The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

INTRO

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. It's three perspectives on war we have tonight, from Lebanon, where today U.S. planes as well as U.S. Marines and the PLO took different kinds of enemy fire; from Dover, Delaware and Denver, Colorado, we look at some of the men who have been fighting our wars for 208 years -- the U.S. Marines. And, from Washington, we have a debate about a war of the future, one between missiles in space. Robin?

ROBERT MacNEIL: And we have more on the aftermath of Grenada. The U.S. unveils a big show of captured arms in Washington. There are more sniping incidents on the island. We have a report on how the Cubans see it all, and we hear why people all over the world are marking the 500th birthday of Martin Luther. We have more on the rising fuss about rising telephone charges, more on the President in Japan, and the ongoing dispute in Washington about how to tackle the federal deficits.

LEHRER: There was more fighting and destruction and uncertainty in Lebanon today, as there has been on most recent days. U.S. jets came under attack for the first time as Syrian gunners fired missiles at them. None of the U.S. planes were hit. U.S. officials said the four F-14 Tomcat fighters were on a routine reconnaissance flight over central Lebanon when it happened. Also, U.S. Marines on the eastern perimeter at the Beirut airport were attacked with small arms fire. It only lasted a few minutes, a Marine spokesman said. The Marines returned the fire. There were no Marine casualties. And Yasir Arafat and his PLO troops are still in Tripoli, Lebanon, still fighting the Syrian-backed PLO rebels. A ceasefire negotiated yesterday collapsed less than 24 hours after it began. There are reports tonight that Arafat is under heavy pressure to leave Tripoli, and Italian ships are supposedly off-shore from Tripoli ready to evacuate him. Here is a report on today's fighting there from Chris Morris of the BBC.

CHRIS MORRIS, BBC [voice-over]: For the majority of Arafat's men the situation remains desperate. They're trapped in Tripoli, fast running out of ammunition, and facing an enemy apparently determined to wipe them out. The Beddawi camp is now almost surrounded by the rebels. There's only one road in, and it's highly dangerous drive as shells still whistle in. Against the wishes of distraught mothers, the guerrillas have been recruiting teenagers to go to the front line to fight. Already many young boys recruited in this way have ended up in hospitals, wounded in the shellfire which has rained down all over Tripoli. Scores of boy soldiers have been killed fighting for Arafat. The refrigerated container lorrie where the bodies of PLO fighters are dumped until they are claimed is now almost full. A week ago, Arafat had 8,000 guerrillas at his command. Now, with casualties and defections, there are probably fewer than 3,000 left to fight on. But as for the PLO leader's own future, that's still very much in doubt. The rebels want him dead or, at the least, for him to get out of Lebanon for good.

MacNEIL: In Washington, a Democratic attempt to put a three-month limit on U.S. troops in Lebanon was blocked by Republicans in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. But the Democratic Senators Kennedy, Eagleton, Pell and Dickson said they might seek a vote on the Senate floor. Their bill would require periodic three-month extensions of the authorization to keep the Marines there. Richard Murphy, assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, said in a prepared statement that a three-month authorization could encourage further efforts to intimidate us and force us to reconsider the role of the U.S. forces.

FBI Director William Webster said today that the truck bomb that destroyed Marine headquarters in Beirut contained more than 12,000 pounds of dynamite. Webster held a news conference to report on the findings of FBI technicians whohave examined the site of the bombing which killed, according to today's latest count, 239 U.S. servicemen. Webster said, "It was one of the largest explosives we've ever encountered." The FBI believes it was carried in a dump truck. It blew a rectangular hole in the ground 39 feet by 29 feet. Webster would not say what, if anything, the FBI had concluded about who carried out the bombing. The FBI director also said that the bomb which damaged part of the U.S. Senate building earlier this week was produced by three or four pounds of dynamite rigged to a dual firing device using two wristwatches. He said that mechanism was similar to those used on 10 or 11 other bombings in this country over the past two years, but there was no firm evidence to link the episodes. Jim?

LEHRER: President Reagan is still having a great time in Japan, but not great success apparently in getting what he wanted on trade concessions -- namely, a wider opening of the Japanese market to American beef and citrus imports, among other things. The Associated Press and other news organizations said Japanese Prime Minister Nakasone told Mr. Reagan it was not possible now. But overall the visit was considered a success. White House spokesman Larry Speakes saying the purpose was "to set an agenda for progress, and that has been done." In a speech to be delivered tonight, Washington time, to the Japanese Parliament, Mr. Reagan made a direct appeal for a lowering of trade barriers. "Americans believe your markets are less open than ours," he said. "We need your support to lower further barriers that still make it difficult for many American products to enter your markets easily." The President and Mrs. Reagan spent a substantial part of their day at ceremonies and displays, including a show of Japanese horsemanship and archery. Obviously, they were impressed. The next state occasion was a dinner in their honor given by Emperor Hirohito. As the guests marched into the dining room at the Imperial Palace, the band played "Stars and Stripes Forever," an American favorite by John Philip Sousa. President and Mrs. Reagan will remain in Japan until Saturday when they will fly to South Korea, returning home on Monday.

And, while the President was away today, the vice president, George Bush, presided over the opening of what is being called the great Grenada arms show. The government this morning put on display several tons of weapons captured during the U.S. invasion of Grenada. A hangar at Andrews Air Force base outside Washington was the place, and Mr. Bush offered the commentary.

Vice. Pres. GEORGE BUSH: It is an awesome display of arms from North Korea, from Cuba and from the Soviet Union in what was supposed to be an island paradise. It turned out to be something quite different. Then you see the letters of these agreements, these blowups of these secret agreements talking about military agreements between this little peaceful island and Korea and some of these places, and it's really pretty stark evidence of what was happening there.

LEHRER: Mr. Bush took a 20-minute tour of the arms display, which included AK-47 assault rifles, recoilless guns from China, Warsaw Pact anti-aircraft guns, mortars, uniforms and field equipment, crates of bullets from the Soviet Union, and a Russian amphibious personnel carrier.

There was another dissent recorded today to the mostly solid congressional support for the U.S. action in Grenada. Seven House members introduced a resolution calling for President Reagan's impeachment on grounds the Grenada action violated Article I of the Constitution which grants Congress the right to declare war. All seven of the congressmen are liberal Democrats. Their effort is not expected to go very far considering the counter-majority opinion on the issue in the Congress. Robin? Cuba's View

MacNEIL: Last night the last of the Cubans evacuated from Grenada arrived back in Havana. The last to leave were 24 diplomats. They leave behind only the bodies of the Cubans who died in the invasion, and two diplomats to oversee their return. The U.S. says about 50 were killed; Cuba says 25. Today the U.S. mission in Grenada said some of the bodies they thought were Cuban may be Grenadian.For a look at how Cuban opinion -- official and man-in-the-street -- has viewed the Grenada events, we have a report from Havana by June Massell on special assignment for this program.

JUNE MASSELL [voice-over]: The day after U.S. troops landed in Grenada, thousands of Cubans protested against what they called the latest example of Yankee imperialism. "Down with Reagan," they shouted. "Long live the peoples of Latin America." Castro's Cuba had come out en masse in support of their leader Fidel. Later that night, President Fidel Castro met with foreign reporters. Speaking through a translator, he condemned the invasion.

FIDEL CASTRO, President of Cuba [through interpreter]: I consider it a huge, unnecessary and unjustifiable error on the part of the United States. I believe that they wanted to -- that this was an expression of strength, an applied philosophy of force.

MASSELL [voice-over]: During the next few days, as word reached Havana that Cubans were dying in Grenada, anti-American graffitti began springing up. One message read, "Yankees, we won't forget the massacre in Grenada." Cartoonists at the newspapers were busy drawing their own impressions of what had happened. This cartoon says, "Cuba sends workers to Grenada for purposes of construction while the U.S. sends troops for destruction." Although on the surface it looked like any other time in Havana, with midday crowds enjoying the sundaes at the popular Coppelia ice cream parlor, it was clear that people were angry.

In a grocery store in downtown Havana, shoppers did not mince any words. They called the Americans assassins who didn't even care about their own people. Violeta Arebolo said, "We have the worst impression of them. They are totally without shame." Her 73-year-old companion was equally outraged. "First they don't buy our sugar," she shouted, "now they attack us. There's a macho up there who wants to dominate the entire world," she continued. "Long live Fidel and may he let Reagan have it but good." In old Havana, in Cathedral Square, Armando Aguillar, the Italian ice-maker, said he didn't think it mattered who was in the White House. The policy would be the same.

As the Cubans waited for the prisoners to return home from Grenada, the mood in Havana was one of shock, of people desperately trying to find an explanation for an action that seemed so incredible and unnecessary.

CUBAN WOMAN: How can they be there and killing people just maybe for having some kind of an exercise? Because I don't think they can do anything with Grenada. Grenada is such a small spot in the map. But maybe they're trying to train the Marines or something.

2nd WOMAN: Well, I think it's just an electoral move of Reagan, of the Reagan administration in view of the -- of the great massacre, I would say, that the Marines suffered in Beirut.

MASSELL [voice-over]: The tourists in the Bodeguita del Medio Bar, Ernest Hemingway's old hangout, felt the reasons for the invasion were obvious.

1st PATRON: Paranoid. We think that's the best word. I think they feel threatened for all other by international communism, what they call it.

2nd PATRON: They keep seeing everything in terms of a war against the Soviet Union, and I think they shouldn't do such a thing.

MASSELL [voice-over]: A whole week went by before the first Cubans returned. Fifty-seven wounded came home aboard an International Red Cross plane. A solemn Fidel Castro, weary from a week's worth of round-the-clock negotiations, gave them a hero's welcome. Although he spoke not a word in public, he tried to lend an heroic image to the military defeat his country had suffered. The next day when some of the wounded were interviewed from their hospital beds, they said the invasion had come as a total surprise. Some said the Americans had treated them will, but others complained of not being fed for one or two days. Despite reports of heavy Cuban resistance, some prisoners later debunked those, saying the only weapons they had were what the Grenadians gave them, and there weren't even enough to go around.

BEATRIZ MUNOZ, translator on Grenada: There were some Cubans who had weapons, but there was not enough for all of us, and these were going to be used just in case we were attacked, and in fact they were Cubans who were attacked.

MASSELL [voice-over]: For Cuba it was the worst crisis since the revolution because, for the first time, Cubans had battled directly with U.S. troops.

[on camera] The Cubans say Grenada was not like Angola. When Cubans went to Angola they knew they would be fighting and might lose their lives, but the Cubans say those who went to Grenada went to build an airport, never expecting to end up in combat.

[voice-over] The U.S. government claimed the airport the Cubans were building was in reality a military base. As evidence, American military personnel pointed to the large arms supplies they found on Grenada. But Cuban construction workers like Angel Sarmiento said the airport was entirely civilian and the weapons belonged to the Grenadians. The Cubans, he said, were there contributing to the economic and social development of that country. Vilma Espin, the highest-ranking woman in the Cuban government, and the wife of Raul Castro, Fidel's brother, described Grenada as an example of international solidarity with poor people in the Third World.

VILMA ESPIN, Central Committee of the Communist Party: We are not rich but we give part of what we are just preparing for our own benefit, you know. By example, we don't have all the airports we need, but Grenada needed more this airport than us because they didn't have anything. They didn't have any way of economic development.

MASSELL [voice-over]: But what the Cubans call international solidarity, the Americans call exporting revolution. Cuban Vice Foreign Minister Ricardo Alarcon, however, said it was the Americans, not the Cubans, who were doing the exporting.

RICARDO ALARCON, Vice Foreign Minister of Cuba: But the fact is that the U.S. tried to export counterrevolution. That is what they just did now in Grenada. What are they doing now against Nicaragua? Precisely to support the Contras, the counter-revolutionaries, finance them, organize them, and utilize them, seeking the overthrow of the Nicaraguan regime.

MASSELL: Many Cubans believe the invasion of Grenada may be just the beginning for the Reagan administration. There is more concern here now than ever before that the U.S. might next try to invade Nicaragua.

[voice-over] But when Fidel Castro went on record two weeks ago saying if that were to happen, Cuba could not send Nicaragua any reinforcement troops, it raised questions for the future of socialist regimes and Cuban influence in the region.

Min. ALARCON: You do not have to defend a revolution by sending your troops. You will never find the Nicaraguans willingly returning to the Samoza era. You have to impose that upon them. That is what is going on now. But you don't need to send your troops in order to help another people to resist an imperialist invasion because they will do that by themselves.

MASSELL [voice-over]: The accusations and counteraccusations continue. U.S.-Cuban relations are at their lowest point in 25 years, and there is not much hope in Havana that they'll improve any time soon. This is June Massell reporting.

MacNEIL: In Grenada, U.S. military spokesmen today reported that three incidents of sniping at American troops had occurred in the past two days. They occurred near St. George's, the capital, near Calivigny barracks, the former Cuban and Grenadian garrison, and near Pearls airport in the north. There were no U.S. casualties. U.S. and Caribbean forces have been sweeping the island, detaining suspected members of the Grenadian army and Cubans. The U.S. mission in Grenada today raised the number of U.S. servicemen wounded in the fighting from 97 to 113.

Meanwhile the governor general, Sir Paul Scoon, has issued a proclamation banning public meetings, authorizing arrests without warrant and warning of press censorship. United Press International quoted a government source as saying the public security laws would remain in effect as long as necessary. Yesterday, Scoon appointed a nine-member advisory council to rule Grenada until elections could be held within a year.

Jim?

LEHRER: Dutch millionaire Freddie Heineken spent his second day in captivity today. The chairman of the Heineken Brewery Company was seized yesterday along with his driver by three men armed with automatic weapons. Today the kidnapper sent the Heineken Company a message. There is no word on whether or not it's a ranson demand. News on the kidnapping may be slow in coming. The kidnappers did demand a news blackout. And the Heineken Company and Dutch police agreed. The 60-year-old Heineken is one of the richest men in Holland, and a close friend of the Dutch royal family.

This is the kind of news we need to pause after, so we'll be back in a moment.

[Video postcard -- Bouquet River, New York]

MacNEIL: Government figures out today show that the rate of inflation remained slow and steady in October. The wholesale price index went up only three-tenths of one percent. But beef and veal were up 2.4% after three months of falling prices. That showed the effect of the long heat wave and the drought of last summer when more cattle were slaughtered. Also as a result of the weather last summer, the price of fresh fruit went up 18 1/2% and the price of vegetables went up 5.3%. But higher food prices were offset by lower prices for energy, particularly natural gas, which has comme down 2.8% in the last year. The drought also had an effect on the nation's corn crop. The agriculture department estimated today the crop will be down 51% from last year, partly because of the dry weather, and partly because of reductions made by farmers under the payment-in-kind, or PIK, program. Jim?

LEHRER: If you were with us last night you heard the debate over what's happening to the cost of using the telephone argued from the local level in Texas. Today, another part of that same debate moved national to the floor of the House of Representatives here in Washington. It's on a bill that would rescind the so-called "access charge," the one the Federal Communications Commission wants each local telephone user to pay for access to long distance service. It would be $2 a month next year for residential users, and climb one dollar a year until 1986. By 1990 we could be paying as much as $12 a month. The FCC argues it is necessary to compensate local companies for the long distance revenue they will lose under AT&T divestiture with local service being separated from long distance. In the past, long distance revenues helped subsidize local service. Critics say the access charge will simple cause big businesses to bypass local companies altogether and thus raise the overall cost of telephone service for everyone. Here are some excerpts from today's debate about it all.

Rep. TIMOTHY WIRTH, (D) Colorado: We believe it is only fair, it is only fair that long distance pays its fair share. The access charge notion would load the total cost off onto the consumer.

Rep. THOMAS J. TAUKE, (R) IOWA: I see no good reason why we should give every telephone subscriber in this nation a subsidy, whether they be the Vanderbilts, the DuPonts or the Rockefellers. When we do that we may be able to go home and say, "Oh, we held down local rates," but what we have also done is moved away from a cost-based pricing system. That will do several things. First of all, it will overprice interstate long distance calls. When those calls are overpriced, the major users of that system have every incentive to leave that system, and when they leave the system it shrinks the entire rate base.

Rep. ALBERT GORE, Jr., (D) Tennessee: A local ratepayer who doesn't even use any long distance -- and a lot of them don't; a local ratepayer who uses long distance maybe once or twice a month -- and a lot more are in that category; those local ratepayers would also be forced to subsidize the long distance business. Now, what's fair about that? We hear a lot of talk about competition. Yes, we want to move toward a more competitive system, but let's face facts. We're not creating a totally competitive telephone system. We are creating a system that is partly competitive and partly exploitative.

Rep. MATHEW RINALDO, (R) New Jersey: I can assure you -- and no one will get up and deny on either side that there aren't going to be telephone rate increases. I can assure you that this legislation as presently written is going to lead to higher telephone rates for local residential customers. It's going to lead to higher rates as more and more large users of the telephone system leave the network to avoid paying large long distance overcharges. And the net result is that the small-business person and the residential consumer -- your families and my families -- are going to end up paying for all of the fixed costs of the telephone system.

MacNEIL: A bipartisan group of senators today forcefully told the Reagan administration of their anxiety about the large federal deficits, and the administration, in the person of Treasury Secretary Donald Regan, stuck to its position: no tax increases to lower the deficits unless Congress first makes budget cuts. After a closed meeting of the Senate Finance Committee, both Secretary Regan and Republican committee chairman Bob Dole spoke to reporters.

Sen. ROBERT DOLE, (R) Kansas: We've had a rather candid discussion in here about budget deficit reduction, and I think there are some areas of agreement, some areas of disagreement. Obviously the Secretary speaks for the administration. We have a little different view. We've been mandated by the Congress to raise $73 billion in taxes.It is our view in the committee at least, and I think the general view, that if you're going to do that you at least ought to match it with spending restraint. And we're going to continue to pursue that, hopefully with technical assistance from the administration.

DONALD REGAN, Treasury Secretary: Well, the administration's position is that we agree with the committee that these deficits should be brought down, particularly over a period of three to five years. What we're saying is is the proper way to do that is to cut spending. We have not rejected what the Senate Finance Committee is doing in the spending-cut area.

REPORTER: How about the tax cut? How about the --

Sec. REGAN: In the tax area we said we'd be willing to talk after we saw the spending cuts.

Sen. DOLE: I think the significance of this meeting is to demonstrate to Don Regan across the board, bipartisan, Democrat, Republican, whatever, interest in reducing the deficit.I don't really believe he had any misunderstanding when he left the room. Martin Luther: 500 Years

MacNEIL: Today an unusual birthday is being celebrated in this country and around the world. Charlayne Hunter-Gault has that story. Charlayne?

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: It's the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther, the German religious leader who sparked the Protestant Reformation and whose contributions are still the subject of debate five centuries after his birth. One of the most prolific figures of the 16th century, Luther is best known for writing the 95 theses which condemned corrupt church practices and which, according to tradition, he nailed to the cathedral door at Wittenburg. Lutter's bold action set off a chain of events that splintered Christianity and changed the course of European and world history. Luther's birthday is being celebrated especially by this country's nine million Lutherans who belong to a worldwide body of some 69 million. It's said that with the exception of Jesus Christ, Martin Luther has had more books written about him than any other figure in history. One of the world's pre-eminent figures and scholars who has studied Luther is the Reverend Dr. Martin Marty, a Lutheran minister and University of Chicago historian. Dr. Marty is in Washington to attend a six-day conference on the study of Luther.

Dr. Marty, why was Martin Luther so important?

MARTIN MARTY: In ways that he didn't plan, he produced the modern world partly by accident, by shattering the unity of the church and of Europe, he made possible some of the openings for freedom that we have today with all of our diversity. when he stood up in conscience in acts that even today's Catholics admire, he helped make room for some of the freedoms we know.

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, what was so radically different about what he did and what he believed and what he said at the time?

Rev. MARTY: It's hard for us to think our way back into a time when an entire continent had a single faith, a single pattern of authority. And to challenge that because one believed that God stood behind the emperor was a very radical thing, and yet he said, "Unless from reason or scripture you can convince me otherwise, I have to stay with these teachings." And that was just shattering to people who, until then, had not had the courage or taken the freedom to do that asserting.

HUNTER-GAULT: What was important about the 95 theses?

Rev. MARTY: What had happened was that people were in a circumstance in which it became necessary for them to, as they saw it, buy the favor of God. There were transactions and a market situation in effect, and Luther believed from the Bible that God -- a good God, a gracious God -- wanted to give you these things. And he really was undercutting, in a sense, the churce market by saying this is all free, and he called the church to that freedom.

HUNTER-GAULT: The church was selling indulgences, as it were.

Rev. MARTY: Indeed.

HUNTER-GAULT: Did he really nail them to the door of the cathedral?

Rev. MARTY: That's kind of an idle debate, whether he nailed them or whether he just mailed them to the archbishop. The thing we do know is that in weeks they'd gotten all over Europe and what he thought was going to be a debate with some junior professors on his own faculty and nearby had sort of set fire to a lot of people in Europe.

HUNTER-GAULT: What kind of man was Luther personally? I've read he was very tempestuous, but I've also read that he was very compassionate.

Rev. MARTY: He was a person of extremes. Like so many great people in history, he seemed to live as if the tumult of a couple of ages met in him. He could be serene and tender, loving to wife and children --

HUNTER-GAULT: Six, I believe.

Rev. MARTY: Yes, six children, yes. He started late. He married in his forties. He could be violent to his enemies, and no Lutheran in the world today is proud of some of the language he used over against the enemies. But I think people in the 20th century 500 years later surprise themselves, Lutheran or Christian or not, by the way in which they can identify with the passion with which he was looking for meaning in life. And they may not all share his way that that comes in the grace of Good and Christ, but people who aren't Lutheran and who aren't Christian find that stormy person somebody that speaks to our time.

HUNTER-GAULT: But part of that tempestuousness had to do with his rantings and ravings about Jews. Was he anti-Semitic?

Rev. MARTY: Well, certainly the last couple of years of his life his writings on Jews are something that, typical of his day but no Lutheran today, I hope, would sign on with them. He had loved the Jews early in his career, but when they didn't convert and didn't follow his model, he struck out at them as he did at the Catholics of his day, the Anabaptists of his day. It was in the style of that day, but it's certainly not something that we could celebrate today.

HUNTER-GAULT: Why is it signficant that Catholics as well as Communists in East Germany are marking his birthday, are celebrating Luther now?

Rev. MARTY: For the Communists in East Germany it's the attempt to recover a cultural hero, and they've found that he's much different than they thought he was. He was a person of the people, though not in their terms, by any means a socialist. As far as the Catholic is concerned it's urgent because these are two of the largest Christian bodies -- Catholicism, although, much larger -- and they had between the two torn apart individual lives and now, to have the Pope himself preaching in a Lutheran church is a very different day.

HUNTER-GAULT: The pope, whom he once -- not this particular Pope, but he once referred to the pope as the anti-Christ. Is that not correct?

Rev. MARTY: That's indeed how they talked about each other in those days.

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, is the whole idea -- with this rapprochement seemingly in the making, is unification of these two churches a remote dream, a realistic possibility or what?

Rev. MARTY: Well, it's a remote dream because every Christian believes that Christ calls them all somehow eventually to be one. The immediate dream, I think, is mutual acceptance and concord, burying of hatchets, sharing of ministry, praying for each other, worshipping together, and that's happening very fast.

HUNTER-GAULT: Very briefly, how do you think Luther would be reacting to all of this excitement over him today?

Rev. MARTY: Well, we always say about every great figure, "He didn't want a movement. He didn't want people to follow him, so he'd probably say the German equivalent of 'Ah, shucks' or 'Get off it,'" but I think he also was very sure of his ego and probably would have enjoyed some of it and then gone upstairs and had a little party with some other folks and laughed at the fuss we're making.

HUNTER-GAULT: Think you very much, Dr. Marty. Robin? Three Perspective on War

MacNEIL: An unusual appeal for an end to the nuclear arms race was issued today by nearly 15,000 physicists, including 35 winners of the Nobel Prize. The petition was signed by scientists from 43 countries, including the United States and the Soviet Union, Eastern and Western Europe, Japan and Australia. It will be presented to the United Nations and individual governments tomorrow. In a statement issued in Paris, the physicists estimated that 100 million people would be killed immmediately in a nuclear war, and the survivors would be helpless in the face of epidemics, hunger and violence. Their petition calls for an agreement to halt the testing, production and deployment of nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them. Unitl such an agreement is reached, they call for a halt in the deployment of nuclear weapons.

And we'll be back in a moment.

[Video postcard -- Zion National Park, Utah]

LEHRER: Congress got its first update today on developing an anti-missile defense system in space, the project President Reagan pushed in a March speech, since labeled his Star Wars speech. The update came from Undersecretary of Defense Richard DeLauer. He told a House subcommittee that yes, such a system was possible and that it could be deployed by the year 2000. But he also said it would be terribly expensive, eating up at least 14% of the defense budget. And the effort involved, said the secretary, would have to be much greater than those that went into building the atomic bomb in World War II or putting a man on the moon in the 1960s. He described the final product that would come out of such labors as working in three stages. Laser beams stationed in space would shoot at attacking missiles shortly after launch.Any missiles that escaped would be shot down in mid-flight from space, and if any survived that, earth-based weapons would take care of them. President Reagan laid out the overall purpose of the plan this way in that March speech.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN [Star Wars speech, March 23, 1983]: What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that their security did not rest upon the threat of instant U.S. retaliation to deter a Soviet attack, that we could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies. I know this is a formidable technical task, one that may not be accomplished before the end of this century, yet current technology has attained a level of sophistication where it's reasonable for us to begin this effort.

LEHRER: A congressional move to implement Mr. Reagan's idea is in the form of a bill called The People Protection Act. It was introduced by Congressman Ken Kramer, Republican of Colorado. Congressman, is it worth 14% of the defense budget?

Rep. KEN KRAMER: Yes it is. It's worth every cent that it costs because what we're really talking about here is removing the threat of nuclear war from our planet, and surely we can't put a price tag on that in monetary terms.

LEHRER: And you believe that's what this would do?

Rep. KRAMER: Yes, I do.

LEHRER: Why do you say that? *tRep. KRAMER: Well, I think the President has shared his vision because it gives mankind a new hope to get out of the arms race, this terrible nuclear box that we have put ourselves in in the last 25 years pursuing a strategy that is based on offensive nuclear retalitation. By employing space and ground defensive systens we would shift our attention to instituting a strategy that would put the emphasis on saving peoples lives rather than avenging peoples lives, which is our current nuclear doctrine.

LEHRER: Based on what Secretary DeLauer said today, is there any question that this is feasible, technically feasible, to accomplish what you just said?

Rep. KRAMER: I believe that if we have the commitement and the dedication and the vision and the foresight that, yes, we can do this techologically. It's only a question of whether we have the political will.

LEHRER: The political will is not there now, is it, Congressman?

Rep. KRAMER: Well, it's a very controversial subject, and it's one that deserves full debate. But I believe that Congress certainly will eventually adopt the view shared by grassroots Americans everywhere, and that is that we should indeed develop those technologies that can give us a true defense, and thereby obsolete nuclear weapons in the process.

LEHRER: Do you believe that an effort comparable to the Manhattan Project on the atomic bomb or the Apollo project on the moon could be mounted -- that kind of public support could be mounted?

Rep. KRAMER: Yes, I do, because what we're really talking about is probably the largest undertaking ever taken by mankind, but the payoff is certainly worth it because it's my judgment that if we continue as we have in the past that we're simply going to see, despite arms treaties, an acceleration of the arms race and the threat of nuclear annihilation brought closer to home. So I think really, in the ultimate analysis, we have no choice but to change our strategic doctrine.

LEHRER: Speaking of bringing things close to home, this -- since the President made that speech in March, there have been, as I mentioned, people called it Star Wars, and it seems so futuristic. How are you and others who support this idea going to make it real to where people will understand what in the world is going on here?

Rep. KRAMER: Well, I think it's a misnomer to call it Star Wars, and of course those who would detract from the concept and really want to kill it and never see it come to fruition have given it that label. But really what we're calling for now is an enhanced research and development effort and to put forth into place those institutions that can supply the infrastructure for getting this job done. And it's something that I believe the Soviets ought to do as well as the United States so that we in fact change our competition, if you want to call it that, from, again, the emphasis on total annihilation, nuclear retaliation and millions and millions of lost lives and countless loss of property to one in which we put our competition in a way in which will save peoples lives and protect us from nuclear attack. And if we can do that in a meaningful way, we will thus make nuclear weapons obsolete. It happened with the longbow making ovsolete the crossbow. It happened with gun powder making obsolete the longbow, and I believe that it can happen with comprehensive strategic defenses making obsolete nuclear weapons.

LEHRER: Thank you, Congressman.Robin?

MacNEIL: For a less optimistic view of space warfare, we talk to the former head of advanced space programs development in the Air Force, retired Colonel Robert Bowman. Colonel Bowman left the Air Force in 1978 to work on civilian space programs at General Dynamics Corporation. He is now president of the Washington-based Institute for Space and Security Studies. Colonel Bowman, first of all, is the concept feasible in your view?

ROBERT BOWMAN: No, I don't believe it is.I think that even if the technology works out, and it very well may, given enough time and money, to have a system which can shoot down an ICBM in a test, I don't believe it is feasible from an overall strategic point of view. I controlled the Star Wars program, So-called, when I was in the Air Force, and understand their technology and their strategy. And there is no way that these systems can protect the American people from a determined aggressor.

MacNEIL: First of all, let me ask you, using Congressman Kramer's expression, if there were the act of political will and the willingness to spend, devote resources to it, could a system be built that would work -- I mean that would actually shoot down approaching missiles?

Col. BOWMAN: I think it's possible to build a system that could shoot down a missile in a test, possibly. But these systems are enormously vulnerable to a wide range of threats. They can be destroyed by any number of means. They are susceptible to Countermeasures. There are any number of ways for making ICBMs impervious to these space-based systems, and if over -- all of that could be overcome, there are alternative offensive strategies. They could shift to ballistic missiles that come in low, that don't get up high enough for these systems to shoot them down. They could put their emphasis on cruise missiles which these space-based systems would never see and would not be able to reach. And these systems, above all, are vulnerable to each other.They could shoot each other down. The idea of both us and the Russians having these systems is the ultimate military lunacy. These systems facing each other in space, able to strike at each other with the speed of light, would not be just destabilizing; it would reduce warning time to the microseconds. It would make hair-trigger take on a whole new meaning.

MacNEIL: So you obviously do not agree with the Congressman that this would render nuclear weapons onsolete?

Col. BOWMAN: No, I don't. I think that for the President to have talked about that is irresponsible and an empty promise to the American people. American people have had their hopes raised I think too soon. I'm all in favor of continuing the research. We are spending nearly $2 billion a year on defensive technologies now. I have always taken part in and defended that expenditure as necessary to prevent technological surprise. But to come out and promise the American people that it will result in a system able to protect them -- which I think is very unlikely -- is irresponsible.

MacNEIL: Well, since all that's being asked for, suggested, at the moment is to continue with the research, what is the basis of your objection -- that by putting our faith in this we are failing to do something else we should be doing?

Col. BOWMAN: Absolutely.

MacNEIL: What is that?

Col. BOWMAN: There are many other things that we're failing to do. There are many military systems that we're failing to invest in, like space-based radar systems and other systems which could increase warning time instead of decrease it. We're getting ready to embark on an all-out arms race in space. If we go in this direction the Soviets will obviously have countermeasures and we will have to counter those. It will be a never-ending process. It will not bring protection now peace. And it will also take us away from recognizing our dependence on arms control. We must, in addition to a strong military to protect our security, have the other track -- arms control -- in order to limit destabilizing systems such as these from coming into being and bringing about the war which we do not want.

MacNEIL: Thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: Well, Congressman, let's take Colonel Bowman's points one at a time. First of all, he said it could launch an all-out arms race, that the Soviets obviously are going to do something to counteract this and that we're going to go down another whole bad road?

Rep. KRAMER: No, I disagree with that. What we're going to do is change the nature of the competition, which today is based on building better and better offensive systems, if we can call them better, to blow up more people with more efficiency. More destructive and more accurate. And what this will do is shift the competition so that we put the emphasis not on blowing up people but on being able to protect them and save them from the weapons that we've created over the last quarter of a century.

LEHRER: But your point, Colonel, is that that's not the way the Russians will choose to compete. Right?

Col. BOWMAN: Absolutely not.The easiest way to overcome a defensive system is simply to overwhelm it with large numbers of offensive weapons. It would have been impossible for us to reach the limitations in SALT II, for example, on offensive weapons had there not been an ABM treaty in place to limit defensive systems. If we let that go by the boards and lose the ABM treaty and get into a race for defensive systems, the race in offensive systems is going to be reignited, and the number of nuclear weapons on both sides is going to multiply.

LEHRER: What about his other point, Congressman, that it's just an empty promise for the President and now you to hold out to tell the American people that it's even possible to eliminate nuclear war this way?

Rep. KRAMER: Clearly, whatever we can imagine, in my judgment, history has proven that we can in fact do.They said the Apollo project could not be done in the timeframe that it was done in. And this has been true of other projects that we have undertaken and the naysayers have been proven wrong by the commitment and dedication. To me what we are promising is a vision of hope because, unfortunately, what Colonel Bowman is promising us is a world in which we will continue to race offensively, and ultimately I believe that that will have tragic consequences. So what is necessary is indeed a reassessment and a change of strategic direction for this country so that we no longer follow a policy and a philosophy that's based on what has become known as mutual assured destruction, and where we hold the American people hostage and terror to, in effect, a nuclear holocaust as in fact our policy does today.

LEHRER: Colonel, you're a naysayer and you have no vision.

Col. BOWMAN: Well, when I was in the Air Force I was sometimes accused of being a wild dreamer because I did look far downstream. I have a vision, too, of how we can eventually get out of mutual assured destruction, but I don't think it's one that we can go alone on. I don't think there is a solution which will give us a Fortress America that will make us completely safe, independent of what the Soviets do. We have to recognize that our security is, in some respects, in their hands, just as theirs is in ours. We have to live together in this world and find a way to accommodate that with mutual-assured destruction as long as it takes and eventually with better ways. But I don't think this is it.

LEHRER: But if the technology is there to do this -- to create a Fortress America -- way not go ahead and try to do it?

Col. BOWMAN: I have never opposed the attempt to seek for the technology, but the people in the military that are still on active duty -- my friends in the Pentagon -- are saying things haven't changed since my day, that the technology is not there. They don't see a prospect. They don't see a scenario for how this could in fact protect us, how the total strategic equation, when you look at the countermeasures, could give us any safety whatsoever. But it would be liable more to bring on the war.

LEHRER: Do you know anything the Colonel doesn't know, Congressman, about that?

Rep. KRAMER: Well, certainly I wish Colonel Bowman had attended our hearing today on the People Protection Act. I think he would have --

Col. BOWMAN:I did.

LEHRER: You were there?

Col. BOWMAN: Yes, I was.

Rep. KRAMER: I heard a lot of reputable witnesses, brilliant minds, including Dr. Edward Teller and Colin Gray, Buzz Aldrin, the man who was second to walk on the moon and so forth, say that clearly if we will put our will together, that we can accomplish this obviously very formidable task. But a very worthwhile undertaking. I might add, also, if I might, that there's nothing that's contradictory about changing to a defensive reliance with arms control. In fact, they're very complementary to each other. I'm not against arms control. In fact, I favor it.But where I think we have gone fallen down on arms control is that, despite the agreements that we have had, we have seen tremendous arms racing, especially by he Soviets. They've introduced so many new systems despite the SALT agreements. And what we are doing here is allowing, in fact, an enforcement mechanism, if you can call it that, to be developed that will alow meaningful enforcement of arms reductions agreements of offensive threshold levels.

LEHRER: Congressman, Colonel, thank you. Robin?

rep. KRAMER: Thank you very much.

Mac NEIL: Here again are the main points in the news today. The day-old ceasefire around Tripoli, Lebanon, was broken when PLO rebels and Arafat forces exchanged more heavy fire. Syrian anti-aircraft batteries fired missiles at U.S.-carrier-based reconnaissance planes but did not hit them.There were more sniping incidents against American troops in Grenada with no casualties. But the number of U.S. wounded in the island invasion was raised to 113. President Reagan urged the Japanese to reduce trade restrictions on U.S. imports. Fifteen thousand physicists from 43 countries called for an end to the nuclear arms race. Jim?

LEHRER: On November 10th, 1775, 208 years ago today, the Continental Congress sent recruiters out into the city of Philadelphia in search of a few good men. They gave them muskets, uniforms and the job or protecting ships in Philadelphia harbor. And they gave them a name -- the United States Marine Corps. More than four million Americans, men and women, have since served in that Corps, have been U.S. Marines. And 40,000 of them died while performing that service in far away places like Belleau Wood, Tarawa, Pelelleu, Inchon and Khe Sanh, names unfamiliar to most, but not to Marines past and present who will celebrate the Corps' 208th birthday tonight as they do every November 10th. Tonight the toasts and ceremonies and the talk will center on the last 223 to die in two new faraway places, Grenada and Lebanon.

[voice-over] The bodies of the last three, numbers 221, 222 and 223, arrived back in the United States last night. They were among the 239 U.S. servicemen who died in the October 23rd Beirut bombing. This morning at dawn, again in that hangar at the Dover, Delaware Air Force base, there was the 13th and last of those haunting, painful and familiar ceremonies, so familiar that they have received little attention since the first, 13 days ago. Ours was the only television camera there as those final three Marines plus a Naval hospital corpsman were honored. Most of those who attended other than Marine and other military personnel were 18 friends and family of Lance Corporal Louis Rotondo of Philadelphia. It was at the first Dover ceremony on October 29th that the commandant of the Marine Corps, Paul X. Kelley, said something that has stuck in many an American mind ever since.

Gen. PAUL X. KELLEY, USMC Commandant: But as I wept inside I asked, "Lord, where do we get such men?"

LEHRER [voice-over]: Earlier this week we went to a place where you sign up to be a U.S. Marine in search of some answers to General Kelley's question: who are these young men, and why do they want to be Marines? Kwame Holman reports.

KWAME HOLMAN [voice-over]: At Denver's Rocky Mountain recruiting office an average of 25 young men and women joing the Marines each week. On Monday, five men took the oath that committed them to military service for as long as six years.

RECRUITER [administering oath]: Raise your right hand, repeat after me. "I -- state your name -- do solemnly swear that I will --

HOLMAN [voice-over]: One of the recruits is 23-year-old David Cobos, who left his job in the Texas oil fields a year ago to join his brother as a construction worker in Colorado. The day before his enlistment David joined friends and relatives for a farewell barbeque.

DAVID COBOS, Marine recruit: I was kind of going from one job to another, and I was sticking a little bit more to the oil field, but there was no real purpose, no -- I didn't see no future or anything. Didn't have anything going for me, really. And that's one of the reasons for the Marine Corps, also. It gave me a purpose.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: David's older brother, Mario.

MARIO COBOS, recruit's brother: I just hope to hell nothing happens to him, you know. He might be somewhere where he does get hurt or something for nothing. You know, for something that doesn't really mean anything or that he's in a position where he can't defend himself, where he can't even load his damn rifle.

Mr. COBOS: I know if God wants me, I'm gonna die, and if doesn't I'll be safe. So --

HOLMAN [voice-over]: One of the other men who enlisted on Monday was 25-year-old Gerald Casaus from Pueblo, Colorado. He and his wife Joberta have a two-year-old son and are expecting a second child in February.

GERALD CASAUS, Marine recruit: I was laid off from the mill in December, two years ago, and since then I've had about what? five, six, seven jobs, you know, and you know, just from job to job, you know, and I work a few weeks here and a few weeks somewhere else. And when I'm in the Marines I won't be getting laid off, you know.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Gerald joined the Marine Reserves, but he wants job security so he's thinking of making the military a career.

JOBERTA CASAUS: As long as he don't have to go out and fight, it's fine with me.

Mr. CASAUS: I ain't worried about fighting. If a war breaks out and they call me out of the Reserves and tell me I have to go and fight, you know, I'll say, well, great! I wouldn't want them to start a war and leave me out of it.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: David Cobos has displayed that same kind of dedication to the military as well.He lost 50 pounds in five months in order to be accepted into the Marines.

Mr. COBOS: I've always wanted to join the service but I've always been too overweight or something, not been able to. So I took a few months there and lost a few pounds.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: But with his schedule induction less than 24 hours away, David decided Sunday was not the time for dedication to diet.

Mr. COBOS: Wow, that's good, babe.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: The farewell barbecue lasted late into the night. Induction day begins early. Shortly after dawn, Gerald Casaus leaves for the enlistment office.

Ms. CASAUS: I tried hard not to cry because I keep thinking about it's going to be hard trying to get used to him not being around for the next three months, and then after that nine more months.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Before these men officially become part of the Corps and are sent to boot camp in San Diego, they must undergo a series of written and physical tests. After waiting six months for this day, David failed the first test.

Mr. COBOS: I was a few pounds over so it was either go and try and run'em off or wait another day or two, you know, and I didn't want to wait another day or two so I thought I'd go ahead and go run. So I ran about 2 1/2 miles, ran up and down the stairs quite a bit. Just kept that sweat going until I lost that weight. It was that barbeque I had yesterday that did it to me, I guess.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: By mid-morning David was down to the required weight. The physical fitness tests were the next hurdle. David and Gerald made it, but one recruit did not.

RECRUITER: Get up there. Get up there. Try again. Try it again. Okay, drop off. You are not in shape right now to go to boot camp.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Along with David and Gerald, four other men became Marines on this day. Ron Amass is 18 and graduated from high school last June.

RON AMASS, Marine recruit: I wanted to join the service because I wanted to get the training to be a jet engine mechanic.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Twenty-year-old Kerry Hart has been working for his father's janitorial service and living at home.

KERRY HART, Marine recruit: I joined for the experience and to travel. I was told to expect a lot of hard work and a lot of satisfaction. You know, wearing the uniform and pride.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Twenty-year-old Shawn Lunny has been working as a carpenter.

SHAWN LUNNY, Marine recruit: I was kind of in a nowhere job doing the same thing every day, and I decided I needed a little change, wanted a little excitement.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Brian Dorland has been unemployed since leaving college.He is 19.

BRIAN DORLAND, Marine recruit: I took a year of college and I didn't really feel that was my calling, so I decided -- I felt that I still needed to mature emotionally and physically. My parents are a little worried about it; they don't want to see me killed. But I think that if that's a political decision that's been made by the President, that I should follow his orders. And I have no qualms about not going to Lebanon. I really don't have a fear of dying.

LEHRER: Good night, Robin.

MacNEIL: Good night, Jim. That's our NewsHour tonight. We will be back tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.