Foreign Relations of the United States, 1981–1988, Volume XLIV, Part 1, National Security Policy, 1985–1988

241. Memorandum From the Vice President’s Assistant for National Security Affairs (Gregg), the Vice President’s Deputy Assistant for National Security Affairs (Watson), and the Vice President’s Military Assistant (Mattke) to Vice President Bush¹

Washington, December 1, 1987

SUBJECT

• SDI and the ABM Treaty in the 1990’s

We feel that the INF arms control agreement now being concluded and the START Treaty to be finalized for signature at the Spring/Summer 1988 Summit are good, make for strategic logic, and are ones you can support.

You should be aware that the Summit arms control planners are involved in a compartmented effort considering a Reagan/Gorbachev Joint Statement that could lock the U.S. (and the Soviets) into non-withdrawal from the ABM Treaty well into the 1990’s—possibly as far as the tenth anniversary of Reykjavik (October 11, 1996).

The next President will still be able to continue SDI R&D even with such a commitment.

One Summit joint statement being considered would commit the United States to negotiations beginning by June 30, 1989 to clarify the ABM Treaty “in light of evolving strategic and technological situations,” (read this to mean negotiations on whether SDI can go forward or not).

The next President could expand on our plan for phased SDI deployment by putting SDI sensor platforms up much sooner—thereby enhancing deterrence by better intelligence, surveillance, and early warning and testing the component most crucial to a successful SDI system.

Recommended Position. Before we agree to either non-withdrawal or even to negotiate parameters, we need to establish a definite quid pro quo—or we are trapped into arguing about how much we lose. One approach to the Soviets is to trade any agreement to not withdraw for a clear commitment to the RIGHT TO DEPLOY upon withdrawal.² That concession would clear the path for development, depriving our domestic opponents of the argument, “It will never be deployed, so why fund it?”

NSPG Alert: There may be an NSPG this Friday³ on Summit arms control issues.

1. Source: George H.W. Bush Library, Bush Vice Presidential Records, Office of National Security Affairs, Donald Gregg Files, Subject File, OA/ID 19852–001, SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative) [1]. Secret.
2. Gregg drew an asterisk at the end of this sentence and wrote at the bottom of the page, “Assuming the research has worked out well.”
3. December 4. The National Security Planning Group met in the White House Situation Room on December 4 from 2 until 3 p.m.; minutes are printed in Foreign Relations, 1981–1988, vol. XI, START I, Document 239.