162. Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs (McNaughton) to Secretary of Defense McNamara1
SUBJECT
- Discussions on Nonproliferation Treaty
I understand that Secretary Rusk has prepared a Memorandum for the President on a nonproliferation treaty which he hopes he may be able to discuss with you and the President some time this weekend, possibly this afternoon (Saturday).2
[Page 395]Attached (Tab A) is Article I, recommended and drafted by Secretary Rusk.
Tab B is a short summary of the events leading to this draft.
Comments on Presidential Memorandum
The memorandum advises the President that this formulation:
- 1.
- Would not disturb existing arrangements.
- 2.
- Would not affect NATO’s decision to go to war, or the establishment of any NATO nuclear planning committee.
- 3.
- Would not prevent assignment of additional Polaris or other US weapons to NATO.
- 4.
- Would not rule out the establishment of a multilateral entity in which non-nuclear weapon states participated and contributed so long as this entity did not obtain ownership of the warheads.
- 5.
- Would not bar succession by a federated European state to the nuclear status of one of its former components.
Note:—The ownership question is implicit, not explicit.
Recommendation
I recommend you support the Rusk memorandum.
- Source: Washington National Records Center, RG 330, OSD Files: FRC 70 A 4443, 388.3, Non-Proliferation, September, 1966. Secret. The source text bears the stamped indicator, “15 Oct 1966, Sec Def has seen.”↩
- No record of the proposed memorandum for the President or of the discussion under reference has been found.↩
- Secret.↩
- In a telephone call to President Johnson in the early evening of
October 16, McNamara
mentioned that on the previous day he and Secretary Rusk had given him a paragraph on
non-proliferation for the President’s approval. President Johnson believed, however, that
Secretary Rusk had said that
he was going to prepare a paper giving the arguments for and against
the paragraph. The President then read this paragraph, which he had
in front of him. McNamara
twice told him that the key sentence concerned the provision
restricting the transfer of collective ownership of the warhead.
When the President asked what the Germans will think, McNamara said that they will grumble. McNamara continued that he and Rusk favored the paragraph but thought Robert Bowie, Department of State Counselor, was opposed. As for the Soviets, it was not the language Gromyko had proposed, “but we think there’s a reasonable chance they’ll either accept this or suggest a relatively minor modification of it.” The President said he wanted a memorandum from Secretary Rusk giving the pros and cons of the language, and McNamara said he would speak to Rusk about it. (Johnson Library, Records and Transcripts, Recording of Telephone Conversation between President Johnson and Robert McNamara, October 16, 1966, 7:03 p.m., Tape F66.29, Side A)
In a telephone conversation with Secretary Rusk a few minutes later, President Johnson inquired about the non-proliferation memorandum, and the Secretary responded that he would have it for the President to read on the plane the next day. (The President was going to give a speech in Doylestown, Pennsylvania.) He also said he favored the language, but there was “not one chance in a hundred that the Soviets will buy it.” In reply to the President’s question about Bowie’s position, Rusk said that Bowie was for it too and had helped to draft it. “Well, OK, that’s fine then,” replied President Johnson. “If you’re for it, you give me the memo and I’ll try to decide.” (Ibid., Recording of Telephone Conversation between President Johnson and Dean Rusk, October 16, 1966, 7:14 p.m., Tape F66.29, Side A) This memorandum has not been found, but in an October 18 memorandum to the President, Rostow presented in some detail the pros and cons on the non-proliferation language. (Ibid., National Security File, Rostow Files, Non-Proliferation, Box 11)
↩ - Secret.↩
- Reference presumably is to Section 92 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; 42 USC 2122.↩
- Not found.↩
- No record of this meeting has been found.↩
- Not the one attached (it included the word “ownership”). [Handwritten footnote on the source text.]↩