 Did you? Yes, sir. All right. We asked to visit a little bit this morning, just now. This is something our island feels very strongly about, and I indicated that we have supporters of our plan on both sides of the island. We have opponents of our plan on both sides of the island. Hopefully, we've got common goals and have regional people differ a little bit on the method of getting there. Yes, I think there's no disagreement about the restriction of weapons or what it will do for peace. We only have a disagreement about which is the proper method, and I think that if you'll forgive me, having access to a lot of information that you can't possibly have access to, I think there's some substantial reason for our feelings. May I ask you a question? Why don't we come in and sit down for a minute? All right. Very simply, as I can put it, the Soviet Union has, and from the very beginning, been building and modernizing a nuclear force which is totally offensive in nature. It isn't something you use to defend yourself with. This is one of the few weapons that has ever been come along in the history of man, and so far it doesn't really have a defensive weapon. You know, someone invented a tank, and a tank had a free day for a while and more, and then someone invented a anti-tank weapon. This doesn't exist today with this weapon. The only thing we've had is deterrence. In other words, to match them with a weapon and say, look, if you do it, we'll have to do it, and is the danger to the other side acceptable enough for them to take the chance? I don't think there's any question, but the United States has never considered ever using this as a first strike weapon. And therefore, if they are, they've got to think of what they do it. Now, in recent years, over more than a decade, the United States did follow a policy of believing that well, if we unilaterally held back, if we did things like canceling the B-1 bomber and so forth, that maybe they would see that there was no, that we didn't want to threaten them, and that they would join us in a more peaceful relationship. They didn't. They have at least five new generations of nuclear weapons, and they're continuing to test more to the extent that they today, targeting arm missiles in their silos, have such an overwhelming superiority in explosive power and in numbers that they could send six warheads at every silo, every weapon of ours. Our weapons, on the other hand, average about 20 years old. They don't have the accuracy, they don't have the explosive power to be a threat. Now, the whole thing in a strategy of a first strike of the Soviet Union, we're going to do that, is that they have enough left to counter our, let's say, submarine-based missiles so that they could say to us, all right, if you try to counter now that we've destroyed your missiles with all of these, we can blow your cities off the map. Since we started to really refurbish our military machine and let them know we were not going to sit here defenseless and unilaterally disarm, they have come to the table to meet us because this may be hard for you to believe, but I want and I campaigned on, above all, not arms limitations that said, well, both sides can have them, but we can't build them any faster than a certain level and so forth. No, I want reduction of those weapons, and my dream is that once we start reduction, maybe the other side will see that the smartest thing for all of us is to get rid of all of them, both sides have rid the world of them. Now, in order to get them to the table, they have to have some reason, something that's of value to them. Now, when we say we're going to build this Mx missile, which isn't even as powerful as their latest missiles, but still is powerful enough, they have come to realize that we have the willpower to build our defenses to the point of being able to, what? No, we stopped short of that. This was why the commission, bipartisan commission, settled in 100. 50 would have been a token and not enough. 200 could have looked like, oh, maybe the United States is getting ready itself, then this would have been destabilizing. This still leaves us inferior to them, but we have three disarmament meetings going right now with the Soviet Union, which is very unusual. Now, let me just remind you of something. After World War II, we were the only country that had those weapons. No one else had them. We didn't bully the world. We didn't say, hey, look what we've got, now roll over. But in 1946, the United States having monopoly at the time, but knowing that other countries could have them. Everybody knows the science of it. The United States asked the Soviet Union to join in the total elimination of all such weapons. And then the putting of peaceful nuclear energy in the hands of an international commission that could then regulate the development of peaceful nuclear power all over the world, with the female threat of someone quietly or secretly building such weapons. The Soviets refused. In 1955, nine years later, President Eisenhower said to the Soviet Union, who had begun to build? Said to the Soviet Union, let us have an open skies policy to make sure that no nation is setting out to attack or destroy another. Complete openness and verification and ability for them to fly over our military installations, us to fly over theirs, they refused. And that's been the history ever since World War II. Now, our three, one has to do with conventional weapons going on in Vienna to see if we can't reduce the size of armies in Europe and so forth. The other one has to do with the free-range weapons that the Soviet Union has in Europe, aimed at our European allies, and we have none on our side. Now, NATO asks us if we would provide a missile called the Pershing Missile as a deterrent to their use of this other one. Their weapons, if they push the button, will hit every target in Europe in five minutes. We have a missile called the Pershing which we have agreed with NATO that we will install there. At the same time, though, I ask the Soviets to meet with us in negotiations to totally eliminate those intermediate-range weapons. If they would eliminate theirs, we won't install ours. They refused to listen to that, so we made a counter-proposal. We said, all right, you meet us on a discussion of reducing the numbers in the size of those weapons, and they are meeting us on that, and they're meeting us simply because we're going to deploy. Now, it was with the announcement of the Mx missile that they agreed to meet at our invitation in what we call the start talks, which is to reduce the numbers of strategic weapons that are aimed at both sides. But this card, I just had something I came across this and I wrote it on this card because I want to be able to keep it because the Soviet propaganda that we, some way, might be the most aggressive. This is a quotation from one of their military publications that they write for themselves. On the communist side, nuclear war will be lawful and just. The natural right and sacred duty of progressive mankind to destroy imperialism. It will resolve not specific limited political interests, but a crucial historical problem one that affects the fate of all mankind. In other words, there is their declaration that they do believe in the use of nuclear war to further their aims of progressive government. There is no such statement I think what you've been explaining to me is the way that we're using a very dangerous and expensive and terrifying weapon as a bargaining chip for arms control. And I don't believe that that. I think it's like I've just been said so many times, but it's like our welly and devil speak if we believe that a weapon can be used to building a weapon can be used to reduce then our logic is just being turned upside down. It's terrifying to me because we're building a hundred now but we agree that those hundred missiles have no enough of that it would have stopped the Stokehouse mission if it had 240. There's no way that once it stops, it won't take long. And I believe that right now before we develop its first strike capacity which is completely changing our view of war, maybe they've changed it already but until we invite them to completely stop building these weapons and the numbers can be used on either side. I have millions of charts that will show that we have our heads and therefore and that are submarine based missiles are completely invulnerable to attack. So I think that the numbers are tools and the important thing to realize is that if we cut down by 95%, we still have weapons to blow up everyone and we have to stop thinking of the Russians as someone as people that we can't trust. Of course they want to spread economies into the world but we want to spread capitalism to the world otherwise we wouldn't be in El Salvador and in Iraq. But if we ever don't know we are trying to protect a duly elected democratic government in El Salvador the first one they've had in more than half a century from actually Soviet backed who do not want that kind of democracy to succeed. And I have those charts you're talking about and I have to tell you they are absolutely foamy. Now you have to recognize one thing only a man in the office that I'm in has access to all the information and the deterrent idea that we not would attack but that we have enough retaliatory power to make damage unacceptable to them if they should attack has for almost 40 years a longer period than there's ever been peace in this century or more in Europe has kept peace among the European nations the only force that's been used has been used by the Soviet Union against its own satellite powers which it conquered and in violation of its agreement after World War II has kept enslaved you speak about trust what about the people of Afghanistan what about the fact that there is an international agreement that no nation will use chemical warfare or poison gas but they are using it against the villagers the men women and children in villages in Afghanistan they have the irrefutable proof and evidence of this their spreading of their philosophy is done at the point of a gun and is done by violence there's a different thing for us with economic aid and no nation in the world has ever matched it to try and bring a better living to other people we don't order them capitalism we show them the benefits of allowing the people free rule as we have in any democracy and we've never we've never shut off the money if they didn't heed that no nation on earth has ever done as much as we've done economically to try and benefit the lesser developed countries and the poorer nations of the world as I say we have kept peace with this theory of deterrence but now it is the united states that has said let us both sides reduce these weapons you said our submarines are invulnerable the soviets have been building nuclear submarines and nuclear capable submarines at a much faster rate than we have they built 60 over the recent years while we were building one because they had so many more what? because they had so many more no we didn't and we don't have so many more missiles we can't hit them with six warheads to each missile silo but let me give you another thing that they have they have perfected a system whereby when they fire a missile out of one of their silos they can reload that silo with another missile just like you reload a shotgun when we fire one out of our missiles that's all for that silo when the missile goes off it blows that silo into non usability and so we don't know how many missiles over and above the ones they have in their silos which are superior to ours and the number of warheads they have we don't know how many missiles they've got stored away in warehouses that can then reload all those silos but so far we have been able to maintain a deterrent force enough that they have not delivered an ultimatum or aggressively used their weapons the only trouble was they have been building so fast and so many that we had what I called a window of vulnerability in that we were losing our deterrent capacity that they could afford a first strike and know that we couldn't hit them back and this is the reason for the hundred missiles it's just something to think about I know that we haven't time to debate it fully but I do want to caution you one thing I also know the source of many of those charts that people like yourself have been provided with my own daughter we have this same debate she would be a signer of your petition but as I say I also know and have the knowledge of where those come from they are absolutely untrue the Scowcroft Commission came up with the conclusion that the Soviets are not ahead that there is a rough parity right now between our forces of course they have so many things we don't have but I think that it's dangerous to speak of strategies of war of windows of vulnerability I think that sometime enough will be enough I don't know if you read Jonathan Schell's fate of the earth who? Jonathan Schell's fate of the earth but what will happen when we go through the five year plan and we have first strike capacity and they have first strike capacity and we are both forced into going to seek the first strike capacity well the mxmiss will give us the first strike capacity no it won't and incidentally their silos are also so hardened that we militarily know that the bulk of our missiles are ineffective against their silos that we could shoot them and they could still open their silos in fact because we wouldn't have damaged their silos or put them out of operation no you're forgetting the other track the skokrov commission has a two track policy that we modernize so that we still have a deterrent in which we can have confidence but at the same time we proceed on the effort to get both sides to reduce the number of weapons and and one isn't any good without the other and we are pursuing that and for the first time I don't want to be too optimistic but for the first time the Soviets have actually in their one negotiation suggested a lower figure on the number of missiles that presently exist for themselves we wanted a much lower figure than that but we're bargaining with them so we may have to agree to disagree on two points because we're going to have to get her out to the ceremony and we've got another meeting may I ask one question if we do