“It would not be prudent at this juncture.”
On “Saturday Night Live,” comedian Dana Carvey, impersonated President George Herbert Walker Bush with the memorable line, “it would not be prudent at this juncture.” It was not only humorous, but an accurate description of the thoughtful approach, as well as the personality and character of the man who I had interacted with when I was the Chief Scientist of the SDI.
Reflecting on the man after his recent death, I recall the way he acted with prudence after the implosion of the Soviet Union. On Sept. 28, 1991, Bush announced his strategic nuclear weapons plans. He wanted to curtail further deployment of all nuclear tipped nuclear weapons. He wanted to limit all of our ICBMs to single warheads in order to avoid any perceived benefit from a first strike and to negotiate a posture of convincing deterrence. Part of this strategy was that there not be any sort of global missile defense as proposed by Ronald Reagan. He did recognize the growing proliferation of short-range ballistic missiles, and he called for developing and deploying limited defenses that would still be effective against the growing threat from rogue states.
His approach in 1991 was to maintain deterrence based on threat of mutual assured destruction while assuring the Russians that we had no intention of defending ourselves against their ability to retaliate. He had not changed his point of view from that when I met with him six years earlier. He had been asked by President Reagan to visit our allies and negotiate agreements with them to join us in a giant R&D program. Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger offered the allies prospects of lucrative contracts and technology sharing if they would sign on to supporting our SDI program.
I was asked to go along on the trip and provide low key technical back up to the negotiations. Bush invited me to visit him in his office and give him a one-on-one briefing on the program. He was cordial, informal and a good listener, but he obviously was not interested in details. We sat in overstuffed leather chairs next to a coffee table that had a signed picture of his previous vice-presidential opponent Gerry Ferraro. I noticed his plaid watch band that struck me as what would be expected of a prep school high school student and we chatted back and forth as if we were old friends.
After we talked, he asked me to come on over for dinner and continue the discussion with some of his friends. The old friends were all distinguished members of the political strategic weapons community and after dinner we went around the table and shared thoughts with the vice president. All of the comments about SDI ranged from mild disagreement to outright opposition.
Harold Brown, former secretary of defense under Jimmy Carter, said “SDI is not a very good idea…it is a mistaken commitment to a real gamble.” Other comments basically argued that this program would mess up our relations with the allies that Bush would face on the trip. After listening to all of the opinions without comment, he closed the discussion by saying, ‘This is a listening trip…. not an SDI trip…this is a prudent step.”
I still thought the trip was on and even bought a new suit for the trip, rather than the threadbare one I had worn to dinner, but I soon learned that Reagan had decided to focus the trip on counter terrorism, not SDI, and my services were no longer needed. I should have realized that Bush believed that the trip was “not prudent at this juncture.”
With his calm, careful and thoughtful approach, Bush never sought nor received much attention in the Reagan administration, so it was not obvious at that the time that he was destined for greatness. When he was elected as President, he provided honest and clear-thinking leadership that served our nation well. He will be recognized as one of our greatest Presidents and we sure could benefit from a George Herbert Walker Bush in the White House today.
SDI Guy 
Dear SDI Guy, You are mistaken. I can no longer trust your judgment and will be unsubscribing. Michele in Del.
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
LikeLike
Well said Gerry. His passing at this time serves as a reminder that “all glory is fleeting”. Too bad Trump never studies or even ponders history. He could learn so much about grace and integrity from #41
LikeLike
A most interesting and informative post remembering George H W Bush. You were certainly “in the cat bird’s seat” as the saying goes. I’m afraid I took for granted the statesmanship exhibited by many of those people you were rubbing shoulders with. I agree that we desperately need that we desperately need the qualities Bush brought to the presidency now. Thanks for sharing your eulogaic (is that a word ?) memories with me. And thanks for sticking with the LLDS Board. I know that it is not easy work but important to the lives of a lot of wonderful people. Oleta ________________________________
LikeLike
Gerry,
What about Iraq, Iran contra, Willie Horton? Not so great.
Nancy
Nancy Hollander
Freedman Boyd Hollander Goldberg Urias & Ward P.A.
20 First Plaza, Suite 700, Albuquerque, NM 87102
Phone 1.505.842.9960 Direct 1.505.244.7517 Fax 1.505.842.0761
nh@fbdlaw.com http://www.fbdlaw.com
Associate Tenant-Doughty Street Chambers
http://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/barristers/profile/nancy-hollander
This message and any attached documents are intended only for the use of the Addressee and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you may not read, copy, distribute or use this information. If you have received this communication in error, please erase all copies of the message and its attachments and notify us immediately by reply or by telephone (call us at 505-842-9960).
LikeLike
Gerry,
Thanks for sharing. We are fortunate that H.W. was President during the collapse of the Soviet Union and contributed in a major way to ensuring that the transition, including the reunification of Germany was peaceful.
LikeLike
Nicely written. H.W. deserves all the accolades. However, every so often we need a General Patton or U.S. Grant to clean house. Like these two leaders, President Trump doesn’t much care whether the majority of the American public like him. I fear, however, that genuine immigration reform will not take place in the next two years. Possible in after 2020 if delusional liberals come to their senses.
LikeLike
Tuesday, 12/4/2018 – -7 PM
GY:
First of all. . .. : Thanks for sending this. Very interesting. You sure had a “front row seat.”
Some comments (and please do keep in mind that I have no “insider status” and do not know what are probably considered “the basics”). In other words, it may well be that I simply “don’t know what I’m talking about.”
That having been said. . .
Re: “ He wanted to limit all of our ICBMs to single warheads in order to avoid any perceived benefit from a first strike and to negotiate a posture of convincing deterrence.”
I have not kept up with the details, but I was under the impression that our nuclear arsenal was was in fact all “mirv’d” (or at least, much of it was). But I may simply be mis-informed. I’m no specialist on these matters. (I do remember a Herblock cartoon of some monstrous, multi-headed looking entity being introduced at a family gathering, “I’d like you to meet my uncle Mirv!” Something like that). MIRV was a recipe for instability, but I don’t remember that it was ever resolved.
Re Harold Brown (who, as I recall, was a previous president of Cal Tech, and a man of supposed genius). . I am quite surprised by his statement, as quoted in your email: “SDI is not a very good idea. . it is a mistaken commitment to a real gamble.”
I don’t think he ever said that publicly. . (but then, maybe I am misinformed). Bottom line: I don’t understand what the substitute was that Brown endorsed. The unstated implication —based on how he is quoted-is that he had (or advocated) what amounted to a “better idea”. . Am I reading this wrong?
Was Brown a Pasadena version of Dr. Strangelove? Yikes!
Anyway, all very interesting. . .
DSL (primary address: dlifton@earthlink.net)
P.S. And here I thought everything was OK, because you were in charge (!).
> > Remembering the legacy of George H.W. Bush by gyonas > “It would not be prudent at this juncture.” > > On “Saturday Night Live,” comedian Dana Carvey, impersonated President George Herbert Walker Bush with the memorable line, “it would not be prudent at this juncture.” It was not only humorous, but an accurate description of the thoughtful approach, as well as the personality and character of the man who I had interacted with when I was the Chief Scientist of the SDI. > > Reflecting on the man after his recent death, I recall the way he acted with prudence after the implosion of the Soviet Union. On Sept. 28, 1991, Bush announced his strategic nuclear weapons plans. He wanted to curtail further deployment of all nuclear tipped nuclear weapons. He wanted to limit all of our ICBMs to single warheads in order to avoid any perceived benefit from a first strike and to negotiate a posture of convincing deterrence. Part of this strategy was that there not be any sort of global missile defense as proposed by Ronald Reagan. He did recognize the growing proliferation of short-range ballistic missiles, and he called for developing and deploying limited defenses that would still be effective against the growing threat from rogue states. > > His approach in 1991 was to maintain deterrence based on threat of mutual assured destruction while assuring the Russians that we had no intention of defending ourselves against their ability to retaliate. He had not changed his point of view from that when I met with him six years earlier. He had been asked by President Reagan to visit our allies and negotiate agreements with them to join us in a giant R&D program. Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger offered the allies prospects of lucrative contracts and technology sharing if they would sign on to supporting our SDI program. > > I was asked to go along on the trip and provide low key technical back up to the negotiations. Bush invited me to visit him in his office and give him a one-on-one briefing on the program. He was cordial, informal and a good listener, but he obviously was not interested in details. We sat in overstuffed leather chairs next to a coffee table that had a signed picture of his previous vice-presidential opponent Gerry Ferraro. I noticed his plaid watch band that struck me as what would be expected of a prep school high school student and we chatted back and forth as if we were old friends. > > After we talked, he asked me to come on over for dinner and continue the discussion with some of his friends. The old friends were all distinguished members of the political strategic weapons community and after dinner we went around the table and shared thoughts with the vice president. All of the comments about SDI ranged from mild disagreement to outright opposition. > > Harold Brown, former secretary of defense under Jimmy Carter, said “SDI is not a very good idea…it is a mistaken commitment to a real gamble.” >
> >
DSL
>
LikeLike
As I wrote in my book, in 1983 Harold Brown told a group of us that had prepared the SDI plan that “he was dead set against defense since it would add uncertainty to the offense…..that the key to deterrence was the certainty that both societies would be totally and irrevocably destroyed in a nuclear exchange”.
LikeLike