https://declassified.library.utoronto.ca/files/original/53f390c9f4fe3b75e5d1d2e335461955.pdf 29a630a20a22d8d3ea4dec870b76ba5e PDF Text Text ment disclosed wjvulgue en EXTERNAL AFFAIRS % 1 rmation Act a Tinformation m *& FROM REGIS! AFFAIRES EXpRiEUR|$£ IQ fltf &9 I FILE CiiAtivatD u u f The Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs, Ottawa, CANADA TO A The Canadian Embassy, Washington, D.C* FROM D9 REFERENCE Kiftrenee Our telegrams No. 7lU of February 21 and 1116 of March 22. SUBJECT Sujel Ballistic Missile Defence and Domestic Politics SECUI SSevrUi DATE A p r i l 1 0 , 1967 NUMBER Numiro •J?7 3 DOSSIER FILE MISSION a 7 - // - 7 3? ENCLOSURES Anmxti DISTRIBUTION NATO' P a r i s Moscow CFHQ CURS (Mr. Snarjj) CDLS (W) X We have reported previously on some of the difficulties facing the Administration, in its efforts to sell in this country the idea of an agreement with the Soviet Union on limitation of defensive and offensive missile systems at the same time an effort to reach some sort of agreement is being made. Attached is an article which appeared in the Washington Post of April 9 on this theme* 2. Charles Hitch, one of the principal architects of systems analysis in the U„S. Department of Defence and himself a knowledgeable man in this field described this article to the Ambassador as "well informed". JXhe Embassy, <W. ^ 000363 Exl. 4071/BH. (Admin. Sarvlcn Div.) �Document disclosed under the Access to Information Act Document divulgue en vertu de la Loi sur Tacces a Tinformation BEST -ORIGINAL' AVAILABLE . MBLLEUR ORIGINAL DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS Su6Ject^.phM.9JQj&kli4infi_._QM® J?:9£....?.e<iuction °*" N u c l e ar Margin Date.....April.„SA.. .1.9.6.7 Pub//cation..The._V;ashingtan_Po.st.. The NATO defense minis--; slonal support tor trying to" ters felt they were putting the [get an ABM freeze, the Johnthesis on the public record son' Administration has dewhen they said in their com- cided henceforth not to raunique, issued Friday, that match Russia missile for misexisting strategic n u c l e a r sile to maintain the.present forces and the plans for em- superiority. ploying them are adequate to Brown Statement the need." Without relating it to the Risks for Leader ASM negotiations, Air Force But there are grave political Secretary Harold Brown told risks for President Johnson or the Senate Armed Services any other national leader to and Defense Appropriations say right out that the time has committees recently the U.S., come to let a potential enemy is letting its nuclear edge be; By George C. Wilson close its missile gap. reduced: WtaalDston Post S-..U Writer • The idea of the U.S. and "Our plans, are that five Russia having the same numThe Johnson Administration, as it approaches lalki years from now we will have ber of strategic nuclear warjust about as many missiles as with Russia on an anti-missile freeze, has started to buile heads is called nuclear parity we have right now," Brown ihe case for cutting the' margin of U.S. nuclear super! —a condition which hawks in said. The Soviets "have kr.own ©rity. Congress and elsewhere abhor. that. They have known it for Sen. Strom Thurmond fR.- a couple of years, and they The idea is to convince Congress and the public U for example, argues that keep on building. Now we can the coming months that there is nothing sacred abou' S.C.), "parity is not a deterrence but j afford to let thc.-n build for the present 3-or-4-to-l margin the U.S.. has over Rtissi: invitation to attack." He while, if they feet they want' in strategic missiles. contends Johnson Adminlstra. to catch up. But there is evi-: tion policy Is heading toward dencc that if we stop, they! . This will require down playing the significance of tht parity with Russia "and we're don't necessarily stop. They: Pentagon's own advertisements about U.S. nueiear su closer to it now than ever be- haven't stopped. I think that' fore." in our position we can-afford' periority as well as Overcom* A key question that Admin- to let this go on for a while,! Ing the widespread conviction ; istration leaders h a v e de- without overrespanding." that, buying missiles buys po?;b..rbclined to answer is whether Pentagon Count J litical strength. the U.S. intends to trade some Thosu Russian leaders try" r"^' of its nuciear superiority for a The Pentagon count of! missiles' ing to avoid a new spiral in Russian promise not to pro- ICBMs, including ceed with its an'ti-bailistic-mis- launched by submarine, as o f the arms race also must sell Oct. 1, 1966, was: U.S., 1446.'. slle (ABM) system. this theme to their own ha»ks Russia 4T0. The intercontinf\yyf-, --si' To Discuss Both or demand missile equality ental bomber count was: U.S.. '• with the U.S. in exchange for However, President Johnson, 580, Russia, 155, U.S. nuclear. aot going all the way with asi and Soviet Premier Kosygin]} b o m b e r s carry ahout four! £r.fS,rv.;'.-have agreed that both offen-j four bombs each. {The 750 meanti.missile system. r sive and defensive weapons' dium range missiles Russia c -•-'%, y • McNamara at Fore will be discussed in the forth has targeted on Europe were' Defense Secretary Robert S. coming U.S.-Soviet talks in not counted, nor were Soviet McNamara has been among Moscow. No date has yet been medium range bombers.> those advertising the U.S. mis,set for the negotiations. | The 5- Or 6-to-l edge in sile edge over Russia. But he ' The U.S. obviously must give: nuclear warheads refers t o ' now is at the forefront of .up something if Russia, heavily' those that the U.S. and.Russia! Johnson Administration leadCniLsa Press laiftfaitlonai outnumbered in offensive mis- now have available to drop on' ers trying to persuade Russia siles, foregoes further ABM de, each other. Again, this is ex-; ROBERT McNAMARA not to react to that edge by ployment. This raises fears pressed in numbers, not ex. . . new nuclear ruatfi going ahead'with a missile de •--among the hawks that the U.S. fense. * numerical superiority like 3 will agree to reduce its often- plosive power. -The individual strategic warhead count: US.,1 The Administration's new' to 1 ° r 6 to t over Russia, . sive missile force. argument is that present U.S.! While advancing this thesi,5 ; President Johnson : is push- 4000; Russia, 700. n u c l e a r superiority came' Administration *?>'• ing nam ior an agreement o: Against the force of lOOOl about more by accident than'away from sayirig whether the anti-missile systems and ma, hardened Minutemen which: by design as the Pentagon; United States would be willing the U.S. has planned for the; built its nuclear arsenal tu' to sec its nuclear Ydge'sltavcd eventually send McNamara t future as its main offensive! handle the highest likely Rus-i to 2 to 1 or even aeltle for Moscow to help make tb land-based missile force, insian threat. case. telligence leaders predict Rus-J This planning for the worst equality with Russia. sia wilt have a land force of'.ha3 given the U.S. what sonic, But they do argue that McNamara contends tha 1000 hard-i critic; call, "overkill"—mure tripling tbe nuclear lead does any kind of tntl-ballistic': between 650 and weapons than it really needs not triple a nation's interna- missile system could be penc-'encd ICBMs. ! to absorb a first strike by trated, so why spend billion.' Taking the high side of this Russia and then retaliate with, tional political power. on defense? estimate, not counting subtfcvaitsting nuclear power. j Doesn't Hold True He believes both Eussit m a r i n e " ' = " « • t n e u . s - ""J Russia already are headed To Prevent Outbreak ' The historical concept that »n^ th. ire „ . , j u .. i the size of a nation'j army de and the US. could absorb i ^ward nuclear parity in those first strike a nd ttlll destros types of ICBMs. Failure to The whole p u r p o s e of; ICBAW. L'oes the argument, is; termlnes Its political clout!the attacker with the nucleai reach ar. anti-missile agreelo keep general nuclear' warj does not hold true for nuclear!weapons which survived. Hi ment, however, might result In from ever bvcakir.*-' out in the I leaders*' " t A d m i n l s t r a l i , 5 n j b e l i e v e s Russia has started ti the U.S. building new offen. first place. This deterrence' 1 1 111 defense forlstve weapons in another updepends on boiU sides rcaliz-l Scc-etary Mclfjm-ra nut' "/ e ' r t h*e missile U -S... with its offer, j««nl spiral ot the- arms race. ing a nuclear attack would be; forth'this thesis to" se-tns ex-! * national suicide; nobody can; tent in his posture statement|«ve superiority, may someday!. T h e h a w , < 3 '""'"•• ? ' is even closer when the relawin. given to the Congress early!strike first. u hMiTi ,3 ytar • — Tht : * vATO i » l « s'K ij tive size of the ICBM warOn;-; ilic United Sr^tf"? Stjtr.. h dcV-'r i'7 ''' Nuclear enough weapons tc Impressed hy this argument 'heads i* measured. V,:h:!e the '" Planning Group, which met AJtnini'tratior ' i . K H ' ! : ' ' " ' " ' 3 »«"» toSaSi"111 encouraged by the sur-'lUS. Mlnuteman and Soviet is no payt'i '•ittoaenVvn'mm".' -11 '*. 10 '"? 01 |prisms amount of conzresheyOTu! ic ju Awv Arms Spiral Fcitretl ohnson Building Case for Reduction Of Nuclear Mar siil] a • ii 1 ' W4'- j |E#yET J , • 000364 �Document disclosed under the Accessto Information Act Document divulgue en vertu de la Loi sur Tacces a Tinformation r''rr'•'.;. • • ,-:•••• v, DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS ''-': .'-- ' .-. . - / • . ' . '."..-' . ' • • • • • '' •' .*•' •* . • •.'", - •• ,. ' " " • ' ' ; • • . Subject..:.:.........:.........'...:.'.„.' '..' ....-.' ; .' i: •.;" Date „...'...;......;..... .....Publication...: : SS-9 ICBMs are both about" one megaton each, the Soviets also are building hundreds of missiles with warheads be-j tween 7 and 25 megatons. In fact, some military leaders say privately that the U.S., not Russia, is faced with a "megatonnage gap." ..;-f- 'M 000365 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CDBM00094 Title A name given to the resource DC to External 573 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 4/10/1967 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG25-A-3-c, file 27-11-7, "DEFENCE - CONVENTIONAL AND NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS - ANTI - BALLISTIC MISSILES (ABM) = DEFENSE - ARMEMENTS DE TYPE CLASSIQUE ET NUCLEAIRE - ENGINS ANTIMISSILES (ABM)," vol. 10357, part 2, Library and Archives Canada, (LAC). Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource External Affairs Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Canadian Crown Subject The topic of the resource Anti-ballistic missiles Description An account of the resource Ballistic Missile Defence and Domestic Politics Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Canada Declassified Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource PDF Language A language of the resource en