Ten years ago, the United States and the Soviet Union made the historic decision to open the strategic arms limitations talks, or salt.  The purpose of salt, then as now, is not to gain a unilateral advantage for either nation, but to protect the security of both nations, to reverse the costly and dangerous momentum of the nuclear arms race, to preserve a stable balance of nuclear forces, and to demonstrate to a concerned world that we are determined to help preserve the peace.

The first salt agreement was concluded in 1972.  And since then, during 6 years of negotiation by both Republican and Democratic leaders, nearly all issues of salt II have been resolved.  If the Soviet Union continues to negotiate in good faith, a responsible salt agreement will be reached.

It’s important that the American people understand the nature of the salt process.

Salt II is not based on sentiment; it’s based on self-interest—­of the United States and of the Soviet Union.  Both nations share a powerful common interest in reducing the threat of a nuclear war.  I will sign no agreement which does not enhance our national security.

Salt II does not rely on trust; it will be verifiable.  We have very sophisticated, proven means, including our satellites, to determine for ourselves whether or not the Soviet Union is meeting its treaty obligations.  I will sign no agreement which cannot be verified.

The American nuclear deterrent will remain strong after salt II.  For example, just one of our relatively invulnerable Poseidon submarines—­comprising less than 2 percent of our total nuclear force of submarines, aircraft, and land-based missiles—­carries enough warheads to destroy every large- and medium-sized city in the Soviet Union.  Our deterrent is overwhelming, and I will sign no agreement unless our deterrent force will remain overwhelming.

A salt agreement, of course, cannot substitute for wise diplomacy or a strong defense, nor will it end the danger of nuclear war.  But it will certainly reduce that danger.  It will strengthen our efforts to ban nuclear tests and to stop the spread of atomic weapons to other nations.  And it can begin the process of negotiating new agreements which will further limit nuclear arms.

The path of arms control, backed by a strong defense, the path our Nation and every President has walked for 30 years, can lead to a world of law and of international negotiation and consultation in which all peoples might live in peace.  In this year 1979, nothing is more important than that the Congress and the people of the United States resolve to continue with me on that path of nuclear arms control and world peace.  This is paramount.