Basic HTML Version
WOBLDWA!OH
An Overview of Maj.or News Events and Tre:hds
SOVIET
SUPERWEAPON
CONTROVERSY
American intelligence analysts now
warn that the Soviet Union may
soon have the capability-via a di–
rected-energy beam weapon-to de–
stroy American nuclear missile
warbeads thousands of miles befare
they reach their targets. Since the
Soviet Union is already defended
from bomber attack by a thick net–
work of fighter interceptors and sur–
face-to-air rnissiles, the effect of
neutralizing America's strategic of–
fensive weapons would be to render
the United States, in any all-out war
with Russia, virtually powerless be–
fare a potential Soviet nuclear
attack.
The main proponent of the beam–
weapon analysis is former Chief of
Air
Force lntelligence, Majar-Gen–
eral George Keegan, who is now
with the United States Strategic In–
stitute, an independent military re–
search think-tank. Keegan recently
told a group of Washington news–
men that the Soviet Union is "20
years ahead of the United States in
its development of a technology
which they believe will soon neu–
tralize the ballistic missile weapon
as a threat to the Soviet Union.
lt
is
my firm belief," Keegan continued,
"that they are now testing this tech–
nology."
Keegan's ideas have been given a
boost by a recent article in
A viation
Week and Space Technology
(May
2, 1977), by Military Editor Clar–
ence Robinson, Jr.
A viation Week
declared that the Soviets have
"leapfrogged a generation of high
energy physics technology and de–
ve1oped a workabJe experimental.
model of a directed-energy beam
weapon." The weapon wouJd work
by using an explosive nuclear
38
charge to drive atomic particles
through a magnetic field. This
would change the particles into a
beam of almost pure energy. Any
object hit by such a beam would
absorb its energy and exp1ode.
Robinson's story was irnmediate1y
denied by the Pentagon, the CIA,
and President Carter. AU asserted
that they did not believe that the
U.S.S.R. had acbieved the technical
breakthrough necessary to create
such a weapon, though they pro–
vided no detai1s or specific refuta–
tions.
For its part, the authoritative
aerospace weekly noted that most of
the controversy centers around what
kinds oftests are being conducted at
a Soviet research center near Semi–
palatinsk. The center has been un–
der intensive observation by U.S.
reconnaissance satellites for more
than 1Oyears.
Recent data collected on the ceo–
ter include satellite detection of
various kinds of experiments
in–
volving gaseous hydrogen, lasers
and powerfu1 new generators, as
well as the 1ikely presence of a col–
lective accelerator, electron injectors
and power stores, all necessary for
the development of a particle beam
weapon. As one U.S. official quoted
by
Aviation Week
puts it: ''This is a
case where the experimental hard–
ware is identical to the equipment
necessary to destroy an ICBM. lf
they can generate the charged par–
ticle beam, and large amounts of
bydrogen being burned there in–
dicate they are, tben they can gener–
ate for weapons use:"
As evidence for the beam weapon
mounted, the Air Force convened a
panel of its Scientific Advisory
Board to study the activities of the
Semipalatinsk facility. They rejected
the beam weapon idea on the
grounds that the concept was scien–
tifically impossible and identified a
number of "theoretical roadblocks"
which prevented the development
of such a weapon.
However, within a few months of
the Advisory Board's report, a
group of brilliant young physicists
working with General Keegan man–
aged to demonstrate that all of the
Advisory Board's theoretica1 objec–
tions could be overcome and "had
already been solved in the Soviet
Union."
Much of the
A viation Week
ar–
ticle is devoted to demonstrating the
theoretical possibility of a particle
beam weapon, and takes many
older-generation physicists to task
for refusing to admit it- especially
for their unproven premise that
since American scientists tried and
fai1ed to develop such a weapon
severa! years ago (code named
Project Seesaw) then the Russians,
whom the older physicists believe to
be technically inferior, certainly
couldn't be making any progress.
A viation Week
also quotes an un–
named U.S. official to the effect that
the Soviets are far enough along in
their testing at Semipalatinsk that
the next phase of development will
be "scaling the device for weapons
application." Such scaling could be
done by as early as 1978 and an
operational beam weapon could be
reality by 1980.
From the data,
A viation Week
editor Robert Hotz in an accom–
panying editorial paints a scenario
in wbicb the Soviet possession of a
particle beam weapon in the early
l980s will allow the U.S.S.R. to
threaten the United States with nu–
clear annihilation without fear of re–
taliation. The Soviets would also be
ab1e to pursue, unintimidated by the
U.S., their foreign policy goals
throughout the world. A worldwide
nuclear alert of U.S. forces, which
former President Nixon called
during the Mideast war of 1973,
and which prevented the Kremlin
from landing troops in the volatile
The PLAIN TRUTH July 1977