NSDD 173 Building an Interim Framework for Mutual Assistance

SECRET UNCLASSIFIED 6 development of this missile cannot, at this point, be corrected by the Soviet Union, the United States, therefore, reserves the right to respond appropriately, and the United States will do so small ICBM program is particularly relevant in this regard. in a proportionate manner at the appropriate time. The MIDGETMAN 08 Other Soviet activities involving noncompliance may be reversible and can be corrected by Soviet action. In these instances, we will go the extra mile and provide the Soviet Union additional time to take such required corrective action. As we monitor Soviet behavior for evidence of the positive, concrete steps needed on their part to correct these activities, I direct the Department of Defense to conduct a comprehensive assessment aimed at identifying specific actions which the United States could take to accelerate or augment as necessary the U.S. strategic modernization program in proportionate response to, and as a hedge against the military consequences of, those Soviet violations of existing arms agreements which the Soviets fail to correct. In addition to the development of appropriate and proportionate U.S. military responses in the face of uncorrected Soviet noncompliance this review should also consider the consequences of continued Soviet force growth as indicated in the most recent National Intelligence Estimate on this subject, the alterations to the ICBM portion of the U.S. strategic modernization program which have resulted from recent Congressional action, and the issue of how the second 50 PEACEKEEPER missiles should appropriately be based. Soviet behavior during rounds II and III of the Nuclear and Space Talks should also be taken fully into account. In this context, as potential U.S. future actions are assessed, certain criteria will be used. The options should be designed as proportionate responses to specific instances of uncorrected Soviet noncompliance, hedging against the military consequences of such Soviet noncompliance. They need not necessarily be equivalent types of actions. In fact, such tit-for-tat responses are less useful. Rather, options should attempt to deny the Soviets the potential benefits of their noncompliance and, to the extent possible, provide incentives to the Soviets to correct their noncompliant activity. In all cases, the primary focus must and will remain upon options that underwrite deterrence, enhance stability, and can be directly tied to the specific requirements of our national security In this regard, the U.S. goal is not, per se, to build additional forces, but to use these options to ensure our security in the face of uncorrected Soviet noncompliance and to provide incentives to the Soviets to correct their noncompliance and join us in establishing a meaningful interim framework of mutual restraint. The results of this review should be provided for my consideration by November 15, 1985. This should provide SECRET SECREL INCLASSIFIED