Page:Kissinger, Schlesinger - August 30, 1974(Gerald Ford Library)(1552772).pdf/5

Rh Doesn't the Trident I give us more throw-weight?

Not necessarily. It let's you back off.

If MIRV is nonsense, what does make sense?

It depends on what you can do with them. Poseidon is not a very good weapon. I will see if I can work up a paper over the weekend for you and me.

What could we theoretically give up? The B-1? If they give up the 18?

We can't give up a replacement bomber.

But should it be the B-1?

We are too far down the pike to change.

I strongly support a bomber, but why must it be supersonic, etcetera?

I agree. But we are so far down the line it doesn't make sense. The B-1 can fly at low altitudes. Adding supersonic doesn't cost much. We can slow the Trident or slow the retrofit of the Poseidon.

What can you do to save them in next year's budget?

The Minuteman dropped from the C-5, the heavy missile air launched cruise missile looks good. The important thing about the bomber is it screws up their planning for attack. It makes it impossibly complicated.

Could we limit bombers as a trade-off?

How about giving up the B-52's?

The President is anxious to avoid public debate on hard and soft positions as we get a position. We all want a tough position. The issue is, are we better off with an agreement of a kind that is negotiable or with none at all? In retrospect, the 750-1150 effort was not worth it -- it wouldn't have helped.

I always regretted it. The rush was all tied up with Watergate. It caused the urgency and fright back here.