 DSDI is as possible today and one of the concerns that that we have is that by your own admission this is a 20-30 year process before it really bears fruit. Why so much publicity, so much investment in terms of both political and financial resources so early on this? Well the only thing I can say about technology and science is that yes it could be take that long but how many times have we seen the breakthroughs once you embark on a program of this kind where suddenly you have it at hand but however long it takes the possibility that there can be a defensive weapon there's never been an offensive weapon until the nuclear missile that has not given birth to a defense against it and now the only defense that we have are two sides sitting here with increasing numbers of these weapons saying that our defense is that if you blow us our people up we'll blow your people up. Well there's certainly a morality about this I can remember when the rules of warfare usually negotiated in Geneva protected non-combatants against war and against the threat of it that war would take place between the armed forces and we've departed a long way from that now when the principal weapon is one that whose main characteristic is it would be wiping out populations but to go on and think all right suppose it takes 20 years but then suppose for the next 20 years the world is sitting here with ever mounting piles of nuclear missiles aimed at each other isn't it worth it to see if we can't come up with a non-nuclear weapon that won't destroy people will prevent those weapons from reaching their targets and the goal would be to nullify them to destroy them before their warheads were separated out and in a non-nuclear way so that there wouldn't be any nuclear explosion there's been a lot of talk about when you first thought about or heard about this idea when when was that I know what it's kind of kind of amuses me that everybody is so sure I must have heard about it but I never thought of it myself and the truth is I did oh there's been talk I think there's a general conversational talk about things of this kind about what I said earlier that every weapon has a defensive weapon and then of course did the anti-ballistic missiles some years ago came on the scene and was ruled out I know too that some of our scientists were thinking in terms of a nuclear response in which a nuclear explosions from here that would then prevent the others from coming through and my one of my regular meetings with the chiefs of staff I brought up this subject about a defensive weapon and that every other weapon had always there had been a defensive weapon and I asked them I said isn't it possible in our modern technology today and all that we have been able to develop that it would be worthwhile to see if we could not develop a weapon that could perhaps take out as they left their silos those nuclear missiles and the joint chiefs said that such an idea they believe was worth researching but you had supposedly been thinking about this before you became president even when you were governor of California no this idea this latter idea came after I'd heard the other things and as I said been called upon by some of the scientists who were thinking in terms of nuclear explosions to destroy a nuclear explosion and this came to me actually the first time I ever voiced it I think was in that room in the cabinet room in there after we'd been had the meeting was coming toward the end of the meeting and when they so much did not you know look a gas to the idea and instead said yes they believe that such that such a thing offered possibility and should be researched and I gave the order I said go mr. mr. president when the first public announcement of the SDI came in a speech that was particularly harsh on Soviet behavior and recent Soviet behavior are you at all concerned that this will be read as a as a bargaining chip to be to be used in the current negotiations with the Soviet Union and future negotiations they will find out very quickly that it isn't because no what we're doing is not prevented by any treaty research there it is and even mr. Gromyko himself admitted not too long ago that research there's no one could could know whether you're researching or not there's no way to to prevent that we know that they've they've been on this kind of research themselves they've probably been at it for a while longer than we have but when I made that speech which when I by that time they hadn't wasted any time over defense they had started the research on this and had enough hopeful signs that that they were optimistic and and were continuing and so I thought the people ought to know again going back to the to the long timeframe for the development of these weapons many people have suggested that that will that in this interval the Soviets will take every advantage of the time to build up offensive weaponry to defeat such a system and that perhaps it's it will be destabilizing in the in the development here is you know all of this reminds me all these things I hear them and these protests about it and it reminds me of that wonderful cartoon not too long ago where the man was sitting watching the TV screen and from the TV the voice was coming out saying that it would never work that it was too expensive that you couldn't do it and his wife was just leaving the room passing through behind him and she said well then why don't the Russians want us to have it well no and let me say and this ties in with my previous answer also first of all I thought in speaking as quickly as I knew that actually research was going forward and there were legitimate scientists saying yes this is there is a potential here that the people ought to be given the hope that our people ought to know that there may be an answer other than just saying well if they slaughter us somebody will slaughter them both sides will blow each other up and I I felt a very necessary that they know that on this other thing first of all I've made it plain that if this research could develop or bring us to the knowledge that we had such a weapon that then I think it ought to be internationalized there's no intention for this ever to be viewed as giving us a first strike capacity I'd be the first one to say if we had such a weapon we don't need the offensive weapons and I would think that it would be very worthwhile if the other side the world had had this if the potential for the weapon is there and the research reveals that because I wouldn't want them to think that we were ever trying for a first strike I don't think there's an American alive that ever believes that this country would for some reason want to be the first to use nuclear weapons but they but they're not Americans the Soviets and they don't have our sensibilities why wouldn't they look at this and look at the technological perhaps superiority of the United States and be scared that we were going to use it for that device and that reason and use and build build up as many offensive weapons as they could in the meantime because there's another and a better answer and they themselves have voiced it we're going to Geneva and both Gromiko and Churnenko maybe others I don't know about them but at least these two on several occasions lately have said that their purpose their goal is the total elimination of nuclear weapons now we'll accept that goal and strive with them to meet that goal and seems to me that that this if it developed could be an aid in bringing that about just suppose that suppose today that we were able to say we have discovered a thing that now can make it very difficult if not impossible to get a nuclear weapon through to the target well then wouldn't you sit down in Geneva and say well there's just another reason why we ought to do away with these things well can I let's let's go to Geneva a second if if SDI research is not negotiable and is not a bargaining chip is the MX a bargaining chip is that why you're appealing to Congress and the country to give you the no the MX is not a bargaining chip in the sense of we need something to give away not at all this is a long overdue modernization and modernization in all of the treaties including the one not signed saw to has been recognized we are sitting here with our land based missiles outdated by anything and any can comparison with the Soviet Union they have come up with at least four new weapons systems all superior in accuracy and mega tonnage then our Minuteman missiles and as you know some years ago we even shut down the Minuteman assembly line we don't even have anything with which to build them so here is a weapon that is very definitely needed until and unless we come to a total elimination of weapons even if we came to a build down which we are going to optimistically hope we will on the way to the other elimination this modernization would certainly be in keeping with everything they've done they say they come up with at least four systems they're now testing a couple of additional ones so modernizing that is valid until we decide we don't need weapons at all so in the sense of a bargaining chip no but where it is valuable Geneva is if suddenly we're told by the Congress for example that we can't have this modernized weapon the fellas on the other side of the table who have already done their research who already have all these new weapon systems and some of them bigger more powerful certainly just as accurate with as many warheads as the MX they sit there and say why do we have to give up anything they have such a superiority so you would build the MX regardless of any agreement oh yes and the weapons that you would take out and reducing is just the same as they would do you take out the old voice so much confusion on this and people within your administration and certainly a lot of the people up on the hill seem absolutely convinced that this is a the MX is a bargaining chip oh no I I just say this about the MX I can't guarantee that if you that if we build the MX we will get the kind of a reduction agreement that we want but I I believe I can guarantee you that if we don't get it we won't get an agreement what is the incentive for the Soviet Union to destroy forces that they have in being if they can't trade we're going to go ahead with the MX no matter what and we're not willing to trade Star Wars research or Star Wars deployment or are we willing what are we willing to trade for a build-up of that on their side well as I say we're talking nothing but research and I have made it plain come deployment time if there is if the research yields such a weapon come deployment then you sit down you don't hoard it and say ah we're stronger than they are no you sit down and see how you can internationalize it and use it to further get rid of whatever nuclear weapons might remain why not research it with them from the beginning so that they have confidence that we're not concealing something from them well they're already dealing doing research as I say probably going further than we have and particle beam weapons lasers that sort of thing been very active at it isn't there the possibility that I don't know I'm not a scientist but what if they would use that research then instead to find out how to make offensive weapons impervious that could could defeat your defensive weapon if they are they are the country that they're the force that has revealed itself as expansionist we haven't shown any tendency to be that way we know Americans know that however they may fear us over there they may think that we're the other you know that we don't have any aggressive intentions of suddenly going after them with a weapon of this kind but at the other hand we have to look at their whole expansionist policy and say they constitute the threat as a matter of fact their own words there hasn't been a Russian leader yet who is not at some time or other confirmed that he is committed as they have always been to the world revolution the idea of the one-world communist state now can they blame us for sitting here saying we have to protect ourselves against you at various times in your speeches you have talked on the one hand about the the Soviet Union as the as the evil Empire on the other hand the this that the Soviet Union will end up on the ash heap of history is there any contradictions there are there any contradictions there or no because I've never thought of that from the standpoint of destroying them and leaving them in rubble no I have thought of it that the the desire in the soul of man more than any other as long as man has lived in this earth has been for freedom and I just can't believe that a system such as theirs can continue to hold its people and to hold other peoples in subjugation and that someday the people are going to say that hey there's a better way to do things this is my reference to that their their system has been tried and failed and the other things of calling the evil empire and everything that wasn't just done for words the sake of words I felt after all of the years of pursuing detente and detente was usually a one-way street never really became a two-way street unilateral disarmament hoping they would follow suit and they didn't they just grew stronger I thought it was necessary to let them know that we were looking at them realistically that we didn't have any illusions about that they would suddenly take off the wolf's clothing and put on sheepskins and that then and I think that it maybe has played a part in their willingness to come now and negotiate they know for once maybe for the first time they know that we're not going to sit here and let them go on piling up a massive advantage over us do you think that that Star Wars or you don't like the term Star Wars do you well no and I think I guess because it was first used in an effort to denigrate the whole idea but again Star Wars has a sound of that brings an image maybe from too many television shows or something but an image of destruction back and forth and I'm talking about a weapon non nuclear that as I say only destroys other weapons doesn't kill people right do you suppose that the expenditure that they would have to go through in order to build the defensive system of their own would be so onerous on their tottering economy that it could hasten the day of bringing them putting them on the ash heap of history well no because as I said I've never thought of using this weapon offensively and offense against them if their goal is really what they've said it was we'll meet their goal of the elimination of these of the nuclear weapons but I think what more it was was trying to get at is are we using this as an economic and a technological weapon as much as as a military device that by by forcing them to respond with a similar program that it could create serious economic problems as I say there's the potential of them not having to create it what if the weapon is such and so complete that you'd say look because you remember this we all know how to make nuclear missiles now you eliminate them by treaty you always have to wonder is someone sequestering a few away or since we know how to meet them could there have come a day down the road possible confrontation sometime of strain when somebody says hey let's let's turn out a few of these now if you have the defense weapon even though the others are supposed to be gone you don't have to fear whether your verification has been complete or whether someone down the road a latter-day Qaddafi or someone is going to say there's a weapon and if we make it we can you know the mouse that roared we can rule the world you've you've got a proof against that and I like to draw the parallel I mentioned gas earlier 1925 after World War one everybody met in Geneva and decided to outlaw poison gas no more poison gas in war but isn't funny everybody kept their gas masks they remain standard issue on all sides as military equipment and now today what has happened we have found that some countries do have it and have used it so the that's I feel a little bit if such a weapon as we're talking about can be developed that it would be like the gas mask it'd just be nice to have in case somebody got out the textbook out how you build a nuclear missile and built one someday is there anything in your experience with the Soviet Union that suggests to you that they will not try to build up offensively while we are researching Star Wars or that they will not try to match the SDI program oh I think they're trying to match it as I say I think they started ahead of us on that so which would be all the more reason than why we should have it if if we're right in our suspicions that they are expansionist and they have the they already outnumber us greatly in the offensive weapons and then they alone developed a defensive weapon before us then they wouldn't have to worry about our deterrent a retaliatory strike then they could issue the ultimatum to the world so if there's any thought of that then it would make it all the more necessary that we have a defensive weapon to how optimistic are you that that this Geneva process is actually going to lead to an agreement it's hard to be optimistic when you look back at the record there have been some 19 offers and efforts by ourselves since World War two to seek control of this including at one time to totally internationalize it and give it to everybody put it in the hands of an international group the open skies proposal of Eisenhower to open both countries up to complete inspection and all of these things and always the Soviet Union is resisted even when they didn't have it and we were when we had the monopoly but they evidently had seen what it could mean to them so they were going forward so it's hard to be optimistic on the other hand there are a couple of things that lead me to believe there's a possibility number one of their own words about voicing before they even get to the table this desire to rid ourselves one of them said to me just between the two of us he said can we go on forever sitting on these ever mountain rising mountains of weapons and I said no I know we start reducing the mountains and if we do it evenly and are still sitting on them we get down here the mountains aren't so big and we still are safe from each other so what leads me to believe there's hope is not the idea as I said before that too often in the past when we've said well if they understand how nice we are maybe they'll be nice to know you'll get an agreement when it is to their practical interest also all right we have announced our determination to not let them have the monopoly of power that they've been building they know they cannot match us industrially they sat there in World War 2 taking the horrible losses that they took before victory and they saw us in two oceans and two sides of the world fighting a war and we even had one the one line that contrary to things they they've said since when Stalin after the war said that without our industrial might without our help victory could not have been theirs well they've never admitted anything like that since but I think now that that could be the way in which they can say look if if we're faced with an ongoing arms race with the United States and they're already pretty much up to full capacity with how far down their people's subsistence level is and all that they could now see the practical value in saying well there is another way if we start reducing them instead of increasing them and this leads me to believe that possibly they can see the practicality of this and do it this brings me to mind there is another cartoon about this one and that was some time ago when the cartoon appeared of the two Russian generals and the one of them was saying to the other I like the arms race better when we were the only ones in it you want to do can we show one one in a Nicaragua if we say if you say that you want them to say uncle doesn't that practically mean that they are that they should give up power do it our way and and get themselves out of off if you were the president of you are the president of a country and somebody said that they wanted you to say uncle you think that they wanted to take you over why shouldn't they think that we want to topple well maybe maybe there was an unfortunate choice of words for what I was trying to say because it evidently has created a different image than I had in mind the questions had to do and was dealing with the pressure the military pressure from the conference which is certainly affecting their economy and we know that there is widespread dissatisfaction among the people we know that their their new increase in the draft has driven the families that can do it to getting their their young men their sons out of the country there is quite a traffic to Panama and from there then on to other places of these young men so that part that pressure and then with the the count of Dora and what they've been trying to impose on them or persuade them to adopt what I meant by the term wise that and it was also in a refutation of saying that we we want the overthrow of the government as such that like a coup that throws them out and treats them as they've treated others that know what we want is that they finally give in to saying we will restore the original goals of the revolution because the people the Contras are made up and led by revolutionaries who fought against Samoza and all they're saying is this isn't what we fought the revolution for and the total revolution put in writing to the organization of American states when they asked for their help they asked the OAS to persuade Samoza to step down and end the bloodshed and the OAS said well what you know what are your goals what do you want why should we help and they gave them the statement and it was pure democracy elections a pluralistic society free press free labor unions all of these things and the OAS asked Samoza to step down and Samoza did whatever else anyone may think of him he said if it will stop the bloodshed yes and he stepped down the revolution was over except that the Sandinistas then kept on with their own kind of revolution and gradually got rid of or gradually almost suddenly got rid of the other elements in the revolution that really wanted the democracy because the Sandinistas were communists to begin with and now they have a totalitarian government now here are the Contras here's a funny situation here in El Salvador is a democratic elected government that has tried repeatedly to negotiate with its guerrillas and say come in and participate in the elections be a part of the democratic process and the guerrillas won't over here in Nicaragua are the guerrillas and I prefer to call them freedom fighters who are saying to the government let us participate let us get back into the democratic process and it's the Sandinista government the totalitarian government says no we won't talk to you that's all I meant by uncle thank you very much