125. Editorial Note
On September 7, 1979, President Jimmy Carter spoke to reporters assembled in the Old Executive Office Building. The President addressed the administration’s attempts to modernize the United States’ “strategic triad,” consisting of air, land, and sea defenses. He noted that the fixed, land-based intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) system was increasingly vulnerable to attack. Earlier, on June 8, White House Deputy Press Secretary Rex Granum announced that the President had agreed to pursue development and deployment of “full-scale,” mobile ICBMs, known as MX. (Public Papers: Carter, 1979, Book I, page 1016) During the September 7 briefing, Carter referenced this decision, indicating that he had done so to ensure a “strategic deterrent,” and elaborated:
“The MX will enable us to continue with a modernized, unsurpassed, survivable strategic deterrent ICBM, submarine-launched, and heavy bomber triad, armed with cruise missiles. Clearly, the way we base the MX to enhance its own security from attack is vital to the ability it has to defend our country.”
“At the time that I made the decision to build the MX, I established five essential criteria which the basing system would have to meet. First, it must contribute to the ability of the strategic forces to survive an attack. Second, it must be verifiable so as to set a standard which can serve as a precedent for the verifiability of mobile ICBM systems on both sides. Third, it must minimize the adverse impact on our own environment. Fourth, its deployment must be at a reasonable cost to the [Page 644] American taxpayer. And fifth, it must be consistent with existing SALT agreements and with our SALT III goal of negotiating for significant mutual reductions in strategic forces.”
The President provided additional details as to the configuration of the MX system and then outlined how the configuration met the essential criteria. He concluded his remarks, noting:
“Unhappily, we do not yet live in the kind of world that permits us to devote all our resources to the works of peace. And as President, I have no higher duty than to ensure that the security of the United States will be protected beyond doubt. As long as the threat of war persists, we will do what we must to deter that threat to our Nation’s security. If SALT II is ratified and SALT III is successful, then the time may come when no President will have to make this kind of decision again and the MX system will be the last weapon system of such enormous destructive power that we will ever have to build. I fervently pray for that time, but until it comes, we will build what we must, even as we continue to work for mutual restraint in strategic armaments.” (Public Papers: Carter, 1979, Book II, pages 1599–1601)
At 2:35 that afternoon, the President took part in an interview and question-and-answer session with reporters. The interview took place in the Cabinet Room in the White House. The President began the session by stating:
“This is an interesting day for you to be in Washington. We have, as usual, an accumulation of both domestic and foreign issues to be addressed by me and by my associates, with whom you’ve met already.
“It is a coincidence that we have already had a major announcement on the deployment of the MX missile in a mobile form this morning, and in just a few minutes, about 4 o’clock, I will make a statement to the Nation concerning Soviet troops in Cuba.”
The President highlighted a variety of domestic issues and then answered questions from the assembled reporters. In response to a question about Soviet and American postures regarding defense, the President asserted:
“When I assess in my own mind the trends in Soviet influence the last 10 or 15 years, say—just to get out of my own administration and to make it a bipartisan thing—versus the Soviet Union, I’m very encouraged.
“The Soviets did win an advantage in Afghanistan. That Soviet-endorsed government is in substantial danger, and that’s significant. But when you compare that with our new relationship with India, compared to what it was 5 years ago, or our new relationship with Egypt, the strongest and most powerful Arab country, compared to what it was during the time of the Aswan Dam construction when Egypt was [Page 645] absolutely committed to the Soviet Union and was dependent on the Soviet Union for military and economic aid, and now are completely friends with us and have prohibited Soviet technicians and others from coming into the country—that’s a major change in the Mideast itself.
“The People’s Republic of China, a fourth of the people on Earth—it wasn’t long ago that they were endorsed and supported by and were the closest of allies with the Soviet Union. Now, we have a new and burgeoning friendship with the people of the People’s Republic of China, and we have not lost our financial and economic and friendly relationships with the people on Taiwan.
“I could continue to go on, but those are major countries. There have also, obviously, been some setbacks. I don’t deny that.
“I think that the present commitment that I have given to defense has reversed a longstanding trend. For 15 years, our country was making no real increase in defense expenditures. In fact, when I came into office, our real commitment to defense was less than it was in 1963. This year, the current fiscal year, we have accommodated all the impact of inflation, and we have at least a 3-percent growth in defense expenditures.
I think we have restrengthened NATO, which was very weak, not only militarily but politically. There’s a new spirit and a new dynamism and a new cooperation in NATO that did not exist before.
“On strategic weapons systems, if you take our sea-based missiles and you assess the dramatic progress being made with the Trident submarines and the new Trident missiles, that’s a quantum step forward. “The air-breathing leg of our triad, with the new generations of cruise missiles coming along—that’s a major technological and strategic breakthrough. And with the MX missile that I announced this morning on land-based, silo-type missiles—this is the first time that we have ever seen a single missile acquire such a tremendous importance, and it not only gives our country a better defense or attack capability, it also contributes to stability because you’ve got a lot more defense with a lot fewer missiles.
“So, I think that if you look at other factors—our espousing human rights, the economic strength of our country, our overall trade relationships—in almost every measure, I do not see our country as being affected detrimentally, as contrasted with the Soviet Union.
“We recognize that they are a military nation; they put a lot more emphasis on military weaponry than do we. And we are much more inclined to support the status quo, to put down regional conflagrations and conflicts than are the Soviet Union. They espouse a revolutionary political thesis and, to them, the change of governments, quite often, is in their advantage. We, generally, are inclined to support the gov [Page 646] ernment that is in power, unless it is so obnoxious to our own standards and principles that we cannot accept it.
“So, the Soviets are inclined to stir up trouble; we’re inclined to try to dampen trouble and to provide peace. That’s one thing that gives them an advantage when there is trouble. But I think we have stood up well against them, and I think we can continue to do it in the future on a peaceful, competitive basis. There’s no doubt in my mind that the ideals and the principles and the basic strengths of America can prevail and have prevailed.” (Ibid., pages 1607, 1611–1613)
At 4:15 p.m. that afternoon, in the Briefing Room at the White House, the President spoke to reporters concerning the presence of a Soviet combat brigade in Cuba. Earlier, at a September 5 press conference, Secretary of State Cyrus Vance had asserted that this development “is a matter of serious concern.” (Department of State Bulletin, October 1979, page 14) Carter referenced Vance’s remarks and added:
“We are confident about our ability to defend our country or any of our friends from external aggression. The issue posed is of a different nature. It involves the stationing of Soviet combat troops here in the Western Hemisphere, in a country which acts as a Soviet proxy in military adventures in other areas of the world, like Africa.
“We do have the right to insist that the Soviet Union respect our interests and our concerns if the Soviet Union expects us to respect their sensibilities and their concerns. Otherwise, relations between our two countries will inevitably be adversely affected. We are seriously pursuing this issue with the Soviet Union, and we are consulting closely with the Congress.
“Let me emphasize that this is a sensitive issue that faces our Nation, all of us, and our Nation as a whole must respond not only with firmness and strength but also with calm and a sense of proportion.
“This is a time for firm diplomacy, not panic and not exaggeration. As Secretary Vance discusses this issue with Soviet representatives in the coming days, the Congress and the American people can help to ensure a successful outcome of these discussions and negotiations by preserving an atmosphere in which our diplomacy can work.” (Public Papers: Carter, 1979, Book II, pages 1602–1603)