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

136. Memorandum for the Files¹

Washington, June 9, 1966.

SUBJECT

• NSC Meeting, June 9, 1966

The President made an introductory statement apparently written for him by Rostow recognizing the urgency of some action in connection with the possibility of India making a decision to go nuclear. In those remarks he stated that this had great significance for the United States and the world and might, if India made such a decision, promote great instability in view of the fact that others would undoubtedly follow. He then called upon George Ball.

Mr. Ball made an excellent statement based largely on the paper,² but going beyond that in setting a framework of actions which needed to be taken, both in the way of creating obstacles against India taking the step, and in addition creating conditions which would encourage her to believe her security would be all right without taking the step. He listed alternatives which would act as obstacles such as the non-proliferation treaty, comprehensive test ban treaty and the threshold treaty, stating that the comprehensive test ban would be ideal in that it was nondiscriminatory but that in the circumstance of the difficulties concerning verification he felt that the threshold test ban treaty was a good step even though it did not assuredly prevent their going nuclear. It would, however, impose considerable restraint. He called attention to the rising price which India was implying it would need in order to accept a non-proliferation treaty. He pointed out the discussions we had had with the Soviet Union on assurances by both the Soviet Union and ourselves, and indicated his feeling that under present circumstances at least it would be impossible to get the Soviets to take a position so clearly in opposition to the Chinese. He gave support to the possibility of a General Assembly resolution which was later supported vigorously as apparently the answer to all problems by Ambassador Goldberg.

The President, following George Ball’s presentation, called on Ambassador Goldberg and then on Bob McNamara. McNamara said that he would differ with Ball’s conclusions on the ideal solution, but his differences were matters of degree and generally he supported the principles set forth by Under Secretary Ball. Ambassador Goldberg referred to the General Assembly resolution as having been premature last fall,³ but he believed that it was much more possible now in view of the apparent willingness of the Soviet Union to use the General Assembly for the new space proposals.

The President, following comments by those three asked what Mr. Ball’s recommendations were. Mr. Ball recommended that there be a study which would be concluded within a month to make more precise the exact lines of action to be taken. Mr. McNamara supported that. The President said he thought this was all right. I asked to be heard at this point and said that I had no objection to this, certainly, except as a matter of timing since there was already a good deal of data on this and that in fact there would be a meeting of the Committee of Principals next week to consider one or more of the suggestions which had been made. My feeling of urgency was occasioned by the fact that the ENDC was opening next Tuesday.⁴ It would last, presumably from 8 to 12 weeks, and I felt that it was essential that some proposals be put forward by the United States early in that period, otherwise no action could occur and the value of the ENDC might vanish. I felt that in the circumstances it should be possible to come up with conclusions within two weeks for decision by the President. Unfortunately, the President is apparently planning on a long weekend over the Fourth, so this probably puts it over until the Fourth. In any event, the conclusion of the meeting was that there would be a NSAM referring to State, DOD and ACDA the job of coming up with recommendations following this discussion.

The Vice President indicated quite surprisingly that he thought India could have credible nuclear explosions and some capability for the expenditure of perhaps $50 million in addition to past expenditures. He appeared to be somewhat less than enthusiastic about a threshold test ban treaty and felt that the comprehensive treaty was the best solution. I did not disagree with him on this, but told him that we were concerned with the art of the possible and the only thing that appeared possible is the threshold test ban treaty.

Incidentally, Hornig should be talked to by Pete Scoville because Hornig believes that many of the non-nuclear nations would be able to have an initial test up to 50 kilotons under the threshold test ban treaty by proper utilization of the many sources of alluvium throughout the world. I disagreed with this after the meeting and told him that I would have Pete talk to him.

Under the circumstances, I think we got as much out of the meeting as it was possible to get.

Leonard Marks brought up the question of next Tuesday being the 20th Anniversary of the Baruch presentation⁵ and thought that the United States should use the occasion to call for a major restudy of the problems of proliferation. The study should take place under the auspices of scholars from the academic as well as the government field. There was no response to this suggestion.

I do feel we must make some note of the Baruch anniversary in our opening statement at Geneva even though we are unable to accompany it with any dramatic proposals.

William C. Foster

1. Source: Washington National Records Center, RG 383, ACDA/DD Files:FRC 77 A 32, National Security Council. Secret; Exdis.
2. The paper has not been further identified.
3. The U.N. resolution has not been further identified.
4. The Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee met in Geneva June 14-August 25.
5. See footnote 5, Document 97.