere has

ever been involved in a massivenuclearattack, the question of whether fratri-cide will happen is highly debatable, .despite the Air Force's certainty. Stan

Norris, a research analyst for the Centerfor Defense Information said, "Even theadministration concedes that sooner orlater dense pack will be defeated by theSoviets. Then an anti-ballistic missilesystem (ABM)will be needed." AnABMsystem is onewhich intercepts and des-troys incoming missiles before theyreach their target. Under the SALT Itreaty, both the US. and US.5.R arelimited to one ABMsite each.And, according to Dr. Richard Gar-

win, an independent arms expert andconsultant to IBM, "Packing the MXesclosely together virtually assures thatthey will be rendered inoperable by theelectromagnetic pulse that would becreated by the detonation of an incom-ing weapon." Electromagnetic pulse isan only-recently understood effect of anuclear weapon's explosion. In a high-altitude detonation, it can knock outelectrical equipment over a wide areaby sending apowerful surge of electric-ity through conductive materials.According to Jonathan Schell in TbeFate of tbe Earth, "A multi-kilotonnuclear weapon detonated 125 milesover Omaha, Nebraska, could generatean electromagnetic pulse strongenough to damage solid-state electricalcircuits throughout the entire contin-ental United States and in parts of Can-ada and Mexico." A. kiloton is theequivalent of 1,000 tons oflNT. A meg-aton is the equivalent of one milliontons of lNf. Most US. weapons arebetween .335 and one megaton in des-tructive power. Soviet weapons arelarger in their destructive power, whichis usually called "throw weight."Other potential methods of over com-

ing the dense pack, critics say, are tim-ing devices. that set off the incomingwarheads simultaneously and sequen-tial launching 'of missiles SO that thenext one in line doesn't hit the targetuntil the explosive force of tbe preced-ing one has dissipated.Each MX missile will be equipped

with 10 nuclear warheads. These willhave a throw weight of between .335

(continued on next page)

•II

'j

B-Higb Country News - Dec. 10, 1982

(conltnued from previous page)

and.5 megatons each. They will be mul-tiple, independently targetable re-entryvehicles, or MIRVs_ This means thateach of the 10 warheads can be targetedfor a different site. Thus, the IQO-missileMX system theoretica1Jy would be ableto hit 1,000 different targets in theSoviet Union. The chief strategic advan-tage beyond the increased "payload" isthe better accuracy -promised by themissile. Currently, both U.S. and Sovietmissiles can hit within an average of .2miles of the target. The MX wouldimprove that average to .05 miles.

The Minuteman III missile,which the MX will comple-ment, currently carries three

.335 megaton warheads. Linda and AlanKirkbride have three Minuteman mis-sile silos on their ranch northeast ofCheyenne in Meriden, Wyoming. Thesites are unimpressive, even close up.'They are fenced areas of about an acreand a half with a lot of concrete andsome antennas. Linda said, "I've onlyseen the missile out of its silo once. Itwas huge. Psychologically, if it werelocated above ground, I don't thinkwe'd have been able to deal with it. Thefact that it's buried makes it easier."The Kirkbrides have been instrumen-

tal in the establishment of the Tri-StateMX Coalition. This group, whichincludes ranchers and fanners fromWyoming, Colorado and Nebraska, isworking on the local level to stop theMX.Linda said, "We've had the Minute-

man JlI silos since the early 19605. Atthe time, they were mostly accepted.People felt it was their duty to help outin the national defense. And, at the time,the Air Force built the roads and thenturned them over to the county to main-tain. People still say, Well, we got agreat road system out ofit.'"But the MX is different. The first

thing that bothered us is the greatamount ofland it's going to take up. It isgoing to affect every rancher aroundhere, whether they put it on their landor not. There is going to be land out ofuse, increased traffic and several otherproblems."In addition, there's a qualltative dif-

ference between the MX and the Min-uteman III. There are 10 warheads asopposed to' three. It is an offensive wea-pon as opposed to a defensive one.

WHAT'S INA

NAME?President Ronald Reagan ought

to have his poetic license revokedfor dubbing the MX the "Peace-keeper." For 40 years, weaponsnomenclature has had a belliger-ent tinge and the president is fly-ing in the bee. of this tradition for afew public relations points. Theweapon that destroyed Nagasakiin 1945 was called Fat Man andthe big stick approach to namingweapons has been prevalent eversince.Most weapons are given one

Dame during their developmentstages and another after they areapproved and under construction.So, it is not unusual that Reaganwould give the MX a new name.However, the Peacekeeper isgoing to sound tame indeed com-pared to such existing weapons asthe Sidewinder, Minuteman andAdas or the French Pluton andHades.The new moniker doesn't seem

to be catching on, though. EvenAir Force public relations peopleare ~ calling it the MX

<, -DSW

~ing • SUitable Nea1150 foot rock & water!

~u.s.Govemment Property• Representative Array

Deployment SiteF.E. Warren AFB 'Ii

~80

"Traditional values are part of it, too.My husband's family is a fourth genera-tion ranch family. We want to beranchers. We want to be able to con-tinue to do what we've been doing." .- Pete Hansen is a neighbor of the Kirk-brides'. He lives alone in the ranchhouse his grandfather built in 1896. Hejokingly referred to the Kirkbrides asthe "new folks" because he, too, is afourth generation rancher whose ances-tors settled in the area in 1890, a year ortwo before the Kirkbrides. He demon-strated some of the "traditional values"in action as he stopped gathering cattleto pull the car of a visiting reporter outof a snow bank. While hooking the towchain to his truck he said, "That MXisgoing to mess up everyone around here.I'm one of the smallest ranches in thearea and if they take any of my land, itcould mean the end of my ranch."Hansen said that nearly all of theranchers in the area are opposed to theMX. However, one rancher, Paul Etche-pare of the Warren Livestock Company,the area's largest ranch, has offered tolease his land to the Air Force as a sitefor the MX.Aside from the question of the land to

be used, water may be a problem for themissile. According to Capt. Mullaney,the project will use 45,200 acre-feet ofwater over a six-year period. However,there is presently no unappropriatedsurface water in Laramie County andthere is a moratorium on drilling anynew wells to tap the groundwater. Mul-laney said that it is Air Force policy tocomply with all local water laws. Hesaid, "We will purchase or lease existingwater rights to get the water we need."The peak year demand will be about11,000 acre-feet at the height of con-struction in 1987. These water demandfigures indude the amount necessaryfor construction needs and domesticwater consumption by the increasedpopulation.Some activists, including the Wyom-

ing Outdoor Council, a state-wide envir-onmental group, will probably try tomake sure that the MX project comes .under the jurisdictioo of the WyomingIndustrial Siting Council. The IS<:wasestablished in 1974 to help communi-ties cope with the boom impacts oflarge industrial projects. These projects .have been mostly energy-related, but.the impact mitigation for a large militaryinstallation would not be a great dealdifferent from any other large project.However, the act establishing the IS<:

specifically excludes defense projectsfrom IS<: jurisdiction. The Air Force'sMullaney said, however, "We will coop-erate with all state laws. We are notbound by IS<:regulation, but it has been

the policy to comply with state rules.We are moving into the community tolive there, and it is our intention' tocomply with state law."There may be a move in this session of

the state legislature to amend the Indus-trial Siting Act to bring the project intostate jurisdiction. Even if it passes, how-ever, the federal government couldoverride it on the grounds of nationalsecurity if it chose to do so.

While the ranching commun-iry is heavily opposed to theMX, the reaction down-

town in Cheyenne is decidedly mixed.The MX is expected to cost 526.4 billion

. 5,. A f . Xc..

~~j~~Il.;::::):: ;:l

2 w.rren mat·:· .-.· .·

F:E~:nm ~80

- $10.6 billion for research and devel-opment, $13.0 billion for procurementand 82.8 billion for construction. Muchof the latter cash will end up in theCheyenne business community andmany of the local business and politicalleaders welcome the influx of capitaland jobs. The primary concern of thisinterest group has been impact mitiga-tion, an area in which many westernstates have substantial experience as aresult of energy development. TheCheyenne-Laramie County RegionalPlanning Office prepared a preliminaryissue paper outlining the potentialimpact from the MX development.The construction force will present

TheThe following glossary \s an explanation of many of the terms used in the

debate over the MX missile and the nuclear stance of the United States.

ABM _Anti-ballistic missile. A defensive missile system designed to destroy attacking

intercontinental ballistic missiles. The ABM missiles could be armed with eithernuclear or non-nuclear warheads.

Atomic bombA weapon utilizing fission energy. Fission occurs when a neutron splits an

atom intosmaller pieces.

BaUtstic missileA missile that, after a period of powered flight, moves on a free-falling

trajectory under iheforce of gravity, Ballistic missiles have a: range of up to about6,000 miles.

CEPCircular error probable. 111is is the measure of missile accuracy. It is the radius

of a circle around a target within which 50 percent of the missile warheads willland. The smaller the CEP, the more likely it is that an enemy warhead willdamage a hard target, such as a missile silo.

Counter forceThe use of strategic weaponry to destroy enemy missiles, bombersandother

military forces.

DeploymentThe distribution of weapons for use in combat.

EMPElectromagoetic pulse. One effect of a nuclear explosion, not well under-

stood, which is capable of destroying electronic circuitry.

First strikeAn initial attack with nuclear weapons.

FIrst useThe policy of using nuclear weapons to meet a conventional Soviet attack. The

US. has not ruled out a first use of nuclear weapons, for instance, in the event of aSoviet conventional assault on Europe.

FratrlddeThe situation in -which an exploding incoming nuclear warhead destroys

those coming in behind it.

mm·,Y•t t eT RE, ,n

Dec. 10, 1982 - High Country News-9

One pro-MX Cheyenne man said, "If weever have a nuclear war, I'd rather be atground zero anyway."One anti-MX activist said, "It'skind of hard

to oppose theMXbecause the quality of life inCheyenne will deteriorate. It can't get muchworse."The Jackson Hole News asked the question,

"What isyour understanding of theMX missilesystem?" Richard Murphy replied, "It is tbe :result of precise mathematical projection. IfWyoming, Utah, Nevada and Colorado weredestroyed ina limited nuclear conflict, theloss of voters would not affect the re-electionof the incumbent president."

the greatest immediate problem for thecommunity. About 6,100 new workersare expected to be drawn to the com-munity. Planners expect that this wouldresult in an overall population Increaseof about 30,000, .considering thoseworkers would' probably bring theirfamilies and would require additionalsupport services, bringing in moreworkers. This represents an increase ofabout 50 percent in the county popula-tion. It is almost certain to strain hous-ing facilities, social services, lawenforcement and other services. How-ever, the total new permanent popula-tion living in the county afterconstruction would be about 10,000based on awork force of2,200 - 1,500air force personnel and 700 private sec-tor employees.The Chamber of Commerce has

formed a committee to deal with theMX construction. Douglas Reeves,' aninvesttnent broker and member of thecommittee, said, ''we are taking a verylow-key approach, trying to minimizethe impact on the city. The productive

thing to do is to try to avoid negative L_~~:~===~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~...:-..Jimpact. It is not a veryhelpful responseto say that the MX is immoral or that 'Cheyenne will become ground zero for .a nuclear attack."Ranchers in Laramie County, when

asked why the Cheyenne populace is sosupportive of the MXwhen it has beenrejected by every other state in theRockies, are likely to smile knowingly,rub thumb and firsttwo fingers togetherand say, "Greed." Reeves,however, dis-agreed with that assessment of motive."There aren't many fast bucks to bemade here. The MXwill just mean a-lightening of the recession. The workforce won't be here long enough to jus-tify any major new housing projects, forinstance. I won't be advising my clientsto build any major projects."We're trying to provide some input

and help the government get the facts.We want to provide communication

between the business community andthe government."

On the other Side are the anti-MX people, ledby the Tri-StateMX Coalition. The coordina-

tor of the group is SisterFrances Russell,a Roman Catholic Sister ofCharity. Rus-sell blames complacency on the part of _Wyoming's public officialsfor attracting. the missile to the state. She said, "Wehave not had strong representationfrom our governor or our congressionaldelegation. Nevada and Utah probablywere not a realistic possibility becausethey had already protested Vigorouslyabout the 'racetrack' basing mode (seeaccompanying story). Montana passedan initiative in opposition to the system.So, they chose us because our represen-

'Words of 'WR,r

FustonThis is a thermonuclear reaction inwhich light nuclei join together to form a .

heavier nucleus, which in tum releases vast amounts of energy. A hydrogenbomb is based on a fusion .reaction.

Ground zeroThe point on the surface of the earth at or directly below a nuclear explosion.

Hydrogen bombAthermonuclear weapon in which part of the explosive energy isobtained by

fusion. \ .

ICBM. Intercontinental ballistic missile. A ballistic missile capable of deliveringwarheads at ranges exceeding 3.000 miles.. ." .•.•

tatives had either been silent on thematter or openly favored it."Tri-Statehas scored some earlypublic

relations victories. The RockyMountainFarmers Union passed resolutions inopposition to the MX and in favor of anuclear weapons freeze with scarcelyany debate. In addition, CheyenneDiocesan Bishop Joseph Hart has issueda letter opposing the MXto allofWyom-ing's Catholics, of which there are about67,000.

Politically, the Wyoming delega-tion has generally rolled overand played dead in the MX

debate. Sens.Malcolm Wallop and AlanSimpson and Rep. Dick Cheney, allRepublicans,' have supported the fund-

ing of the MXin Congress and have nooverriding objections to basing it inWyoming None have lobbied for themissile's placement in the state. but theyhave taken a wait-and-see attitude.On the state level, Gov. Ed Herschler

(D) is willing to take the missile. Theonly state politican who seems willingto take the issue on SO far is State Rep.Alvin Wiederspahn (D-LaramieCounty) who opposes the missile for avariety of reasons. Two resolutions havebeen pre-filed in the state legislature,one opposing the MXand one advocat-ing a-bilateral nuclear weapons freeze,but neither hasmuch chance of passage.Rodger McDaniel,Democratic candi-

date for US. Senate who lost to Wallop,is not sure there ismuch political futurein opposition to the MX in LaramieCounty. He took a strong anti-MX stanceduring his campaign and he says now,"I'm convinced that my position hurtme in Laramie County."One question that has been down-

played is whether the dense pack basingsystem is merely a stalking horse for areturn to some sort of mobile, deceptivebasing system like the abandoned race-track scheme. This system, which

BOOKSSome books that can help the lay-.

person understand the nationaldefense/nuclear war debate:National Defense, by James Fal-

lows; Random House.What Kinds of Guns Are Tbey Buy-

ing For Your Butter, by Sheila Tobias,Peter Goudinoff, Stefan Leader andShelah Leader; Morrow.Tbe Fate of the Earth, by Jonathan

Schell; Avon (paperback).

KilotonA measure of explosive force equal to 1,000 tons of TNT. The bomb that

destroyed Hiroshima was 12.5 kilotons.

Lduncb on warningApolicy of launching missiles and bombers as soon as a nation knows that an

enemy attack has started, without waiting for missiles to land.

Launch under attacts. Similarto launch on warning, but waiting a little longer to respond. Because ofthe high speeds that missiles travel, there is very little time between launch andhitting the targets. Both launch on warning and launch under attack avoiddestruction of missiles but reliance on these policies could increase the dangersof accidental nuclear war.

use .against military forces on me

MADMutually assured destruction. A "balance of terror" condition in which each

side,possesses the capability to wipe out the other.

MegatonAmeasure of nuclear weapons yield equal to one million tons of TNT.

MIRVMultiple independently targetable re-entry vehicle. This is a system by which

several warheads launched on one missile can each be aimed for separatetargets.

Pre-emptive strikeAn attack launch~d in anticipation of an attack by the enemy.

SALT IIA treaty designed to last through 1985 that established temporary limits on

ICBMlaunchers, ground- and sea-launched cruise missiles and aircraft carriers.The treaty was.signed by both US. President Jimmy Carter and Soviet ChairmanLeonidBrezhnev, but was never ratified by either the US.Senate or the SupremeSoviet.Both countries have abided by its provisions as amatter of national policy,however. .

Strategic ueapons 'Weapons of long range, -capable of destroying the infrastructure necessary to

fight a war. For instance, strategic weapons would destroy munitions plants,factories and other economic resources_ ' , ,

Tactical ueaponsWeapons of short range designed for

-battlefield. 'I, •

l,;

- ...

IOH/gb Country News - Dec. 10, 1982

(continued from preoious page)

would have used about 1,200 squaremiles of Utah and Nevada to shuttle themissiles from shelter to shelter, was theAir Force's preferred plan for protectingthe MX from Soviet weapons.RUssell and a numbet of other oppo-

nents in Cheyenne believe that, sincethe Russians will eventually outwit thedense pack, the Air Force will needmore land in which to hide the rnissiles.:In a meeting with Pentagon brass. Simp-son specifically asked this question andwas assured that there were no plans toextend the dense pack system to anyother basing mode.Nevertheless, the fate of the funding

for MX in Congress is questionable. TheHouse Appropriations Committee, by avote of 26 to 26, agreed to send thequestion to the House floor. This pastyear in the Senate, MX survived by onlythree votes and a number of votes havereportedly changed since then. severalstrong defense advocates have questi-oned the need for MX.

Discussion of the environmentaland socioeconomic impacts ofMX basing seems to trivialize

the issue. The question of environmen-tal protection breaks down when youconsider the tremendous power ofthese weapons. However, the deploy-rnent of the MX raises basic questionsabout the defense posture of the UnitedStates.Deployment of the MX may violate

the SALTII treaty, completed under theCarter administration. Although SALTIIhas never been ratified by the U.S. Sen-ate, it has been-official U.S. policy toabide by its terms. SALTII prohibits thebuilding of any more fixed silos. MX is afour-stage "cold-launched" missile.Cold-launching is a technique for eject-ing a missile from the silo using contain-erized gasses and then firing the engines

At HCN press time, the U.S. House ofRepresentatives voted by a surprisinglylarge 245-176 margin to delete $I bil-lion from the defense budget for theproduction of the first five MX missiles.The bill does include, however, S3 bil-lion for MX research and development.

President Ronald Reagan said theHouse vote was a "grievous error" andimmediately called upon the Senate torestore the construction funds. How-ever, even though the Republicans hold

SlJellileking 'he sbell gllmf?.·in 'he Grell' Bllsin

Artist's conception of dense pack

to prevent damage to the launch plat-form. The administration. says the silosare not the launchers, the gas-filled con-tainers are. This is the sort of hair-splitting of which diplomatic relationsare made, but the Soviets have the sametype of launch system on some of theirmissiles and the U.S.has contended thatthey are subject to the SALT IIprovisions.The Center for Defense Information's

Norris puts the defense dilemma thisway: "At the basic level, there are twocentral questions. How much nuclearpower is enough? And, enough forwhat?"In the traditional, classic definition

of deterrence, 'enough' was having thecapability to, and having the actversatyknow we are capable of inflictingunacceptable damage on his homeland."If this is the definition, we clearly

have enough."However, in the last few administra-

tions, starting with the Nixon years, thisno longer appears to be the definition ofdeterrence. Systems are no longerdesigned to just give you the ability torespond, but to give counterforcecapability."The assertion often made by the Rea-

gan administration is that the Sovietsbelieve that nuclear war can be fought,won and survived. Therefore, we needthe .same capability."Do we need the MX? To do what

with? If you are talking about a war-fighting strategy, we do. Ifyou are talk-ing about deterrence, we don't."This brings us back to the basic

paradox .about nuclear weapons.They're too powerful to be used. But, ifthis is so, they lose all their strategic anddiplomatic' value, so we have to keepthreatening to use them."

On Friday, September 7, 1979, Presi-dent )irnmy Carter announced that theMX missile was coming to the GreatBasin region of Utah and Nevada. In thethen-current version of the dispersedshelter, or shell game, basing concept,the racetrack deployment scheme wasconsidered the final solution to insuringthe survivability of the controversialweapons system.The deployment mode called for

each of the 200 nuclear-tipped inter-continental ballistic missiles to beloaded onto 300-ton transports to bedriven around 200 oval-shaped road-ways. At the edge of these roadwayswere to be placed 4,600 concrete shel-ters from which the missiles could belaunched. Upon attack by the Soviets,the transports would head for the near-est shelter. The Soviets, uncertain aboutwhich shelters the missiles would be inand unable to strike each and every shel-ter, would be assured that the U.S.would be able to retaliate.Needless to say, the MXdid not come

to the Great Basin.The racetrack deployment scheme

proved to be only one more in a longline of unacceptable basing modes.President Reagan decided two yearslater to scrap the shell game plan. Theintervening two years provide aninstructive lesson in grassroots opposi-tion and political courage by some ofthe elected officials and prominentinstitutions in the two states.In the end, the MX was defeated in

Utah and Nevada because of the exten-sive impacts that would have resultedfrom the basing concept. No weaponssystem ever proposed promised morechanges in the land, environment andlives of the people than the mobile MXbasing scheme. However, the technicaldeficiencies of the deployment scheme,the extensive impacts and the cost ulti-mately contributed to the defeat of themissile.As soon as the decision was made to

bring the MX to the Utah and Nevadadesert citizen groups formed in bothstates, initially for the purpose of gather-ing information. These groups quicklybecame the backbone of the anti-MXforces. Steve Erickson, media coordina-tor for the Salt LIke City-based MXInformation Coalition, said, "Enlight-ened self-interest overcame the initialfatalism associated with the federalgove r nme nt decision of thismagnitude."As the impacts became apparent,

many people were willing to speak outagainst the project and they, in tum,swayed others, leading to what becamea groundswell of opposition. Ericksonsaid that while thousands opposed theshell game basing, there never werevery many people actually fighting theMX battle on a day-to-day basis. Insteadpeople wrote their letters and turnedout to the town meetings when needed.In the end, a somewhat strange coali-tion of public officials, environmental-ists, ranchers, miners, woolgrowers,Indians, clergy and just plain folks allreinforced the interests of each other.A few events in early 1980 gave

momentum to the opposition. The firstof these was the publication in the SaltLake City papers in January, 1980, of atopographical map of the deploymentregion with the missile locationsincluded. From the map, people couldsee for the. first time that "there wouldbe a missile in nearly every valley fromthe Oquirrh Mountains (west of SaltLake) to Fallon, Nevada (about 50 mileseast of Reno )," Erickson said.Early public. opinion polls were run-

ning nearly 60 percent in favor of themissile system, with little oppositionrecorded and a large percentage unde-cided. By March of 1980, over 50 per-cent were opposed.

MXNIXED

++++++This article was paid for by the High

Country News Research Fund and agrant from the Northern LightsInstitute.

a 54 to 46 majority in the Senate, appro-val there is far from certain. Even if theSenate were to restore funding, it isunlikely that a House-Senate conferencecommittee could reach an agreementon the issue.So, MX funding is probably dead at

least for the rest of this lame duck ses-sion. But the administration willundoubtetlly put on a major push in1983. .

':"'nsw

The second factor in developing pub-lic opinion was a series of town meet-ings held by Utah Gov. Scott Matheson(D) throughout the state in the springof that year. These were intended toprovide citizens with information aboutthe local impacts of the missile and tohear theit opinions about it. The meet-ings raised questions about water, landuse, grazing, competition with energydevelopment and a host of other issues.They also served to. balance the AirForce public relations blitz then under-way in the form of scoping meetings forthe environmental impact statementthat was to be prepared later that year.Finally, in April of 1980, Bill Moyers,

in nationally televised debates from theSymphony Hall in Salt LakeCity, focusednationwide attention on the deploy-ment scheme.The first real political breakthrough

for opponents of the MX came in June,1980, when Matheson came out inopposition to the basing scheme. Aftersubstantial srudy, Matheson concludedthat the basing scheme lacked credibil-ity from.a technical standpoint, wouldhave extensive social and environmen-tal impacts and, basically, WdS a bad idea.In addition, the state was having trou-

ble dealing with the Air Force. The AirForce and its contractors had refusedstate requests .for information, fre-quently misled the state regarding theiractivities and generally ignored thestate's comments on the proposal.Matheson came to the conclusion thatmany of the problems - e.g., man-power requirements and impacts onother state industries - were indeedunanswerable and that the proposalpromised more problems than the statewished to deal with.The state would later learn that the

Air Force had not obtained the neces-sary permits for entry on state trustlands or for drilling test and observationwater wells. It took several months toget the Air Force to admit these trespassviolations and even longer to correctthem.The election of Ronald Reagan as

president . in 1980 and the eventualopposition of the Church of the LitterDay Saints also contributed heavily tothe demise of the shell game basing.Reagan had campaigned in oppositionto the proposal. Reagan, the MormonChurch and the Opposition of the gover-nors - Nevada Gov. Robert List (R)also later came out in opposition to the.deployment in his state - lent credibil-ity to the objections of the grassroots. Itcould no longer be perceived as theradical cause of a few dissenters. In Nev-ada, the issue generated enough signa-tures on petitions to have it placed onthe 1980 election ballot, where itreceived a resounding "no" from theelectorate.In December of 1980, the illS

Church issued its Christmas message,which was highly critical of the worldarms race. Then on MayS, 1981, churchofficials formally announced their oppo-sition to the proposal. In Erickson'sopinion, this was the straw that brokethe camel's back. With the entry of the. church into the debate, political opposi-tion to the shell game basing was over-whelming in both Utah and Nevada,where the Mormon Church wields tre-mendous influence.. The grassroots work ofletter-writingand public meetings along with thecourageous position of the governors ofboth states' and the Mormon Churchmade it possible to bring together a coa-lition of interests that eventuallydefeated the MX in the Great Basin. OnOctober 2, 1982, President Ronald Rea-gan formally abandoned the shell gamebasing in Utah and Nevada.

-BrecCooke