183. Memorandum From the Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (Smith) to the President’s Assistant for National Security Affairs (Kissinger)1 2
Subject:
- U.S. Policy on Toxins
After considering the report submitted to you under NSSM 85, I recommend Option III—renouncing the use of toxins regardless of their method of production and confining our toxin program to research and development for defensive purposes only and to protect against technological surprise.
This recommendation is based on my conclusion that the case for developing a retaliatory capability with toxins (in addition to current and planned lethal chemical agents) is not persuasive, while the domestic and international political costs involved are incommensurately high. Specifically, preserving the option to do so would seriously undermine the favorable impact, and even the credibility, of your November 25 announcements; increase the difficulty of winning international support for the UK Draft Convention; and create serious difficulties in connection with our ratification of the Geneva Protocol. Moreover, there is some risk that such an indication of U.S. interest in the military utility of toxins would stimulate further interest in them by other countries.
I do not believe that renunciation of the use of synthesized toxins would affect our ability to insist on treating biological methods of warfare separately [Page 2] from chemical warfare in arms control negotiations. Nor do I think it would impair our ability to insist on such verification requirements as we may deem necessary for an agreement relating to other chemical warfare agents.
- Source: National Archives, Nixon Presidential Materials, NSC Files, NSC Institutional Files (H-Files), Box H–26, NSC Meeting 2/11/70, Policy on Toxins. Secret.↩
- Smith recommended Option III in the NSSM 85 report on toxin policy, renouncing the use of toxins and confining development to defensive purposes. Smith argued the other two options could incur potentially high political costs by undermining the President’s November 25 announcement and that the prohibition of synthesized toxins would not impede upon U.S. security interests enough to outweigh the prospective damage to the U.S. reputation in the international community.↩