By no means am i saying the arms race should continue.
We have to set a good example for the world between now and 1995 or we'll have a very difficult time getting "The Non-Proliferation Treaty" renewed.
And the first term of reference to this statement to you, referred to in my Christmas, 1988 statement to Gorbachev, if considered in relation to the second (used as a term of reference to my August 9, 1985 statement to Prime Minister of Canada Brian Mulroney), suggests that even a successful achievement of a 50% reduction in levels of Soviet-American strategic arsenals is not going to be enough as that would still leave about 40,000 nuclear weapons...when perhaps as few as the numbers possessed by Britain, France, or even Israel are enough to cause the "nuclear winter".
I have a recommendation in mind about this--as i hinted to Gorbachev--and it seems all the more appropriate because apparently my Christmas, 1988 submission to him encouraged the Soviets to abandon their modernization program.
Obviously, these are matters which "The Center For Defense Information" should have an awareness of and which would result in a policy by it.
I'd like you to take these items back to Washington for
consideration by you and your colleagues.
Around the end of May, 1989, i'll send you copies of the
aforementioned statements.
Thereafter, if you require additional information, please feel free to call me and i will provide it.
It might help you to consult with Paul Warnke and
Bob McNamara (to whom i made a major submission in 1978
about strategic defensive systems research and the relationship
between disarmament and development of particular relevance to
the contents here). But frankly, Rear Admiral Carroll, i
refrain from asking you to forward copies of the enclosures to
them because i don't want you to think i regard you as some sort
of mailman or courier.
It would be a good idea and i'd appreciate it in "(my) present situation" (see the
affixation to page 1. of the Christmas, 1988 statement to
Gorbachev)--but the decision would be yours.
Finally, (in keeping this brief), i refer you to term of reference c) here.
A key reason for keeping this brief is because i wanted to hear
your present views during your lecture tonight before commenting
further.
But as Jimmy Carter, Fritz Mondale, Teddy
Kennedy, Paul Warnke, Bob Dole, Ronald
Reagan, George Bush, and Bob McNamara can tell
you, i can have a "legitimate" 'paternal' "concern" for the
world peace movement and its success in achieving its members'
goals.
This "concern" is one which runs constantly through the work
i've done since 1978.
...Which may explain why the Bush Administration,
expecting me to start work on my book about my work soon (and,
unlike Ronald Reagan's "hero" Oliver North--i
didn't "shred" my document copies) and Reagan having not
called me over Christmas as i recommended, to provide me with
instructions telling me how he would have me continue or
complete the "International Diplomatic
Work...on a direct basis," is apparently having such a tough
time finishing its foreign policy "review."
As i told Reagan years ago, it shouldn't be "peace
through strength".
It should be "strength through peace".
I'm timing the submissions to Teddy Kennedy, Dave
Barrett, and Javier Perez de Cuellar to be completed
after the Bush "review."
I think the contents here make clear i should have got that call
from Washington or more than i will be left "vulnerable" no
matter how otherwise appropriate the products of the "review"
seem.
Well, as it still requires a written termination notice
signed by the sitting U.S. President to end the association of
the SPECIAL DIPLOMATIC ADVISER TO THE U.S. PRESIDENT authority
with my name (whether i refer to it or not in my
paperwork)...i'd like to stay in the kind of company we will see
tonight and on Saturday.