Editing 78-09-A5 (section)

= SALT Talks =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
Apparently, some of our team now in Geneva talking reduced armaments
with the Russians have forgotten Public Law 92-448. This is
still on the books and it has not been altered or diluted by Congress
since it was enacted.

The law recognizes that the present agreement known as SALT I
was an interim one offering guidelines for a "more complete strategic
offense arms agreement", to be called SALT II. The law specifies
that any agreement we sign must provide the principle of equality in
strategic forces. It also calls for the maintenance of a vigorous
research, development and modernization program for U.S. strategic
forces. That, it so happens, is virtually nonexistent.

It's time we looked at that law, at SALT I and at our understanding
of what SALT II should be. What are the facts concerning
the Soviet Union? Are they what we thought they were in 1972? Do
the Russians subscribe to our belief in "mutual assured destruction"
as a deterrent to war? Apparently we think so, but--just as apparently--
the Russians do not. We say "thermo-nuclear war is unthinkable by
either side." The Russians have told their own people that while it
would be a calamity it is not unthinkable; that it very well might
happen and if it does, the Soviet Union will survive and be victorious.

Brezhnev (who a recent American visitor described as a gentle old
man) has admonished the Russian people that "it would be extremely
dangerous if the opinion became firmly established in public circles
that th€ threat of war has become illusory."

To then Secretary of State Kissinger's statement that neither
the U.S . or the Soviet Union could escape 100 million dead in a nuclear
exchange, Russian Admiral Shelyag' s answer was "Nyet". He said:
"In the West it is claimed that humanity, world civilization, would
parish in the event of such a war, that everything living on earth
would be annihilated. Communists harbor no sentiments of hopelessness
or pessimism."

Marshal Krylov denies our concept that in nuclear war there would
be no victory. He says: "Victory will be on the side of world socialism."
And lest there be any doubt of their unanimity General Altunin, in
charge of Russia's civil defense program, says "the preparation of the
country's rear for defense against mass destruction has become, without
a doubt, one of the decisive strategic factors assuring the ability of
the state to function in war time and in the final analysis the
attainment of victory."

Our own experts write a scenario in which an attack is leveled
against NATO at the same time civilians in Russia are evacuated from
urban areas to prepared positions in the country. In the nuclear
exchange that follows they lose five per cent of their population--
we and our allies lose 50 per cent or more.

Needless to say, our negotiators are not abiding by Public Law
92-448. Perhaps they should be sent a copy before they say another
"good morning" to their Russian counterparts.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.
</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>06/27/[[Radio1978|1978]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan:_In_His_Own_Hand|RihoH-79]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD></TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

</TD></TR>
</TABLE>