Maybe it was said, maybe in diplomatic circles
(affairs), I don't know. Maybe so. But we strive for a military parity, as
we always did, but we always have been behind you. And that's natural. Two
superpowers, as they say, and they are opposite, different class systems.
Therefore we are always moving at a distance, parity. And we can't not
secure ourselves. I'd be talking nonsense if I said that tomorrow by lunch
we'll be a great neutral country. That's not possible. It's been that way
for a long time. Because they wanted it that way. You can look at it from a
neutral side and say, "OK, that's enough", but how officially? It's not
possible. And therefore, such a fate we talked about, before I began your
question, it's a historical time, and we don't need to stop testing, but
test at the lowest levels. It's logical. It's less dangerous. And now with
the strike time of the missiles...Your Pershing II and our Kasis 20. Six
minutes. Six minutes. It means no government that receives news, even
Gorbachev...here are 2 governments. They receive news, the missiles have
been fired, no time to know why, mistake or not, there won’t be. Just push
the button. Delay, and your destroyed. What a reality! You can’t sit on your
hands when you now that they’ve gone off. Don't let them go. That's what I
wanted to say. And here's what's interesting, I want to throw in. We aren't
insulting the Americans with tricks; America, which we respect very much, a
nation with technology, industry, science. I was there many times, and it's
necessary not to make enemies of America. In general, it's not good to be at
enmity with a country. It's terrible. We have different patriotic roots,
religious roots, and that's an uncorrectable thing. OK. We never, nowhere,
when I'm with my soviet friends, my colleagues, we never say anything in our
country that would make anyone feel hatred for the American people. Now lets
say, just for argument's sake. No, that's not necessary. And that's the most
important thing, more than more contacts, exchanges, than better
understanding of what is ...Now I'll tell you an interesting story. I was
once at the Kennedy's, late in the evening. We were walking down the
corridor, Jacqueline, Kennedy, my wife and I. Little Caroline ran toward us.
She'd waken up, a little girl. Now she's grown up, and she was crying.
Jacqueline took her in her arms, took her to her bedroom and put her to bed.
And John Kennedy remarked on something. Beside the bed was a Matryoshka, a
sort of Russian doll, and a crucifix with Christ. And he said, "Mr. Abzhube,
your brother-in-law said that our children should live under Communism."
That statement was sort of a blunder on Khrushchev's part. He didn't mean
that they should be forced, but in the sense that it might happen. But it
was offensive to American society, such an authoritarian statement. "But I
prefer to put these two objects in front of her bed for her to choose -
present from Khrushchev or present from John XXIII. Let her