Strategic defense initiative - transcript

US Department of State Bulletin, June, 1985 by Robert C. McFarlane

* The next myth is that the United States is upsetting an agreed philosophy of "mutual assured destruction," upon which strategic stability allegedly rests. I hope I have exploded that myth already today by describing the destabilizing march of the Soviet strategic buildup and the ever-expanding shielding of their forces and leadership from "assured destruction." A U.S.-Soviet comparison of the investment in so-called passive defense of the shielding of populations and economic base from nuclear attack is simply not possible. So large is the Soviet effort and so minimal is our own that the ratio approaches absurdity. The civil defense preparations are enormous. Our own small efforts show we in the West have great difficulty even conceiving of life after a nuclear war.

* Third, the Soviet Union contends that SDI will be destabilizing. Their stated apprehension over the demise of a stable deterrent is ironic. The United States is heavily involved in diplomatic and private consultations as it ponders the accelerating developments in strategic defense which hold promise for strengthening deterrence in the future. As I stated earlier, strategic defensive options must also strengthen stability, or they will not be considered. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, continued to develop and deploy a new generation of strategic offensive ballistic missiles and expand their already considerabl defensive capabilities. They have consulted with no one and feel they should answer to no one, as they further upset a stable balance in pursuit of their own internal needs.

* The last myth is that the Strategic Defense Initiative will complicate the arms control process. The truth is that it was the Strategic Defense Initiative, combined with the demonstrated resolve of the Western allies to modernize their strategic deterrent, which brought the Soviet Union back to the negotiating table. There is mounting evidence that defensive technologies offer real hope of reducing the need for offensive nuclear arsenals in the future. To engage in talks aimed at controlling arms without discussing what may prove to be the best tool to aid the effort is to trivialize the whole process. President Reagan is committed to serious and substantive progress in reducing the size of existing nuclear arsenals and enhancing security and stability. His acceptance of the moral challenge to explore all means available to achieve this end is essential.

To close, let me say once again that the Strategic Defense Initiative is a prudent and moral response to continuing Soviet actions which threated world stability and security. SDI is a research program wholly within the limits of the ABM Treaty. This research is designed to explore the feasibility of strategic defense, given new technologies now available to the defense community. SDI seeks answers to those questions that peaceful nations must aks. If we are to keep the balance which guarantees peace, we can do no less.