[lc]

9

moment. This summer you told reporters that we're not going to be able to rely on nuclear weapons to fight and win a conventional war. Deployment in Europe is now coming up to the three-month mark. Are you saying that the Pershing II missiles are irrelevant and how would you wean our forces and the Europeans' away from the nuclear battle?

SENATOR NUNN: Well, for a long time America and our allies enjoyed nuclear superiority. When we had that superiority we had it credibly, and plausibly, and we did threaten to retaliate with nuclear weapons if there was a Soviet conventional attack, say on Berlin, or let's say any part of the NATO Alliance.

Today, when you have nuclear parity, when you have the Soviets where they have an overwhelming advantage with what we call theater nuclear weapons, and that's what we're trying to correct with the Pershing IIs and the ground-launched Cruise missiles, a threat to commit suicide is not a very credible threat. And that's what you really are doing when you say we're going to use nuclear weapons to respond to your non-nuclear attack. So the answer I think is to have improved conventional forces in NATO. That does not mean nuclear weapons are important to prevent or deter a Soviet nuclear attack, but I think the day is over where we can credibly threaten to escalate the nuclear weapons in response to a Soviet non-nuclear attack.

MS. LORD: So are you saying there is a role and a mission for the Pershing II?

SENATOR NUNN: Without any doubt there's a role and mission for the Pershing II. The first role is to try to counter the Soviet's SS-20s that are already deployed. The second role is hopefully to

10

bring about a conclusion, a successful conclusion to arms control; that is, the Soviets drawing-down or eliminating their SS-20s in exchange for us perhaps not deploying the Pershing II. So the Pershing II may be the single most important deployment in terms of not only the INF talks, intermediate talks, but also the strategic talks.

I happen to believe, not withstanding some rather optimistic statements in the last few days, that we're not going to make much progress in strategic or START talks until we reach some conclusion in the INF talks.

MR. KALB: Mr. Evans?

MR. EVANS: Two questions and the first has to be hypothetical, but please try to answer it. Can you imagine any circumstances under which you, as the leading Democratic Senator on defense, would approve a major increase in our Marine force in Lebanon?

SENATOR NUNN: I would not want to vote for a resolution that restricted the Marine force in Lebanon to the present force or to the present mission, because I think, again, we would be endorsing an open-ended, vaguely defined kind of commitment with a restriction on military force. I think that's -- precisely the opposite. I think the mission ought to be limited and we ought to then give the military and the President whatever authority he needs to carry out that mission.

MR. EVANS: So -- So you can imagine increasing the Marine force. Correct?

SENATOR NUNN: I can imagine that, if I can first of all endorse the mission that the President defines. But what I don't want

11

[Lc]

to do is get in a trap of giving not enough military force to carry
out a very broad mission.

MR. EVANS: Second, sir, do you think it is wise for the
United States for the first time in our history since the Marines
went to Tripoli, I guess, a 150 years ago, for the U.S. forces in
American uniform to be engaged in war or a conflict -- I'll say a
conflict against any Arab -- any part of the Arab world given the
immensity of the Arab and Islamic world? Is this good for our foreign
policy?

SENATOR NUNN: I think it was a mistake to put the Marines
in Lebanon. I think it was a very, very poor decision that was not
well thought out. I said so at the time. I believe that we're now
paying the price for that. Our choices are not that attractive.

MR. KALB: Mr. Mossberg?

MR. MOSSBERG: Senator, you are one of a group of Senators
who has been very critical of President Reagan's strategic arms nego-
tiating position under which he seeks to reduce both the U.S. and
Soviets to about 5000 warheads. What's wrong with that position and
could you explain what you prefer?

SENATOR NUNN: The conditions -- Or the Administration's
position on arms control has changed considerably and a lot of people
haven't noted that in recent months. When the Administration started
out their -- their overall START negotiations -- First, they took a
very long time to conclude what they were going to propose. Second,
they -- really their original proposals tried to dictate Soviet force
structure. Now I would have applauded if we could ever reach an

12

agreement on that, but I don't believe either side is going to
tolerate the other side basically telling them what they can and
cannot do.

The Administration has changed that now. They are now mov-
ing towards limiting the number of warheads rather than launchers.
They have moved away from these sublimits on Soviet heavy missiles
and they're trying to put an overall limit on megatonnage and bring
it down and achieve indirectly what they could not hope to achieve
directly. So I think we're evolving towards a consensus on arms con-
trol -- the House, the Senate and the Administration. We haven't
reached it yet, but I'm rather optimistic that we can reach it if
all parties deal in good faith.

Now if we can reach that kind of bipartisan consensus on
arms control, it will send a very strong signal to the Soviet Union
that we're prepared as a nation to stick with a position through the
next election and, hopefully, even into the next Administration. If
we can come up with that consensus, then I think we have a much better
chance of reaching an agreement.

MR. MOSSBERG: Are you still considering, as you said you
were this past summer, withdrawing your support for the MX Missile,
which would presumably take some other Senators with you, unless the
Administration changes its arms control posture to one more to your
liking?

SENATOR NUNN: I'm more optimistic now than I was two or
three months ago that I will not have to take that step. I've never
been a fan of the MX. I think deploying a large MIRVed ICBM in a

13

vulnerable position is not a very sensible step to take, except in
the arms control context. The reason I voted for the MX is that this
weapon does to the Soviets, in terms to their landbased systems, what
they have already done to us. And I believe that the two, having the
same kind of vulnerabilities, it may be necessary to reach an arms
control agreement. But the MX deployment, in my view, the key to it
is what our arms control position is. I'm not saying the Soviets have
to agree, but I have to be convinced that we have a sensible position
to continue to support the MX. And that kind of sensible position, I
think, is evolving.

MR. KALB: Mr. Dancy?

MR. DANCY: Senator, the Administration is due to reveal
its own version of the build-down proposal very shortly. Are you
satisfied with the position that they have evolved? I'm sure you know
what that position is even though it hasn't been revealed.

SENATOR NUNN: No, as a matter of fact I don't know what it
is and I don't know that it's been decided yet. They keep promising
that they're going to come up with it. I'm hopeful. I'm optimistic,
as I said, that they will. Consensus is within reach, but I do not
now know what they're going to propose.

MR. DANCY: Why is there such a delay?

SENATOR NUNN: The Administration is torn. I think they
have a hard time making changes in their original position. Now the
changes we're advocating are not a weakening of the position, but
moving in a sensible direction that the American people can understand
and the Congress can understand.

[L]

14

MR. DANCY: But the President has in principle endorsed the build-down idea. Why is there such a delay on it?

SENATOR NUNN: I think in the final analysis the President himself is going to have to get more involved than he has. He's probably been diverted in recent days, but he's got to make that decision. There are some people in the Administration that will never agree to any change and I think those people have to be overruled.

MR. KALB: Ms. Lord?

MS. LORD: Yes. The downing of a Korean passenger plane by the Soviet Union exposed them to be an inhumane and inflexible society. It also exposed some weaknesses in their air defense system. They had pilots who worried about running out of fuel. They had apparently a radar system that couldn't distinguish a large jumbo jet from a smaller reconnaissance aircraft. The debate over the defense budget is ongoing. If the Soviets are not ten feet tall, as this incident may illustrate, why are we then throwing so much money at the problem?

SENATOR NUNN: Well, let me put it two ways. If you look at the Korean tragedy and you say what kind of a message do we learn from this, one message, in terms of Soviet capabilities, is that they do not have as sophisticated air defense as we had thought. And certainly I don't think you could make the case that the pilot was that well trained. I believe indications were pretty clear in that regard.

So, from the point of view of being able to penetrate Soviet airspace, which is one of the missions of the U.S. military forces, we might take encouragement from that very terrible tragedy. But from the

15

[Lc]

other point of view, that is preventing war, I think the news is not encouraging at all. It's very discouraging. We've seen a very trigger happy, not Soviet pilot, as some of their spokesmen are now leaking, but a trigger happy Soviet defense system. In a nuclear age where you could conceivably in the future have a Third World go in and hit one of the superpowers with a nuclear weapon and precipitate a possible World War III because of misunderstandings and miscalculations, it is not encouraging to me to believe that the Soviets cannot tell the difference between a 747 passenger plane and a spy plane, as they call it.

MS. LORD: Where then would you best target the money though, assuming that funds are going to be limited?

SENATOR NUNN: Well, I think you get back to conventional forces. I think conventional forces are important so that we won't have to escalate to nuclear weapons. But I think we also need to focus on arms control that would -- that would take into account the dangers of miscalculation and accident. We need to improve our ability to communicate in a crisis. In the kind of crisis we recently had communication was not even undertaken and I think that was regrettable. We need to improve, certainly in a nuclear age, our ability to communicate with the Soviet Union in a crisis situation.

MS. LORD: Hot line.

MR. KALD: Mr. Evans?

MR. EVANS: Senator, going from the sublime to the ridiculous, there is a presidential campaign. It's already started for next

[Lc]

16

year. You've been quoted as saying that all the Democratic candidates, I believe without exception, tend to be a little bit too soft on military and foreign policy problems, and that the President has a very good record and that Democratic candidates should pay more attention to it.

Do you think this is an elemental weakness in the Democratic position in 1984 and that you could lose the presidency on this national defense issue?

SENATOR NUNN: I don't remember being quoted to that effect and I'll have to look back --

MR. EVANS: Yes, sir, I read it just before I came here.

SENATOR NUNN: But I have said that I thought that one of the principal criterion on which -- criterions under which I would judge the candidates would be their foreign policy and defense positions. I think that is enormously important. I think it's important that the Democratic Party not be looked on as the party of isolationism or the party of a weak military.

MR. EVANS: Is the party politically weak on this issue?

SENATOR NUNN: There are some people in the party who would be, but I think there are others who are very strong, and that's what one of the battles is going to be about in the Democratic primaries.

MR. EVANS: Could you name one?

MR. KALB: Mr. Mossberg please.

MR. MOSSBERG: Senator Nunn, President Reagan is getting ready to send up another new budget. The Pentagon has finished its internal planning process and it looks like they're getting ready to

17

[Lc]

ask for another budget increase of ten percent or more, after accounting for inflation -- the kind that was so resisted this past spring on the Hill. Can they get that much money from Congress again?

SENATOR NUNN: I believe, Mr. Mossberg, that about a five, to six, to seven percent growth rate above inflation in the defense budget is as much as the Administration can expect, unless the President's willing to do something about the deficits otherwise. As long as he's adamant that we're going to have no tax increase; as long as he does not propose spending cuts which can appreciably dent the deficit, then he's going to be limited in terms of his overall ability to get a higher defense budget.

MR. KALB: Less than a minute to go. Mr. Mossberg?

MR. MOSSBERG: In that case, Senator, what -- What weapons projects would you propose getting rid of to bring that budget down to where you think it's realistic?

SENATOR NUNN: Well, as I mentioned, I think we need to re-look at our whole forward defense. I think we need to make different kinds of priority judgments in NATO and we need to shift the burden in NATO. I, for one, on the strategic side think we're building too many strategic programs. Too much emphasis on strategic programs not because we couldn't use them all, but because they're not the highest priority. I think we can't afford two bombers -- two new bombers and two new missiles and all the Cruise missiles we're building. I would have voted, and still will vote to kill the B-1. Others would take different choices. But the point is we're going to squeeze our conventional forces which need to be given top priority if we

[Lc]

18

don't whittle down the strategic nuclear budget.

MR. KALB: Senator, quick question. Should the President
go to the Philippines?

SENATOR NUNN: No.

MR. KALB: Thank you. Thank you very much for being our
guest today on MEET THE PRESS.

(Announcements.)

MR. KALB: The White House has just announced that a cease-
fire may be going into effect in Lebanon.

Next Sunday on MEET THE PRESS our guest will be Prime
Minister Indira Gandhi, of India, who will be visiting the U.N. as
head of the world's non-alligned nations.

-----