dialogue basbeenanunprecedented attempt bytworivalstomanagetheir competition andavertwar.Weknowthatwesbarearesponsibility formaintaining peace,notjustforOlirpeoples, butforalltheearth's peoples. Despiteallthedifficulties, letusremember whatbasbeenaccomplisbed. Aftertbetwomostdestructive warsinbistory, thesuper-Powers, joinedwith others, haveaverted worldwarforfourdecades. Wehavehadsomesuccess in limiting nuclear testing. Working together withothernations sincetheTreatyon theNon-Proliferation ofNuclear Weapons in1968,wehavesucceeded inrestricting theproliferation ofnuclear weapons. Twentyyearsagoitwas conventiC'r;~.j~ wisdom thattherewouldbe15to25nuclear-weapon States bytoday;yetthenumberof Statesacknowledged topossess nuclear weapons hasheldatfiveforthepast20 years. TheUnitedStatesremains conunitted toallthegoalsoftheTreaty, whose ThirdReviewConference just conclud~d successfully inGeneva. AndtheUnited StatesandtheSovietUnionhavetakenpractical stepstoavoidconflict. our navieshavelQlgagreedtoworktogether toprevent incidents atsea.Andwehave setupandimproved the"hotline"forcrisiscommunications. Inthenuclear andspacearmstalksinGeneva, theUnitedStateshasadvanced far-reaching proposals: areduction byalmostone-half inthemostdestabilizing weapons, strategic ballistic missile warheads, andtheelimination ofthewhole classoftheUnitedStatesandS~7ietlonger-range intermediate-range nuclear forcesmissiles worldwide, allleadingultimately tothecomplete elimination of nuclear arms. Werepeatedly havestressed ourreadiness forgiveandtakeandtoAMH/ll A/40/PV;o4 44-45 (Mr.Shultz, UnitedStates) consider alternative proposals. Eachofourproposals hasbeenfollowed upby further attempts tofindcommongrounawiththeSovietUnion. Wehaveoffered trade-offs andhavemadeclearourreadiness totakeaccount oflegitimate Soviet concerns toobtainanagreement thatwouldenhance strategic stability and strengthen deterrenet,. Progress atGenevahasbeenslow.ThusfartheSovietUnionhasnot negotiated withtheresponsiveness thatthetalksrequire. Nonetheless,our determination toreachanequitable agreement hasnotwavered. Inthisspirit, President ReaganlastJunedecided tocontinue ourpolicyof takingnoactionthatwouldundercut thelimitsofprevious agreements, tothe extenttheSovietUnionshowscomparable restraint. Despite serious reservations aboutthoseagreements, andserious concerns abouttheSovietrecordof non-comp1i.anC~·I' thePresident madethisdecision tofosteraclimateoftruly mutualrestraint tofacilitate progress inarmscontrol. Whilethemostdirectpathtoasaferworldisthrough equitable, verifiable reductions, wealsoseevalueinverifiable limitations onnucleartesting. For thatreason, President Reagan, inhisspeechtothisbodylastyear,proposed that theUnitedStatesandtheSOvietUnionexchange visitsofegpert~attestsitesto measuredirectly theyieldsofnuclear-weapon test.Thiswouldsignificantly improve confidence intheverifiability ofproposed treatylimitsonunderground testing. TheSovietUnionrejected thisoffer. Nevertheless, lastJuly,the President issuedanunconditional invitation foraSovietteamtoobserve and measure anucleartestattheNevadaTestSite. WeagaincallontheSovietUnion totakeupthisoffer,whichisaconcrete, positive steptowardverifiable restrictions onnuclear testing.JSM/td' ~/4.0iPV.4 46 (Mr.Shultz" UnitedStates) l'ilentheAnti-Ballistic-Missile Treat:ywassignedin1972itwasassumed that tightlimitsondefensive systems wouldmat-I,epossible r~alreductions instrategic offensive arms.ButtheSovietUnionhasnElveragreedtoany3iIeaningful reductions inoffensive nuclear. arms.Instead,ithascontinued anunprecedented military build-up -particularly inheavyintercontinental ballistic missilGs witha first-strike capability -whichiseroding thebasisonwhichdeterrence hasrested fordecades. Thestrategy ofreliance onoffensive retaliation topreserve deterrence andprevent warthusisbeingcalledintoquestion bySovietactions. Theansweris,first,forusbothtoagree ~nstrategically significant, verifiable reductions inthenumbers anddestructive potential ofoffensive weapons. Butthereareadditional waystoredress theproblem. President Reagan hasdirected ourscientists andengineers toexamine, inthelightofnew technologies andfullyinaccordwiththeAnti-Ballistic-Missile Treaty-the Tfeasibility ofdefence againstballistic-missile attack. Strategic defence could giveourchildren andgrandchildren asaferworld. Wewouldcontinue torelyon deterrence toprevent war,butdeterrence wouldbebasedmoreondenying success to apote~tial attacker andlessonthreatening massive mutualdestruction. Sucha meansofdeterrence shouldbesaferandmorestable. OUrgoalisnottoachieve superiority buttoaddtothesecurity ofbothsides. AsformerSovietPremier Kosygin said,ananti-missile systemDisintended notforkilling peoplebutfor
**Analysis**
The text appears to be a diplomatic speech or statement regarding international relations, specifically focused on arms control, nuclear disarmament, and the prevention of war. The language used is formal and diplomatic, indicating a high-level discussion or negotiation between governments.

**Category**
International relations, Science and technology