LET'S BEGIN WITH, TELL US WHAT YOU CAN ABOUT THE LITTLE STORY ABOUT THE BILL BUCKLEY AND THEN THE PRESIDENT?

I have argued for defense for more than two decades. In the summer of '82, I appeared on "Firing Line" and argued for it again. And Bill Buckley asked me, "Why don't you ask your friend, the President, for $30 billion?" And I told him, "Unfortunately I have not seen the President since he's in office. And also I need only one percent of the sum to get started with what I have in mind." A few weeks later I got a call. Somebody showed the film to the President. I was invited to his office, had the opportunity to say a few words in general. I hardly can believe that it made any difference. I was one of the many who have argued for this necessity. Now that was a full minute.

HOW MUCH? A FULL MINUTE?

Yes.

CAN YOU DO IT FASTER?

In the summer of '82, I appeared on "Firing Line," and on Bill Buckley's question I argued for, as usual, for defense. And Bill asked me, "Why don't you tell the President?" And I said, "I never see him." Well, somebody showed him that film. I was soon asked to see the President for less than half an hour. I just said a few words, nothing very positive, very detailed, just that defense is necessary and hopeful, and that was all. That was now, I tell you, exactly 35 seconds on the dot. Is that good?

PERFECT. YOU'RE VERY GOOD AT THIS. YOU'VE DONE THIS BEFORE?

Maybe. What's the next question?

MARCH 23RD, 1983, WHERE WERE YOU? JUST TELL US THAT STORY OF BEING... YOU WENT TO THE WHITE...

I was invited. I don't know why. I got there, heard the topic, was very happy about it, and after the President spoke I had this long conversation with him. I stopped him and told him, "Thank you, Mr. President, that's all." But I can tell you, in this room there were many people. Some of them I talked, and they said before the President's talk and after the President's talk the same thing: Some agreed, some disagreed. Some, I'm happy to say, agreed strongly.

I WANT TO ASK YOU NEXT, HOW COMPLETE A SHIELD KENNEDY EVENTUALLY...

Nothing is ever complete, and no war is predictable. The point about the shield is that it never should be tested, it never will be tested, if we have a shield. If it looks good enough to make the success of the attack doubtful, I think there never will be a war. A shield is the best deterrent, not only for us, but for the whole world.

THE NEXT ONE IS, THE DEFENSE-OFFENSE QUESTION. ISN'T EVERY DEFENSE REALLY AN OFFENSE IN DISGUISE? THAT'S KIND OF THE QUESTION.

Anything can be used as a weapon... Anything can be used as a weapon. My pocket knife here can be used as a weapon. We have, as everybody knows, very excellent, very terrible offensive weapons. SDI, as we are now working on it, can be a weapon, but a very poor one. Compared to what we have, nobody would want to use it. We have accurate instruments adapted to shoot down incoming missiles. At that they are excellent, and they're nothing else.

YOUR INF QUESTION, WHAT DO YOU THINK OF IT?

Was it too dramatic to show my --?

NO, YOU CANNOT BE TOO DRAMATIC ON TELEVISION. ...INF QUESTION?

INF, as all other unequal treaties, is a terrible idea. It is a treaty between an open society which will observe it and a closed society which will not observe it. However, if INF is joined by SDI, some, in fact many, of the Soviet weapons will have to be destroyed. And, and again, the remainder of defense will then be a good defense, if we work with the Europeans on it. Then Reagan's initiative will be a very wonderful thing, because that way, with disarmament and defense, we will have a much better chance to prevent war.

I HAVE ONE QUESTION ABOUT THAT, WHICH I DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND: WHY WOULD THE SOVIET UNION HAVE TO REDUCE THEIR WEAPONS? THAT'S THE ONLY PART OF THAT STATEMENT THAT I'M NOT CLEAR ON. WOULD THAT BE CLEAR TO OTHER PEOPLE?

Because a violation, I can explain. If they are supposed to destroy 400 missiles and they are still running around as before, that will be noticeable.

THAT'S CLEAR. I HAD ONE FINAL QUESTION.

Look, shall we let that stand?

YES, WE CAN LET THAT STAND. UNLESS YOU WANT TO TRY IT AGAIN.

I think I could do it better.

I THINK YOU COULD, TOO. LET'S DO THAT AGAIN. EXCELLENT, THANK YOU. ANY TIME, SIR.

INF by itself is a terrible treaty. It is an unequal treaty between an open society, which will obey the treaty, and a closed society, which never has and never will. But they cannot evade it completely. Many of the intermediate missiles will have to be destroyed. If there is INF and defense, and SDI, as President Reagan has suggested, neither of them will work 100 percent. Together, they will be very useful, if the Europeans, who are rightly afraid of those intermediate missiles, if the Europeans join us in defense, if we go ahead, as President Reagan has planned, if we work together, united, both parties, then it could be a real method of preventing war.

CAN YOU DO IT SHORTER? WOULD YOU?

INF by itself is an unequal treaty between an open society which will obey it and a closed society which will not. But if INF worked hand in hand with defense, with strategic defense, as the President proposed, then it is a magnificent idea, particularly if we are joined by our allies and if we work on it together. It is important that over such questions of peace and war, Republicans and Democrats, and all of our people, should stand behind the President, who has done an excellent job.

I HAVE ONE FINAL QUESTION. I'M ASKING EVERYBODY THIS QUESTION. FIFTY YEARS FROM NOW, WHEN THE HISTORY BOOKS ARE WRITTEN AND THERE'S A CHAPTER ON THE REAGAN YEARS AND THERE'S A PARAGRAPH ON THE PRESIDENT'S CONTRIBUTION TO OUR STRATEGIC THINKING IN REGARD TO NUCLEAR WAR, WHAT WILL THE HISTORIANS SELECT TO SAY WAS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT THE PRESIDENT ACCOMPLISHED, OR FAILED TO ACCOMPLISH, DURING HIS ADMINISTRATION? THAT'S THE QUESTION. AND IF YOU COULD MAKE THIS AS BRIEF AND SUCCINCT AS POSSIBLE, IT WOULD BE TERRIFIC.

When President Reagan came to office, we had a cruel and senseless policy, mutual assured destruction. When he left office, we have learned common sense. Defense, incomplete but visible.

THAT WAS GOOD. ABOUT 15, 20 SECONDS, RIGHT? IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? THAT WAS THE INF.

Let me try that once more.

I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT.

INF, by itself, cannot be fully verified and therefore is no good. INF and defense, which in turn will be incomplete. The two together, with the help of our allies, with the help of everybody in the United States, Republican and Democrat, could be a wonderful way toward peace. That is why Reagan has made a success, at least the conditions for success, and it is up to all of us to back him up.

INF, in itself, is not completely verifiable and therefore not good. INF and strategic defense together, backed by our allies, backed by Republican and Democrat, would be magnificent. The President has done a wonderful job. It is up to us now to back him up and create the conditions for peace.