President John F. Kennedy
State of the Union Address, 1963
“This country, therefore, continues to require the best defense in the world - a defense which is suited to the sixties. This means, unfortunately, a rising defense budget - for there is no substitute for adequate defense, and no “bargain basement” way of achieving it. It means the expenditure of more than $15 billion this year on nuclear weapons systems alone, a sum which is about equal to the combined defense budgets of our European Allies. But it also means improved air and missile defenses, improved civil defense, a strengthened anti-guerrilla capacity and, of prime importance, more powerful and flexible non-nuclear forces. For threats of massive retaliation may not deter piecemeal aggression - and a line of destroyers in a quarantine, or a division of well-equipped men on a border, may be more useful to our real security than the multiplication of awesome weapons beyond all rational need. But our commitment to national safety is not a commitment to expand our military establishment indefinitely. We do not dismiss disarmament as merely an idle dream. For we believe that, in the end, it is the only way to assure the security of all without impairing the interests of any. Nor do we mistake honorable negotiation for appeasement. While we shall never weary in the defense of freedom, neither shall we ever abandon the pursuit of peace.”
President Lyndon B. Johnson
State of the Union Address, 1967
The Soviet Union has in the past year increased its long-range missile capabilities. It has begun to place near Moscow a limited antimissile defense. My first responsibility to our people is to assure that no nation can ever find it rational to launch a nuclear attack or to use its nuclear power as a credible threat against us or against our allies.
State of the Union Address, 1969
Until a way can be found to scale down the level of arms among the superpowers, mankind cannot view the future without fear and great apprehension. So, I believe that we should resume the talks with the Soviet Union about limiting offensive and defensive missile systems. I think they would already have been resumed except for Czechoslovakia and our election this year.
President Richard M. Nixon
“United States Foreign Policy for the 1970’s - Securing National Interests”
When I announced the Safeguard ABM program, I promised that “each phase of the deployment will be reviewed to insure that we are doing as much as necessary but no more than that required by the threat existing at that time.” The Defense Program Review Committee has just completed a thorough review of Safeguard against the background of SALT, our strategic policy, changes in the Soviet capability and the Chinese development of strategic forces. While it appears that the Soviets have slowed the increase of their missile systems, the evidence is far from unambiguous. Nor is it clear that even at present levels of Soviet forces, future qualitative improvements would not endanger our ICBM forces. The potential for qualitative improvements and numerical increases in Soviet forces poses a serious threat to our land-based strategic forces in the absence of agreed arms limitations on both defensive and offensive forces. Attacks might also be directed against our national command authorities and gravely endanger our capability to respond appropriately to the nature, scale and source of the attack. We still face the disturbing possibility of accidents. Finally, before this decade is over the Chinese will have the capability to threaten some of our major population centers. These developments persuade me of the wisdom of our initial decisions to take the necessary preliminary steps for Safeguard ABM deployments. I am convinced that we must plan to continue our Safeguard program for the present. At the same time we have actively discussed, with the Soviet Union, limitations on defensive as well as offensive strategic weapons. Some limits on ABM systems are essential to any SALT agreement. We have taken this into account in our planning. Last year Congress approved varying levels of work on the four Safeguard sites designed primarily to protect our Minuteman missiles. I will continue a Safeguard program designed to provide maximum flexibility in the conduct of the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks. We are doing nothing which precludes any possible agreement at SALT. Our specific plans for the coming year will be announced by the Secretary of Defense. At the same time we have no explicit statement from the U.S.S.R. as to the reasons for the leveling-off of the ICBM deployments, nor any guarantee that the apparent slowdown will continue. Moreover, the Soviet Union has been pursuing qualitative improvements which could threaten our reta1iatory forces. With all the will in the world, we may be unable to secure limitations in the SALT discussions. In view of that possibility, I deem it essential that we continue with the minimum program of work on ABM. Our strategic forces constitute the foundation of our nation’s security. We maintain these forces, in sufficient size and character, to achieve our objective of deterrence. While we intend to maintain whatever forces are necessary to insure our deterrent, we also intend to pursue every reasonable avenue of negotiation that might end the strategic arms race —a race that contributes nothing to the real security of either side.
President Ronald Reagan
Second Inaugural Address, 1985
I have spoken of our domestic goals and the limitations which we should put on our National Government. Now let me turn to a task which is the primary responsibility of National Government—the safety and security of our people. Today, we utter no prayer more fervently than the ancient prayer for peace on Earth. Yet history has shown that peace will not come, nor will our freedom be preserved, by good will alone. There are those in the world who scorn our vision of human dignity and freedom. One nation, the Soviet Union, has conducted the greatest military buildup in the history of man, building arsenals of awesome offensive weapons. We have made progress in restoring our defense capability. But much remains to be done. There must be no wavering by us, nor any doubts by others, that America will meet her responsibilities to remain free, secure, and at peace. There is only one way safely and legitimately to reduce the cost of national security, and that is to reduce the need for it. And this we are trying to do in negotiations with the Soviet Union. We are not just discussing limits on a further increase of nuclear weapons. We seek, instead, to reduce their number. We seek the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth. Now, for decades, we and the Soviets have lived under the threat of mutual assured destruction; if either resorted to the use of nuclear weapons, the other could retaliate and destroy the one who had started it. Is there either logic or morality in believing that if one side threatens to kill tens of millions of our people, our only recourse is to threaten killing tens of millions of theirs? I have approved a research program to find, if we can, a security shield that would destroy nuclear missiles before they reach their target. It wouldn’t kill people, it would destroy weapons. It wouldn’t militarize space, it would help demilitarize the arsenals of Earth. It would render nuclear weapons obsolete. We will meet with the Soviets, hoping that we can agree on a way to rid the world of the threat of nuclear destruction. We strive for peace and security, heartened by the changes all around us. Since the turn of the century, the number of democracies in the world has grown fourfold. Human freedom is on the march, and nowhere more so than our own hemisphere. Freedom is one of the deepest and noblest aspirations of the human spirit. People, worldwide, hunger for the right of self-determination, for those inalienable rights that make for human dignity and progress.
State of the Union Address, 1986
as long as each side knows it can retaliate with a deadly counterstrike. Well, I believe there’s a better way of eliminating the threat of nuclear war. It is a Strategic Defense Initiative aimed ultimately at finding a nonnuclear defense against ballistic missiles. It’s the most hopeful possibility of the nuclear age. But it’s not very well understood. Some say it will bring war to the heavens, but its purpose is to deter war in the heavens and on Earth. Now, some say the research would be expensive. Perhaps, but it could save millions of lives, indeed humanity itself. And some say if we build such a system, the Soviets will build a defense system of their own. Well, they already have strategic defenses that surpass ours; a civil defense system, where we have almost none; and a research program covering roughly the same areas of technology that we’re now exploring. And finally some say the research will take a long time. Well, the answer to that is: “Let’s get started.”
President George W. Bush
State of the Union Address, 2002
“We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. (Applause.) And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation’s security.”
