Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963, Volume VII, Arms Control and Disarmament

146. Memorandum for the Record⁰

Washington, March 6, 1962.

SUBJECT

• Meeting on Disarmament, Cabinet Room, March 6, 5:00-7:00 PM¹

PRESENT

• The President; The Vice President, The Secretary of State and Messrs. Foster, Dean, Fisher, McGhee, Kohler and Farley of State Department; the Secretary of Defense, General Lemnitzer, and Messrs. Nitze and McNaughton of Defense Department; Mr. Amory, CIA; Chairman Seaborg, Atomic Energy Commission; Dr. Wiesner, Mr. Schlesinger, Mr. Keeny, Mr. Kaysen, White House

Secretary Rusk began the meeting by some comments on the problem of procedure at the Geneva meeting. He raised the possibility that it might be more desirable to seek a procedure which would avoid opening statements and would resolve the Conference into committees as quickly as possible. The President then indicated that he wanted first to consider the questions on the modifications that were desirable or necessary to the April test ban treaty. These changes had to be considered in the light of his speech, our relations with the UK, and the political acceptability of the treaty at home. Dr. Wiesner and Ambassador Dean indicated that there were possible desirable modifications on the time lapse before the international control system began to work and reporting began, and on the number of control posts. Dr. Wiesner raised the question of dropping the threshold and also of allocating the on-site inspection in different parts of the Soviet Union in proportion to the seismic activity. There was some discussion of both these points, and the President, in summing up at a later stage of the meeting, indicated that he thinks for the moment we should hold fast to the threshold as it now stands in the treaty, but that we should be willing, if the Soviets showed interest and serious discussion, to reconsider this point. As to the pro-rating matter, he indicated that this would be desirable as a point to examine, and if the ACDA and the technically competent people (AEC, Defense, Science Adviser) agreed on this question, this would be included. The proposal of keeping the UK in line with our position was discussed. The President indicated that he thinks it most important that we avoid a split, and if there is going to be a split, it would be better to come at the end of the period rather than now. He asked Secretary Rusk to follow his point. Secretary Rusk commented that the British agreed with us on the April treaty as of now. In the course of the discussion, he indicated his own feeling was that our past experience argued for a tougher treaty rather than an easier one. Perhaps we should keep things that way. The President indicated the problem raised by his discussion of modifications. On the matter of monitoring of the preparations, Messrs. Foster, Wiesner and Seaborg indicated that it was difficult to get anything that was effective. Nonetheless, the President said we had to say something on this. He then asked Mr. Foster to come up by Thursday for a Thursday afternoon or Friday meeting² with agreed language on the treaty modifications, except that for the matter of preparations, it might be a discussion in memorandum form rather than treaty language.

In sum, it was agreed that we should get agreed language which can meet the needs on a shorter time interval between signing and effective operation of the control system and should say something about preparations and be prepared to speak on the number of control stations, the removal of the threshold and the proportionate distribution of inspections by zones of seismicity in the event that the Soviet Union showed interest in serious discussion. In his discussion of the test ban treaty, the President repeatedly indicated that he thought good preparation on this point was of the greatest importance.

The discussion then turned to the general disarmament question and the ACDA memorandum of March 3, 1962.³ At Mr. Foster’s request, the President asked Admiral Parker and Captain Greelee to present a briefing on the impact of the various alternative plans on the reduction of strategic delivery vehicles on our and Soviet forces. After the briefing, the President remarked that he didn’t see how it was possible to come to any conclusion about which of the methods presented, Option 1, pages 9-11 of the Foster memorandum was preferable from our point of view, or even which was safe. He thought it was a problem for electronic computers and that it couldn’t possibly be solved in the time available. Dr. Wiesner argued the case for a 30% across-the-board cut of all armaments applied by types (Foster memorandum, Alternative 2, page 12) and a complete production cutoff. Mr. Foster indicated his objections to freezing types and cutting off production of the R&D. Secretary McNamara said he thought this a highly complicated question which obviously required more study. The President raised the question of linkage: should we confine our attention to strategic nuclear delivery vehicles or consider conventional armaments as well. Mr. Foster presented the following argument against linkage: the problem of China; the need for building up our own conventional strength; the impact of a reduction in our conventional strength on NATO; and the complications of trying to do everything at once. Secretary Rusk said that he felt that focussing on strategic delivery vehicles produced a pattern that was too complicated to make sense. The first staging of any proposal had to be thought out chiefly as a political probe and related to the cutting down of crises, such as Berlin, Viet-Nam, etc. This demanded something simple. His own judgment would be in favor of a 30% across-the-board reduction with inspection as a first stage and a production cutoff deferred until the second stage. The President raised the question of whether we were talking about categories or types. This was not immediately followed up in the discussion, but at a later point Secretary McNamara emphasized the importance of distinguishing long-range vehicles from medium and short-range vehicles in any categorization scheme for a production cutoff. The President asked Secretary McNamara and Mr. Foster to explore this and come to an agreement before the next meeting on the subject, if possible, and that he should have a memorandum on the subject in advance of the meeting. There was some further discussion in which Mr. Foster indicated his preference for the proposal which focussed on strategic delivery vehicles, while Dr. Wiesner, General Lemnitzer, Secretary McNamara expressed their preferences for the 30% across-the-board proposal. Secretary McNamara and General Lemnitzer agreed that this served our security interests better than a reduction focussed entirely on strategic vehicles. The President indicated that he favored a 30% across-the-board cut with a production cutoff deferred to the second stage.

Mr. Foster raised the question of what should be said about a second stage. He indicated he thought it should provide for a continuation of the reduction in armaments at a rate like that of the first stage, plus a large buildup in international peace-keeping machinery and the adherence of other states to the treaty. The President then raised the question of inspection. Mr. Foster indicated that he thought it was well worth discussing with the Soviet Union the proposal for zonal random sampling system. In addition, we had of course to bear in mind our own unilateral capabilities. He mentioned some proposed tests of our inspection capabilities in the U.S. The President asked whether we didn’t need to have an inspection proposal concretely incorporated in our presentation, and Mr. Foster responded that the zonal random sampling system was the best. The President then summarized the discussion up to this point by saying that we needed by Thursday or Friday at the latest the modifications of the April treaty discussed above in as good shape as we could get them, and agreed with the UK, and a proposal for at least the first stage of a GCD plan with the 30% across-the-board reduction of all armament but with a production cutoff deferred until the second stage. Mr. Foster raised the question of the cutoff of fissionable material production with an offer of 40,000 kg transferred to peaceful uses. There was some discussion about whether this offer was big enough, in light of our estimates of our own and Soviet production and stockpile vehicles. The President indicated that he was perfectly willing to raise the offer to 60,000 kg as against 40,000 kg for the Soviet Union. General Lemnitzer pointed out that other members of the Joint Chiefs were against any transfer, but he himself was in favor of a transfer offer if it were in equal amounts. The President decided then that we should begin with an offer of equal amounts but be willing to bargain on this point. Secretary Rusk raised the tactical issue again. In the ordinary course of events, he would expect to make a speech at Geneva next Thursday or Friday (15th or 16th), but his own preference was to avoid speech-making by heads of delegations. Therefore he was not sure he would make one.

0. Source: Kennedy Library, National Security Files, Departments and Agencies Series, ACDA, Disarmament, 18-Nation Committee, Geneva, 3-62. No classification marking. The source text, dated March 7, bears no drafting information.
1. A summary of the decisions reached at this meeting are in General Maxwell D. Taylor’s memorandum for the record, March 7. (National Defense University, Taylor Papers, T-37-71) See the Supplement.
2. For minutes of the meeting on Friday, March 9, see Document 148.
3. Reference is to a 23-page memorandum, with 2 appendices totaling 9 pages, on the U.S. position at the forthcoming Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee, which Foster sent to the President on March 3. (Washington National Records Center, RG 383, ACDA/DD Files: FRC 77 A 17, Chron File, Jan-Mar 1962)