Page:Kissinger's Trip (2) - November 25-29, 1974(Gerald Ford Library)(1553935).pdf/38

 -14- : But your increase is proportionately much smaller than the Soviet Union.


 * That is true. But I think it would be extremely dangerous for the Soviet Union. First of all, in Europe, the Soviet Union could not achieve a decisive victory without a very large battle and in those circumstances we would use nuclear weapons.


 * But under those conditions, where the Soviet Union has the same destructive strength as you, would it be easy for you to make up your minds?


 * The Soviet Union does not have the same destructive force as we.


 * Not even enough strength for a first strike?


 * No. Let me explain the composition of the forces to you because there is so much nonsense written in the U.S. by people with specific purposes in mind that there is a very misleading impression created.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••


 * Aren't you violating the treaty?


 * No. I will explain the treaty in a minute. And at least 250 new bombers, the B-1. But the number 240 and 250 are only planning numbers. Once we begin producing, we can produce as many as we want.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

So the Soviet Union would have to be insane to attack 1,000 missiles when we would have ••••••••• more left over even if they destroy all the land-based missiles -- which they also couldn't do.