165. Notes of a Conversation1
1555/CH as notetaker/ G + P banter + argue as Shev ponders + S drafts to try to find a formula
P—were so close. may I suggest
G—a pt of substance. Mr. P draw yr attn.—our prop has such a wdg. after 10 yr pd the sides in negos wd find further must accept solutions in This field, That is, the ABM. Our prop allows us to take acct. of all positions as they [illegible] enough after 10 years. You, SDI: we don’t agree. We put something + y don’t agree.
- to sum up. 10 yr pd w two sides not w/d [illegible]. Can conduct lab research. After 10, during 10, we complete elim all stratg wpons.
P—If both elim. nucl wpons, why a concern if one side wants to build def syst just in case? Are y considering starting up ag After 10 yrs again w wpns? I have a diff picture. I have a pic after 10 yrs, yo + I come to Iceland each bring the last 2 missiles in the world + we have the biggest damn party in celebration.
G—Mr. P we close to mut. accep formula Don’t think we have evil designs, we don’t.
P—a mtg in Iceland in 10 yrs. Ill be so old y wont recog me. I’ll say M. you’ll say Ron? + we’ll destroy the 2.
G—I may not be lvg after these 10
P—I’ll count on it.
G—Now y can go smoothly to 100, you passed the tough period. I’m just entering it. Beyond that, I’ll have burden of having gone thru all these mtg w P who doesn’t like concessions, He wants to be a winner. We must both be winners.
P—I can’t live to 100 worrying you’ll shoot one of those m. at me.
[Page 737]- 50%—we both got it. You told yr people 10 yrs + y got it. I told my people I wdnt give up SDI. So I have to go home showing I haven’t. Our people will cheer that we got rid of the missiles.
G. well, what can say about r + t in lab constitutes basis + opp for y to go on w/I [illegible] of SDI. So y have not renounced SDI on yr side
—I am conv. oppo of sit where is a winner + loser in our mtg. If that case, then after agrt + ratify, the loser wd take steps to undermine the agrmt. So that cant be basis. Has to be eq. footing. Otherwise you can say agrmt in keeping of US + I cant say its in int of USSR So docs shd be deserving of ratif if in int of both sides.
P—Whats wrong w going by this + then say R, dev of + +g permitted by ABM—we reserved that for our mtg in the summer Then testing—we then cd disc whether it under ABM prov.
TS returns
- Source: Reagan Library, Charles Hill Papers, Charles Hill Notebooks, entry for October 12, 1986. No classification marking. Drafted by Hill. The editor transcribed the portion of the text here specifically for this volume. An image of the notes is Appendix G.↩