77. Minutes of Washington Special Actions Group Meeting1
San Clemente, September 04, 1969.
SUBJECT
- Contingency Plan in the Event of Sino-Soviet Hostility
PARTICIPANTS
- Henry Kissinger, Chairman
- The Attorney General
- State—U. Alexis Johnson
- Defense—G. Warren Nutter
- CIA—Vice Admiral Nels Johnson
- NSC Staff—Helmut Sonnenfeldt; John H. Holdridge
Summary of Conclusions2
- 1.
- The section on Vietnam should be strengthened. A legal study of the implications of a Soviet blockade of the China Mainland was needed. Additional studies on neutrality and the potential effect on the U.S.-Soviet relationship were required.3
- 2.
- A U.S. position of impartiality would have the practical consequences of helping the Soviets. In such circumstances we might try to get something from the Soviets.
- 3.
- With regard to the U.S. public position in the UN or elsewhere, we could not condone a nuclear exchange. If we wanted to quiet things down, we must say so. For the U.S. to ask for a ceasefire without at the same time condemning the Soviets would appear to the Chinese as “collusion.” With such a condemnation, however, it was acceptable to ask for a ceasefire.
- 4.
- The draft should be refined to reflect two alternatives: a situation in which major hostilities were in progress, and a situation in which the Soviets launched a surgical strike against Chinese nuclear centers. A surgical strike would probably lead to greater hostilities, but for the purpose of the paper this distinction should be made.
- 5.
- Section four—what to do to deter—was most pertinent and urgent.
- Source: National Archives, Nixon Presidential Materials, NSC Files, NSC Institutional Files (H-Files), Box H–114, WSAG Minutes, Originals, 1969 and 1970. No classification marking.↩
- A draft of the response to NSSM 63, on “U.S. Policy on Current Sino-Soviet Differences,” was the chief item on the agenda for this meeting. (National Archives, Nixon Presidential Materials, NSC Files, NSC Institutional Files (H-Files), Box H–071, WSAG Meeting, 9/4/69, Sino-Soviet)↩
- Holdridge raised this issue in talking points he prepared for Kissinger on September 3. Holdridge pointed out that, “There is a question of balance (which of course is controlled by the paper’s purpose and assumptions). Two U.S. responses to a Sino-Soviet conflict are dealt with at some length—(1) a carefully studied attitude of impartiality and (2) a slight bias in favor of the Chinese. A third alternative—a policy of bias in favor of the Soviets—is suggested, but rejected. Would it be useful to consider this alternative?” (Ibid.)↩