REPORT RE REPORTED REMARKS OF SOVIET SALT DELEGATE SHCHUKIN DURING A DELAGATES

Created: 5/17/1972

OCR scan of the original document, errors are possible

these indicationserious remainingn this subject. Garthoff said he shared that regret and both he and Parsons emphasized the high attention given to this subject by the American Delegation.

He ported remarks of Soviet SALT delegate Shchukinelegates' meeting, au Helsinki:

Shchukin said that onf this year the Soviet Delegation had given the USraftoint statement on Article VI of the Treaty on the Limitation of ABM Systems. This draft provided for agreement between the parties not to deploy phased-array radarsotential (product of mean emitted power in watts and antenna area in square meters) exceeding ten million, except as provided for in Articles III. IV and VI of the Treaty, or except for purposes of tracking space objects or use as national technical means of verification.The obligation provided for in Article VI precluded possibility of using non-ABM radars for ABM defense purposes. Therefore the Soviet side continued to believe that this obligation in combination with the obligation provided for inas quite sufficient. At the same time, esire tothe considerations expressed by the US side, the Soviet side hadraft for the above-mentioned statement. He would like to say that the magnitude of the potential referred to in the Soviet draft joint statement on Article VI left no doubt that it did not reflect that which Smith seemed to have had in mind when he had spoken at the limited composition meeting on May The Soviet proposal was dictated by the desire of the Soviet side to find mutually acceptable .language for still unagreed questions. In this" connection, the Soviet side to believe that the draft joint statement of Article VI it had handed the US Delegation wasin line with the purposes ond objectives of this Article.

Reported remarks of Soviet SAL? detonate Trusovonversation with US SALT delegate Allison, Helsinki:

Regarding the Soviet proposal for maximum permissible power-aperture product for OLPARs, Trusov said the Soviet side had already moved very far in order to achieve compromise on this question and there is no room left for further "retreat" on their part. tated againand firmly--that the new Soviet positionM2 be the criterion for OLPARs is not acceptable.

Reported remark* of Soviet SALT delegate Shchukinonversation vitk US SALT delegate tlitee, Helsinki:

Shchukin recalled that some twenty years ago, one of his associates had come into his office and proposed the constructionadar appropriate for an antihallis tic missile system. His equations had indicated that the radar should be highercn.-sto'ry building and about as wide as it was high. Shchukin had objected thatadar wouldonstrosity from an economic standpoint. One would not be able to build itactory; one would have to build it on the spot. It would be enormous and take many years to build and vastly expensive. Nevertheless, it had been done. He doubted, however, that there wouldesire on either side to build many more such radars; particularly, when the true effectiveness of such an ABM defense was wholly doubtful.

Reported remark* of Deputy Foreign Minister Semenoueeting, .Helsinki:

Semenov said thathilosopher he would like toommon type of reasoning. For example, what was the meaning of "up"? It could be said that "up" was nott could be said that "father" was not "son" or "daughter-" Here we were dealingiolation of concepts where what was up could also be seen as down andon could also be seenather. At the end of such an approach, as Mark Twain had once said, one could end up saying that one's grandson was also one's grandfather. Movement, of course, was there was movement, but there was also stability. In shaping the Soviet approach to whateavy missile we could not say that heavy missiles are light missiles. Semenov pointed out that he was speakinghilosopher and although this perhaps would not satisfy Mr. Nitze, it would serve to relieve tension.

Semenov said that in the course of more than two years.the Soviet side had clearly stated that the definition of heavy missiles asolume in excess ofubic meters was not suitable for the Soviet side. Frankly he did not understand thewith which this proposal was being raisedroposal on which the Soviet side had already expressed its views. At the same time, he orocecded from the premise that the sides would assume thefor the duration of the Interim Agreement not to convert launchers for light missiles into launchers for heavy missiles. atter of fact, the entire question had been formulated by the Soviet side in an effort to accommodate the proposalsby the US side. We should recall who was the father of this child. In this case we could definitely

determine the father since the Soviet formulation was submitted in response to what had been proposed by the US side. He would ask that the US side accept it in the form in which it was presented. If the need for greater clarification would arise in the future,

Original document.

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA