LETTER TO CASPAR W. WEINBERGER FROM G. A. KEYWORTH

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP87-00462R000100070024-3
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 18, 2010
• Sequence Number: 24
• Publication Date: February 22, 1985
• Content Type: LETTER

Approved For Release 2010/02/22 : CIA-RDP87-00462R000100070024-3
THE WHITE HOUSE
February 22, 1985
Dear Cap:
When we saw each other two weeks ago, there was no question
that you were as concerned as I that the ambiguity starting
to surround SDI could not be allowed to gain momentum.
As I remember we saw eye-to-eye that:
- SDI is a research program to destroy ballistic missiles
per se; not a program to defend ICBMs (though that may come
with the territory).
- It is the promise of boost-phase kill that provides the
leverage for the President's vision.
- SDI is a central theme within the President's long-term
strategy; (the best flesh-on-the-bones definition I've
heard to date is probably Paul Nitze's "phased" arms-
control strategy.).
Because we agree completely on these issues, I know you
were as upset as I was about the New York Times article
(Feb 14) -- which resulted from discussions with some of our
arms control people in London, and reported we were advo-
cating terminal defense of silos. But the ambiguity con-
tinues, as evidenced by the (attached) articles in both
the Post and the Times.
There's no question there are some who believe we should
remain ambiguous; that our best chance lies in confusing
the opposition by not giving them a solid target to shoot
at, and by having a little something for everyone. I know.
I've talked to quite a number of them in just the last two
weeks who are adamant on this. But for all the talk of
billions to be spent on the SDI in the next several years,
you and I know this is an absolutely minimal budget: one
which cannot be stretched to do everything for everyone
without eventually producing nothing for anyone. Worse,
this approach makes a mockery of the fact that the President
has a very definite agenda in his mind. Those who continue
to act as though he intends simply to stumble blindly ahead
"...and see what happens..." do him grave disservice.
Approved For Release 2010/02/22 : CIA-RDP87-00462R000100070024-3
 Approved For Release 2010/02/22 : CIA-RDP87-00462R000100070024-3
Cap, I continue to advocate the three main tenets you and
I agreed upon., I believe them crucial to the difference
between the 1972 Treaty era and today; necessary if our
technology program is to demonstrate its near-term reality;
and vital to the President's overall strategy. And as
testimony swings into high gear over the next several
weeks, I want to assure you I continue to support your clear
interpretation of these tenets, and of the President's ulti-
mate goals. I still believe forthright honesty to be the
best policy.
Sincerely,
G. A. Keyworth
Science Advisor to the President
The Honorable Caspar W. Weinberger
Secretary of Defense
Washington, D.C. 20301
Approved For Release 2010/02/22 : CIA-RDP87-00462R000100070024-3
 PrW V(1DT, TTLAL+O '97
Approved For Release 2010/02/22 : CIA-RDP87-00462R000100070024-3
Pen tagonAIje '
Calls Antimissile Plan
Central to flit
17 ?ILL il~LLts -. ;r.
r ~, r 7~t'~7 ?yi?., ..n,
am Offkw
a
dam i9aftMg p4=
was
`'apt an
M
~, the
Sw6twy cc W e rat
~ p~sm wools be~a~ot~tar, said
r .~,b
other : as imore..-~'ttl'e-Pt~~ j
dare'
mat It It coly
1'baPrM7deAtlriedoraiCm~'elOdtt01
$dvlser,. Pail 8.. Masse; jb&' a yp_b
Nedo.sday laid on
a aet .d strict
oodaltlpo..tbat asa.tbe aitStt ge.ths
m a W-d.dde +a boos o MOMMKI6 a bt it
I.te~ oonid,.oatlmbms weapmpnPUT=
Approved For Release 2010/02/22 : CIA-RDP87-00462R000100070024-3
!1t1Ook
 Approved For Release 2010/02/22 : CIA-RDP87-00462R000100070024-3
WASHINGTON MSS
22 February 1985 PPg.24
Panel Told `Star Wars' May Spark
Increase in Soviet Offensive Forces
By Walter Pincus
Mnhiiigt . rot sun Wr.er
Soviet leaders "might in-
crease their offensive forces" as an
initial response to President Rea-
gan's 'Star Wars' Strategic De-
fense Initiative (SDI), Undersecre-
tary of Defense Fred C. Ikle told a
Senate armed services subcommit-
tee yesterday.
'It is conceivable," Ikle added, in
answer to questions by Sen. Jeff
Bingaman (D-N.M.), "they may shift
to [building more] bombers and
cruise missiles; which would not be
affected by a Star Wars system, 'rd
they see our [ballistic missile) de-
fenses are working."
But. Ikle maintained, Moscow
eventually would realize that, faced
with a capable U.S. space-based de-
fensive system, it would be in their
interest to reduce offensive niis-
sues. .
Ikle and U. Gen. James A. Abra-
hamson, director of the SDI pro.
gram, who appeared with him, were
questioned sharply by panel Dem-
ocrats about what were described
as inconsistencies in Reagan offi-
cials' descriptions of the program
and how it would be handled at the
upcoming arms control negotiations
in Geneva.
In answers to Sen. Carl Levin (D.
Mich.). Idle said U.S. negotiators
would 'discuss how we can walk [to,-
-ward a regime of missile-defense
systems] together, but he repeated
the president's statement that the
United States would not agree to
limiting Star Wars research.
When Lewin pressed him to say
what the Soviets could expect from
the Geneva arms control negotia-
tiaras concerned solely with the sys--
tems Illy grouped under the
.SDI beading, Ilk: responded. -con-
fidence-building measures" and
"bow we can coordinate phasing in
Chairman John W. Warner (R-
Va.) told Ikle that his remarks had I
created a negative atmosphere i
about the administration's approach
to Geneva. Warner said be believed
?that the United States is prepared
to discuss testing and deployment
of space defense systems and asked
Ikle to comment.
"It would not be a good idea to
speculate" on the American nego-
tiating position. Dde said, repeating
that 'lshort-term Soviet violations'
of the ABM treaty would be
brought up.
Sen. Edward M. .Kennedy (D-
Mass.) declared that the Reagan
administration was 'telling the So-
viets to abide by the ABM treaty"
and at the same time saving 'we
intended to break out an our own'
when we deploy a space-based Star
Wars defense system.
Ikle responded that' we are abid-
ing by the treaty" with the current
research program and that in the
future. we are proposing to rene-
gotiate its provisions, not violate it
as be said Moscow
was doing.
? Sen. Gary Hart (D-Col o.) told
Ede there was 'a difference in tone
between his statement before the
committee and a speech delivered
Wednesday by Ambassador Paul
Nitre, special advisor to the Secre-
tary of State on arms control. "
told the subcommittee that SDI al-
reso was "the very core of our
long-term policy fur. reducing the
sink of war, while Nitre, according
to Hart,, emphasised that missile
defense would be Important .'!d it
were snocesdul.'
. Ede mods iedfiis statement to may
? SDI would be -of central iypor-
tanoe if it proves possibie.0 ,
He also refined Reagan's state-
ment during the presidential de-
bates that the United States would
be wMigg in the bit= to share too-
formation on dehose tecbsology.
That would come kbout. Ede said,
'wen the Soviets agree to Owlish
allosystem ... then we
would agree to work together.!-
Approved For Release 2010/02/22 : CIA-RDP87-00462R000100070024-3