Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XI, Arms Control and Disarmament

126. Memorandum From the Acting Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (Fisher) to President Johnson¹

Washington, May 2, 1966.

SUBJECT

• Suggested Letter to Mr. Kosygin on a Truce in the Deployment of Offensive Strategic Missiles and Antiballistic Missile Launchers (S)

Enclosed for your consideration is a draft letter to Mr. Kosygin setting forth a proposal for an eighteen-month halt in the construction of fixed land-based strategic offensive missile launchers and antiballistic missile launchers.² The proposal could be adequately verified by our respective national capabilities to satisfy both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. that the national security of our countries was not being adversely affected by action taken contrary to its terms. It, therefore, would not require negotiation of the complex arrangements for formal international verification.

You will recall that last January 4 Mr. Foster suggested for your consideration the possibility of including a similar proposal either in your State of the Union Message or in a private letter to Soviet leaders. It was decided at that time that the matter was more appropriate for a private letter than a public speech but no private communication was dispatched because of a feeling that it might confuse the discussion of the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons which had become the subject of private correspondence between you and the Soviet leadership on January 11.³

I believe the present time is appropriate for resuming the consideration of a letter from you to the Soviet leadership making such a proposal. Such a letter would be a logical follow-up of the discussions on the problem of strategic nuclear vehicles which Secretary Rusk and Mr. Foster had with Ambassador Dobrynin prior to his departure for Moscow. A letter from you would assure such a proposal the appropriate careful consideration by the Soviet leadership.

We would of course wish to review the letter should Ambassador Dobrynin, upon his return from Moscow, raise any matters relating to this subject. But with this caveat in mind, I believe it would be worthwhile to proceed now with the appropriate consideration of this subject within the government.

I believe that such a proposal would clearly be to the net advantage of the U.S. in terms of relative ratios of forces. Nevertheless, there may well be serious interest in such a proposal on the part of the Soviet leaders. It might well afford a rationale for Soviet leaders to forego an extensive Soviet ABM program, which would result in an economic payoff for the Soviet Union in terms of decreased expenditures. Such an undertaking would also involve the promise of possible future reductions in defense spending. In addition, the political consequences of such an arrangement may be sufficiently attractive to induce serious consideration of the proposal by Soviet leaders. And finally, at a minimum, it would open up a dialogue at the highest level, something that seems particularly needed at this time if we are to move towards a greater meeting of minds upon practical methods of curbing the arms race.

This proposal has not been coordinated within the Government although it takes into account some of the views expressed within the Government when the earlier suggestion was made by Mr. Foster in January. It will, of course, be advisable to have the discussions of the problem presented by this memorandum, including the problem of what allied consultation should be held, before sending a letter of this kind.

A back-up study which supports the proposal in the draft letter is attached.⁴

Against the possibility that you might wish to consider this matter further, I have taken the liberty of sending copies of this memorandum and its enclosures to Secretaries Rusk and McNamara with a request for their comments on the draft letter. If you think the suggestion has merit, it might be appropriate to hold a meeting at which the appropriate advisers would discuss the draft letter with you.

Adrian S. Fisher

1. Source: Department of State,S/S Files: Lot 70 D 217, ACDA A-Z 1966. Top Secret. A May 2 cover memorandum from Adrian S. Fisher to Secretary of State Rusk states that he is sending the memorandum to the President, as well as to Secretary of Defense McNamara, and he asks for Rusk’s comments on the draft letter to Chairman Kosygin. No record of Rusk’s comments or of the dispatch of the letter to Kosygin has been found. In a memorandum to Rusk of May 2, Ambassador at Large Thompson opposed this initiative, partly because it was unlikely to draw a constructive response from the Soviets. (Ibid.) In a memorandum to Rostow, May 2, Spurgeon M. Keeny, Jr., suggested that they not send the proposal to the President until they got McNamara’s and Rusk’s reactions. (Johnson Library, National Security File, Rostow Files, Kosygin, Box 10)
2. Not printed.
3. Document 108.
4. Not found.