 Well, I had had time to consider the possibility, because the first word we got was the disappearance of the plane, and the possibility that they had simply ordered it down or forced it down on their own airstrip, and then came the word of the possibility that it had been shot down. So as I say, I had time to think about that. There was still something of disbelief when the final word came that it had been shot down. It's pretty hard to believe, even though I don't think I've ever been naive about the Soviet Union and their philosophy, it was still difficult to believe that anyone could do that. And as the evidence developed, the close contact that they'd had, the knowledge that could not be hidden, that it was a civilian airline, it was shock, it was repulsion, it was horror, it was anger. What was your first impulse in so far as what you should do about it? Well, we began consulting immediately about this. Obviously, you're tempted to think vengeance, as I said in the air the other night, but there's no way you can revenge such a thing. There it is. It's very difficult to find anything you can do that matches the enormity of what they have done. But vengeance could only be ignored as responding to people who weren't responsible for that. In other words, you would be doing something in the same nature of what they themselves have done. You just hurt someone on the other side because of the terrible hurt that they had administered. There was no way to particularly get the bills that were guilty. You find that there is a great limit on what you can do. You can do some things for short term public relations advantage, do things that shows your own feeling about this. But what you have to look for is what can you do first of all to get restitution for the families of the victims? What can you do to see that this never happened again? So that's your answer in effect to those who say you should have acted in a much tougher fashion, somehow penalizing Moscow for what you call a massacre. Your answer is that there are these practical limits. Yes, because I've noticed that many of the people that are sounding off at great time, being very vocal about this, in many instances they don't suggest what those things would be that I could do. And if they do, they suggest things that are so obvious that they were the first things we thought of and ruled out for equally obvious reasons. So just canceling the newly signed, the grain agreement, things of that nature? Yes, we've had experience with that before that it didn't work. And it not only didn't work but if there was any penalty it was against our own people more than against them because they have once proven that that grain is accessible to the many places else. Did you say there were things of that kind that we considered very seriously but ruled out there were another number of other things that could show your displeasure but that simply they could respond with retaliation of the same kind, things in the field of diplomacy. So we have settled on those things that we think offer an opportunity, first of all to get restitution as I said, the most important thing. And those things that can lead to changes in international regulations to make it impossible for such a thing to take place anymore. So you never really seriously considered scrubbing iron heaven star, or suspending iron heaven star? No, because here again these are things that we're seeking because this is a dangerous world and they constitute the bulk of that danger in the world. And therefore an act of this kind reveals how easily there could be an accidental starting of conflict. And I think that it is important that we work as hard as we can to reduce the threat hanging over the world which is contained in the present imbalance of weaponry and their superiority in that weaponry. Since just each Monday night the Soviet Union has responded with invective, asserting that it had a right to do what it did, blaming the US for what happened. What do you do next? Well, their very attitude, first of all in doing it, then their very attitude in lying and in trying to blame someplace else for their inhumane act is just further proof of the difference that exists between their outlook, their philosophy and what we have, and we've always described that outlook, it just emphasizes the importance of continuing to seek a peace and a settlement but doing it with the recognition of that difference. There are too many people that here before have sort of seen the Soviets in a mirror image of ourselves thinking that they think like us and that therefore we ought to be able to get along better and I think this has led to some of the criticisms of my statements and attitudes in the past. Well, I believe there must be many people today who now have a different view and who recognize that while you can't just break off and ignore them because of the danger in the world, you have to deal with them with the knowledge of how they think and what they are. But in a specific situation in the aftermath of the airline thing, have you sort of run out of options, run out of new things, have you sort of let nature take its course with our allies? Oh no, no, we think also and we are working very hard to work with our allies on this because this is not a contest between the Soviet Union and the United States. This is the Soviet Union against the world. There are very many countries in the world that can possibly condone an act of this kind. Before the shoot down there had been a number of conciliatory gestures between Washington and Moscow. There was also a good deal of speculation that these accommodations on a number of items, grand sales, other things, could well lead to a Reagan and drop off summit in 1984. In the light of the most recent events, do you see any chance now for a summit between you and Mr. Andropov and the foreseeable future? I will never rule that out. If a summit, if it can be established and I could be convinced in my mind that a summit can be beneficial to our security, to the United States, to the free world, then such a summit should take place. What would it take to convince you of that? That's difficult for me right now to envision one in the present climate in view of their complete intransigence. We've seen an example in the meetings in Madrid between the foreign minister Bruminko and Secretary of State Schultz and obviously nothing can be accomplished in the face of such an attitude, but that doesn't rule out the possibilities. I say if it can be shown that such a meeting would bear results that would be of benefit to our security, to the United Free World, yes. At the time of your election, you said you believed in the linkage concept specifically on quoting your words now. There has to be a linkage between arms control and other areas of difference. Yet both in the Polish crisis and the present situation there has been no linkage. Arms control negotiations are going ahead and we're doing business with them in other ways. What made you change your view on that specific linkage concept? I didn't change my view, but once you're in this position you find that you can have channels on those other subjects. In other words, while arms negotiations are going on, you are moving on these other subjects and the Soviet government is well aware of your position and your attitude on them. So that has been going forward and while some have suggested that it is kind of an attempt to thaw the relationship, it has been done in the context of what I've always said about them. What I recognize is their approach to international matters. So it isn't one of thinking, oh maybe if we talk nice enough they'll be nice too. It's one of dealing in practicalities. Issue by issue? Yes. When you realize that the Soviets still occupy Afghanistan, Poland is still suppressed, Russian money and surrogate still cause mischief in different places. Don't you get very pessimistic about the chances of any economic or diplomatic measures that the West could take that would make Moscow change its behavior in these instances? Well this is one of the reasons why strength is so important for us. It isn't a case of, as I say, softening them or making them say, oh this is a bad thing we're doing, we shouldn't do it anymore. It is a case of viewing them as having an imperialistic approach to the world and to implanting their real life throughout the world and aren't demonstrating to them that the price will be terribly high if they try to deal by force, but too high for them to ever succeed. But this demonstration doesn't really apply to the little things, ultimately, the regional things throughout Afghanistan. Yes, it does in a way. What it is based on is trying to indicate to them that there is possibly a better life for them if they will review their own aggressive approach to the rest of the world. Thank you very much. Perfect. I got that. I got the body language.