Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XI, Arms Control and Disarmament

144. Memorandum From the Under Secretary of State (Ball) to President Johnson¹

Washington, August 8, 1966.

SUBJECT

• Creating an International Entity to Make Plowshare Explosions Available to the World

1. This memorandum outlines a possible new peaceful initiative in the nuclear field. Ambassador Thompson believes there is a fair chance that the Soviet Union might be prepared to join with us in this proposal. If so, it could pave the way for further nuclear cooperation at a time when we are at an impasse over a nonproliferation treaty.

Need for a New Plowshare Arrangement

2. As now worded, the language of the Test Ban Treaty severely restricts us in using peaceful nuclear (Plowshare) explosions to dig tunnels, harbors, etc. This is a point of concern, for example, in connection with the proposed Panama sea-level canal.

3. The Treaty does, however, permit underground explosions, whether for peaceful or military purposes, so long as they do not cause fall-out beyond national limits. Recently there have been some indications that India might set off underground explosions on the excuse that it was developing a Plowshare capability. In this way it could acquire most of the technology needed for military weapons.

The proposed scheme would—among its other benefits—remove this excuse. It would thus discourage India and other countries from becoming military nuclear powers through the back door—on the pretext of acquiring Plowshare capability.

Nature of Initiative

4. Under the initiative I propose we would invite the Soviet Union to join with us in a common undertaking to make available to all the nations of the world—nuclear and non-nuclear alike—the benefits of Plowshare explosions for public works projects in their countries. This would involve the creation of an international corporation or other entity that would arrange for, approve, and authorize the US or USSR to conduct such Plowshare explosions. Together we would seek an amendment to the Test Ban Treaty that would permit such explosions when approved and authorized by the international corporation.²

5. By providing for membership on the entity’s Board of Governors for representatives selected by the 93 non-nuclear signatories of the Test Ban Treaty, we would assure a strong voice for non-nuclear states in the control and utilization of this new technology. At the same time the arrangements could be so set up as not to compromise the security of our own Plowshare devices or to create an intolerable risk of military advantages for the power conducting the explosion.

6. As you know, a proposal to permit Plowshare explosions was discussed during the Test Ban negotiations, and elicited some Soviet interest. A draft Plowshare section of the Treaty was largely agreed with some major open points but, by mutual consent, it was then dropped as too complicated in the rush to sign the ultimate Treaty.

7. However, the Treaty was made relatively easy to amend. With the approval of only one-third of the 96 signatories, the Original Parties (US, UK, USSR) can call a conference to consider a proposed amendment. The amendment itself can be adopted by a simple majority of the signatories including all three Original Powers. Dissenting signatories are legally free to withdraw, but are unlikely to risk the world-wide opprobrium that would result.

Benefits of Proposal

8. The proposal promises a number of cumulative benefits that increase in importance depending on how far we can get with it. For example:

a. By presenting the plan to the Soviets, we could begin a useful dialogue with them, based on our mutual interest in deterring proliferation and in sponsoring peaceful nuclear applications. The discussion themselves would be valuable, regardless of their outcome. (The UK would, of course, have to be brought in at the outset.)

b. If the discussions are fruitful, joint US-Soviet sponsorship of a Test Ban Amendment would be a major diplomatic breakthrough, regardless of whether the Amendment is ultimately adopted by the other signatories. Apart from the impact of a joint US-Soviet initiative, key features of the plan would have world wide appeal. The major nuclear powers would be offering the other signatories the economic benefits of peaceful explosions on attractive terms when and if Plowshare proves economically feasible, as well as a strong voice in the international agency that decides when and how such explosions would be conducted in the light of the military and fall-out risks and the economic and political criteria involved.

c. If we get this far, it should be easy to get the support of one-third of the Treaty signatories to convene a Conference. The Conference itself would have major political value whatever its outcome, and could help to delay proliferation efforts by the nuclear-capable signatories (e.g., India and Japan).

d. With the US, UK and USSR agreed, it should not be too hard to get the simple majority vote needed to adopt an amendment. If adopted, the amendment might help to deter the nuclear-capable signatories from proceeding with their own programs by lawful underground tests. The amendment would deprive them of both political and economic arguments sometimes used to justify going it alone. It is an open question whether the remaining military arguments for going ahead with national programs would be persuasive to most countries.

e. If economically viable Plowshare projects are developed and if the international agency works out the many problems involved in approving them, the world can begin to realize another constructive potential from having unlocked the atom. But should the economics and hazards of Plowshare projects prove so intractable that few if any operations are approved and conducted for many years to come, we will still have achieved all of the other benefits described above.

f. If the Soviets agree to the international entity plan, we could then discuss with them whether to offer the plan as an independent proposal apart from the current Anti-Proliferation, Threshhold Test Ban and Total Test Ban proposals now being discussed at Geneva, or whether to go the further step of agreeing with the USSR on some compromise version of one of those other proposals, and then offering the two as a single package. A joint package proposal would clearly be better if it proves feasible, but if we are able to agree with the USSR only on the international entity plan for Plowshare, I would favor proceeding with this alone.

9. I attach a memorandum spelling out some aspects of the proposal in more detail.³

George W. Ball ⁴

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, AE 6 US. Secret; Exdis. An August 9 cover memorandum from Ball to the President states that this proposal had been “informally discussed with experts in ACDA and the AEC. If you think well of the idea we can go forward with full staffing and clearance with the interested departments.” In a telephone conversation, August 10, Walt Rostow told Ball that “he had sent up Ball’s Plowshare memo and it came down with note ‘approve staffing and Departmental clearance.’” (Johnson Library, Ball Papers, Disarmament, Box 3)
2. As more fully discussed in the attachment, the international entity could be given authority either over all Plowshare explosions (including presently lawful underground shots) or over only those explosions of the crater-making type that may violate the present Test Ban Treaty. The first alternative would have the advantages mentioned in the attachment. [Footnote in the source text.]
3. Not printed.
4. Printed from a copy that indicates Ball signed the original.