Geography Grade 12 June 2023 Memorandum Pdf Download

[Guy Clena]

United States
The Secretary
Ambassador Bruce
Mr. Bohlen
Mr. Kohler (for the beginning)
Great Britain
Lord Home
Sir Harold Caccia
Sir Evelyn Shuckburgh
Mr. Joseph Godber
Mr. Ian Samuel
[Ramsbotham, Mason]/2/
/2/Brackets in the source text.
SUBJECT
Testing and disarmament
After lunch, Lord Home, Mr. Godber, Mr. Samuel, the Secretary, Ambassador Bruce, and Mr. Bohlen met to discuss testing and disarmament. The British point seemed to be primarily that they should have something new to offer at the resumed session of the Geneva conference. On testing, Lord Home and Mr. Godber expressed great interest in the possibility of a moratorium on atmospheric testing, to which the Secretary pointed out that it would be necessary to have something on the underground tests, since the United States is not prepared to rely solely on national detection systems. Mr. Godber said he thought it would be useful to have a gathering of scientists, if only to explode the Soviet theory, pointing out that the Russians were always challenging the West, citing United States and other Western citizens to support their contentions.
The Secretary mentioned the question of Chinese involvement, pointing out that some of the Soviet-Chinese installations were near the Chinese border and would be difficult to tell where a suspicious explosion had taken place.
Mr. Godber said that China was very much like France in that all recognized that in any serious nuclear arrangement, the Chinese would have to be in, and the Russians said the same thing about the French.
The Secretary reported that Couve de Murville had told him in Paris that one of the biggest French problems was the question of nuclear disarmament./3/ Lord Home said that it would be well to find out whether any future French tests would be underground. Mr. Godber inquired whether there was any possibility of getting the French into Geneva. The Secretary replied that he felt there was a greater chance of getting them into the Berlin discussions.
/3/Secretary Rusk discussed disarmament with Couve de Murville in Paris on June 20. (Memorandum of conversation, June 20; Department of State, Secretary's Memoranda of Conversation: Lot 65 D 330)
Lord Home said that the British Government was very interested in the possibility of an atmospheric moratorium, leaving the underground matter for future considerations. The Secretary repeated that we felt more than national verification was necessary for underground detection. He said the Soviets counted ninety-eight percent on publicity and two percent on espionage, whereas we must rely on international cooperation for both atmospheric and underground testing.
Lord Home said the meeting in Washington in July might well examine which countries we would need for cooperation in an adequate system of tests. There ensued some discussion as to the procedure during the Geneva conference, which might be followed after the recess.
Mr. Godber was in favor of starting with the Eight-Power proposal and then when that was rejected, then turning to the atmospheric tests. He repeated again the necessity of having some positive move to make in this field. The Secretary said that our people were studying the matter and they would have to await the results. Lord Home then raised the question of the inspection of "the remainders" under the first phase thirty percent cut. The Secretary said that we could not get the American people to support anything based on trust in people who were out to do us in. The British pointed out that from their point of view, there would not be much to trust in phase one, since there would be inspection of that which was destroyed. Mr. Godber said that the main criticism of the Western proposals was the fact that phase one and two seemed to involve little disarmament, whereas in phase three there was no fixed figure for the amount of nuclear destruction. He could not understand why we could not put in something more specific in phase three.
Lord Home was of the opinion that the way to handle the phases was to only start on one when the preceding phase had been fully completed, which would not necessitate any veto. He also could not see why we could not put in some specific amount. The Secretary pointed out that this was a very major political matter in the United States and that there was one decision of President Kennedy to the effect that we would not put forth any proposition that we could not live with, no matter what impression is created.
Mr. Godber argued that appearance was equally important if only to smoke out the Russians. He said the introduction of some fixed figure in phase three would help very much the presentation. Then ensued discussion on the question of presenting lists in the various phases which would be favorable to one side as against another, with particular reference to the superiority of the West in nuclear weapons and the superiority of the Russians in conventional. Mr. Godber seemed to be particularly concerned about the effect on the neutrals and on world public opinion.
Lord Home raised the point as to whether we would be better off without any nuclear weapons at all. The Secretary mentioned that the United States was only vulnerable to nuclear attack. Mr. Godber said there was no means of being absolutely sure that no nuclear weapons would be concealed, even in the event of complete and total disarmament, and wondered whether the whole exercise was worthwhile.
The Secretary said that while he doubted if any great and general disagreement would ever be achieved, there were a certain number of peripheral things which would reduce instability and have a dampening effect on tensions. He had in mind surprise attack and the danger of some madman, on either side, starting a weapon on its way. Mr. Godber said that the discussions at Geneva had more or less been stopped by the Russian double cross on Russian propaganda, but felt that when we returned to Geneva we should have some new initiatives to make.
The Secretary said that he could not agree that it should always be up to the West to make new initiatives when the Russians stood pat. Mr. Godber said that this was why he thought it would be valuable to take initiative since this would provide the neutrals with ammunitions to bring pressure to bear on the Russians. The Secretary questioned this thesis, pointing out that neutrals usually occupy a point midway between the Soviet and the West, no matter what these positions are and that experience had shown us that this was not a very true basis on which to act.
The Secretary mentioned that he was having a study made which would permit immediate reference to the Security Council in the event of any action, identical nuclear explosion, before the chain was set off.
Mr. Godber inquired whether President Kennedy would go to the Security Council if a bomb exploded in New York. The Secretary pointed out that it might be a bomb in transit and, anyway, worthwhile looking into arrangements which might prevent the chain reaction to the ultimate catastrophe. Mr. Godber said that at Geneva the plans seemed to be to talk until the General Assembly and then after a brief discussion there, to come back to Geneva. He repeated the importance of taking some Western initiative.
Lord Home agreed with him that the absence of any figures in stage three put the West in a bad position. He repeated that in his view each stage hinged on the proper completion of the preceding one. Mr. Godber, in reply to the Secretary's question, said he was thinking of neutral and UN opinion rather than domestic British opinion. The discussion was, in general, inconclusive, with the Secretary merely saying that some of these matters were under discussion and would be considered in the July meeting in Washington, with the British pressing for new initiatives, even though the Russians had made no move at all in their position.

192. Editorial Note
On June 28, 1962, Adlai Stevenson sent President Kennedy a 6-page letter on current disarmament problems. The letter is printed in full in The Papers of Adlai E. Stevenson: Ambassador to the United Nations, 1961-1965, volume VIII, pages 265-269. Attached to a copy of the letter in the Kennedy Library is a June 29 memorandum from Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. to Carl Kaysen that reads, "You may wish to consider the attached letter from Governor Stevenson--and also how best to answer it." (Kennedy Library, National Security Files, Kaysen Series, Disarmament, General, 6/61-12/62) No response to the letter has been found.

193. Memorandum of Conversation/1/
Washington, July 5-6, 1962.
/1/Source: Department of State, Central Files, 700.5611/7-662. Confidential. Drafted by Marie deGunzburg (ACDA/IR). The meetings were held at the British Embassy.
SUBJECT
US-UK Bilateral Discussions on the Nuclear Test Ban Issue
PARTICIPANTS
(See attachment)/2/
/2/The list of 17 participants at the July 5 meeting and 13 participants at the July 6 meeting is not printed.
The following three ACDA papers were under consideration at the meetings: "Possibilities for a Nuclear Test Detection System which Responds to Basic Ideas of the Eight-Nation Proposal" by Dr. Franklin Long, a draft atmospheric test ban proposal, and a draft comprehensive test ban treaty. (The references in the text are to the fifth revision of this draft.)/3/
/3/A copy of the fifth revision of the comprehensive test ban treaty, dated June 18, is in the Washington National Records Center, RG 383, ACDA/D Files: FRC 77 A 23, Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee. The other two ACDA papers have not been found.
Morning Session, July 5, 1962
Ambassador Dean opened the meeting by calling on Dr. Long to discuss his new paper. Dr. Long explained that he had concentrated on the technical problem of seismic detection by use of national stations. He then described the system proposed in his paper. In estimating the system's capability, Dr. Long stressed the possibility that a country could "spoof" by a variety of technical means, for example, by delaying on the time scale, in order to conduct clandestine tests. Less attention had been paid to detection of high altitude and outer space tests although some of the core stations could have the necessary technical equipment. However, core stations chosen for their seismicity might not be as useful for outer space detection and it might therefore be necessary to separate the two. He explained that more detailed studies of the system were being made, that the national stations would be effective for detection, but much less so for identification, and that the necessity for on-site inspection would remain.
Amb. Dean pointed out that there was still the problem of the international commission's right to determine the necessity of on-site inspection if identification were impossible. Dr. Long agreed. This would be an "internationally operated national system." The advantage would be in having an integrated system under the control of the international commission. The nationals operating the stations would be under firm obligation to the commission to do correct detecting. In answer to a question from Amb. Stelle, he added that distance location would not be very much downgraded and that a ten kilometer radius would still suffice for inspection.
Amb. Dean asked whether the distant stations would be able to confirm an event inside the Soviet Union if that country refused a commission's request to inspect. Dr. Long answered that "spoofing" had not yet been studied in depth, but that the data from a country which was suspected of spoofing would have to be discounted. Responding to Sir Michael Wright's query as to whether atmospheric tests in the Soviet Union could be established without the use of special air over-flights, he said that it would not be possible to locate very small tests, but that there existed a finite possibility of identification which might act as a deterrent. There would be a problem of locating the event if the time element were uncertain.
Less consideration had been given to underwater testing, but a nuclear event could be identified by sampling ocean currents for radioactive debris. For weapons effects tests, underwater testing would be very important, especially in regard to submarine warfare. On the whole, the April 18th, 1961 treaty would be downgraded in every mode by this new system.
Sir Michael Wright asked about the importance of the "series" concept in detection. The UK had felt that in calculating the capabilities for the April 18, 1961 treaty, full justice had not been given to the fact that one was really looking for a series and not an isolated test. Dr. Long said that in principle there was no reason why a series could not be separated in space and time and for certain developments, such as the "neutron" bomb, single tests were useful. However, there was a very good case for the importance of a series.
Amb. Dean inquired about the United States Government's position in regard to the national detection system. Mr. Adrian Fisher replied that there was, to date, no government position on the matter. Underground tests were again considered to be quite important and there was no indication that the government would accept a national detection system as a treaty basis at this time. Dr. Long confirmed that a large majority of the recent Nevada tests would not have been detected if the data from American stations had been discounted. However, as each station sees tuff signals at different magnitudes, there was a pretty good possibility that of 20 stations some would see a test as bigger than 4.5 kiloton and thus detect some of the smaller tests which might be a useful deterrent.
Amb. Dean asked whether this study would be completed by July 16 and how long it would be before a new treaty on this basis could be tabled. Dr. Long said that he would have a better picture of the seismic possibility of this new system by the 16th after a discussion with British scientists in London./4/ Amb. Dean pointed out that even if the US and the UK agreed to pursue this system further there was still no evidence that the Soviet Union would agree to on-site inspection. He questioned whether it was worth presenting a new system less effective than that of April 18, 1961 if the Soviet Union would still not accept inspection. Sir Michael Wright stressed that the 8-nation memorandum fell into three parts: (1) an internationally coordinated detection system based on national control posts; (2) an international scientific commission and (3) verification. The US and UK had interpreted the third point as providing for obligatory on-site inspection and seven of the eight neutrals had stated their agreement with this interpretation. He felt that a major round would be lost if a new proposal based on the 8-nation memorandum were not presented. The system described by Dr. Long for detecting underground tests would probably necessitate more on-site inspection. Tactically it would be better to meet the neutrals on the detection and commission points, while taking a harder line on on-site inspection. A second point, however, was to determine how much value our governments attached to underground testing. If they did not find it very important it was not worth foundering the project on it. Dr. Long stated that the AEC would not agree to leaving the underground tests uninspected.
/4/A summary of the record of these Washington meetings, transmitted in Todis 417 to Geneva, July 6, reads in part: "US and UK scientists (including Long of ACDA) would meet in London next week and discuss technical aspects new US ideas and that outcome this discussion would be relevant re further tactical planning." (Department of State, Central Files, 700.5611/7-662) In his journal, Seaborg briefly refers to a meeting of the President's Science Advisory Committee on July 16 at which Wiesner described the previous week's meetings with the British on "test detection, permissive links, and general disarmament." (Seaborg, Journal, vol. 4, pp. 41-42)
The meeting proceeded to a discussion of the ACDA draft atmospheric treaty. Amb. Dean pointed out that the draft was not yet cleared and not ready to be tabled at the conference. Furthermore, he wondered whether it would be wise to offer an atmospheric treaty if we still wanted a comprehensive treaty as there might be pressure from the neutrals and the USSR to omit on-site inspection from all types of treaties.
Afternoon Session, July 5, 1962
The discussion of the atmospheric draft treaty resumed in the afternoon.
Sir Michael Wright recalled that our offer of an uncontrolled ban on September 3, 1961 was on the record and he asked whether the renewed offer would include aircraft sampling. Mr. Fisher explained that the inspection provisions in the draft were almost nonexistent. Inspection was purely invitational although each country was committed to maintaining qualified observers who represented a type of ad hoc commission. There was no provision for over-flights. The country charging a violation would be responsible for the observation costs. He added that it would be necessary to consider the observation of peaceful explosions to insure that they were not weapon tests. Sir Michael Wright asked whether this would not give away the principle of on-site inspection in terms of underground tests and disarmament. Amb. Dean agreed that to some extent the draft did expose us to the invitational principle advanced by the USSR on underground tests and that it also omitted the commission principle. Amb. Stelle pointed out that it reopened the possibility of pressure for a moratorium on underground tests. Mr. Fisher replied that the principle of inspection could be stated in such a way that one would request as much international inspection as was needed. Answering a question of Sir Michael Wright's he added that the application of this draft to underwater and outer space tests had not even been tentatively decided.
Sir Michael Wright had serious reservations about Article VII on Withdrawal and Denunciation which sanctioned withdrawal for reasons of national security. This was not very different from the Soviet November 28, 1961 proposal to which we had objected because of its provision for withdrawal on the basis of national rather than international determination. He suggested that the wording of Article 22 in the April 18, 1961 treaty might be better. He hoped that it would be possible to have a statement less blunt on the question of national security. Amb. Stelle remarked that the duration article in the 1961 treaty was fairly satisfactory in regard to violations of the treaty, but not in regard to non-party violations. It would perhaps be possible to use the non-party formula in this draft treaty and the 1961 formula for non-fulfillment. Mr. Goodby and Mr. Spiers pointed out that the International Conference procedure had been included to make it as difficult as possible to withdraw. This was especially important when there were no control conditions.
Sir Michael Wright asked whether the International Court of Justice would be called upon to determine questions of fact or of law. Mr. Fisher observed that it was not very important as it was unlikely that many legal matters would arise and the Court was not an especially good body for establishing fact. Article IV was not intended as a substitute for Article VII. Proceeding to Article VI, he explained that the US experience during the moratorium had shown the difficulties of maintaining a readiness to test unless the right to do so was spelled out. It was simply a recognition of the fact that it was impossible to prevent prepara