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

182. Message From the Embassy in the Soviet Union to the Department of State¹

Moscow, February 18, 1967.

SUBJECT

• On Kosygin—ABM’s²

1. I raised the ABM question by recalling our proposal for talks about ABM’s and delivery vehicles, such as ICBM’s,³ noting it had been made in hope that arrangements could be worked out to stop armaments race in this most expensive area. Of course, if we had to install an ABM system we would be capable of doing so as well as USSR could. We had spent four billion dollars on research in anti-missile defense, about half of it on ABM research. While no one knew exactly how much a full system would cost, there were estimates that up to 40-50 billion dollars would have to be spent on a system covering entire country. Yet we believed that by time U.S. finished installing its system and USSR took steps it could take in this area, both sides would be where they had started from in terms of their security. While President subject to great deal of pressure from some military men, manufacturers and Congressmen to go ahead with ABM’s, he resisting that pressure in hope that two sides could find way of avoiding another step in arms race. Noting that one of major difficulties in arms control discussions had been question of inspection, I pointed out that we now prepared to rely, to extent possible, on national means of verification. As to our ABM research, it had been successful and we had developed a good system, but we believed that installation by U.S. and USSR of such systems would be destabilizing not only as far as these two countries concerned but also would raise problems in world generally.

2. Kosygin responded by saying he would not put problem in context in which I had placed it. Question was not that of whose system better and whose worse. He could not agree to a discussion of problem in this framework. If two sides wanted discuss this problem, it was important to establish confidence. He did not have good knowledge of U.S. system, and neither did I know well about Soviet system. As far as he was concerned, perhaps U.S. system hundred times better than Soviet one. He said he wanted to stress that he regarded President’s proposal from an entirely different standpoint, i.e., he believed that President wanted to have serious discussions of how arms race and related expenditures could be curbed, without any comparison of respective systems. Discussions could take place in that framework but not in the other.

3. Referring to my comment on verification and our willingness rely, to extent possible, on national means, Kosygin said this question of interest and could be subject of discussion. However, he wished to stress once again that main problem in this connection was confidence as no U.S.-Soviet agreement possible in absence mutual confidence. Soviets desire such confidence; Soviets want reliable arrangements under which parties would keep their word, and USSR certainly would do so. If a U.S.-Soviet arrangement, and particularly treaty, were achieved, USSR would not want to see it torn up next day, as tranquility would not be possible under such circumstances.

4. As to President’s proposal, Kosygin said we already knew that USSR would want to discuss this problem. However, USSR still considering all aspects of problem and this was reason for delay in formal reply to President’s message. He wanted me to report to President that delay in response was due to Soviet desire give a constructive reply and not to any underestimation of President’s proposal. However, he could say even now that discussion could not be only about defensive weapons. As he had stated publicly in London, USSR could not hold any discussions in framework of now it is cheaper to kill; as Socialist country, USSR could not take such stand. Thus, it important to discuss entire complex of problem. As everybody knew, any weapons system could be overcome by another, and unfortunately progress in this area could be made much faster than in area of agriculture production and general increase of standard of living. This problem unquestionably complex, but I should report to President that Soviets seriously considering his message. Kosygin reiterated that Soviets want to weigh all aspects of problem and want their reply to be constructive.

5. Referring to Kosygin’s assertion that I had compared U.S. and Soviet systems, I said I had no intention of doing so. Indeed, I did not know what Soviet system was. Only point I wanted to make in mentioning our research was that we also capable of installing an ABM system. Also, I did not mean to push for a speedy reply; we knew that problem very complex one and we prepared wait as long as necessary. Reason why we believed agreement in this area possible and desirable was that it would not only promote trust between our two countries but also enable them to spend their money on more constructive things.

6. Kosygin observed he had not understood me as pressing for an early reply, although he would not have objected if I had done so. Point he had tried to make was that, in his view, my remarks smelled of ultimatum. While he did not want to make this point a point of contention in our discussion, he did not believe discussion should be conducted in this vein. As to Soviet reply to President’s message,⁴ he would have liked to reply sooner.

7. When I said again I had not sought to compare our respective systems, Kosygin agreed but insisted tone of my initial remarks had been such as to convey ultimatum. I denied any intention of conveying ultimatum and reiterated that only reason why I had mentioned research was to indicate that we proposing agreement not because we incapable of installing an ABM system ourselves; in fact, we could do it if need be. I said I was sorry if I had perhaps expressed myself in way creating different impression.

8. Kosygin said this of course different question. Soviets wanted discuss problem as raised by President: President had not compared our respective systems. He had simply suggested that no system be installed. Soviets believed this was serious question which should be considered. In any event, Kosygin said he thought that if he and I were to pursue this discussion it could lead us very far.

9. I observed that if I had talked of who was ahead I would have had to say that it was USSR because we had not yet installed any ABM’s. I then repeated my explanation of why I had mentioned our research in ABM field and reiterated my apology for conveying perhaps a different impression.

10. I asked whether discussion should turn to another subject, such as Vietnam. Kosygin had no objection and inquired if I was satisfied with his answer re ABM’s. He repeated I should report to President that delay in his response to President’s message due not to Soviets underestimating proposal but rather to their desire seriously consider problem.

Thompson ⁵

1. Source: Johnson Library, National Security File, Rostow Files, Kosygin, Box 10. Secret; Nodis. The source text is a typewritten copy of telegram 3560 from Moscow.
2. The word “Arms” has been crossed out, and “ABM’s” has been inserted by hand.
3. See Document 181.
4. See Document 178.
5. Printed from a copy that bears this typed signature.