1 20 2 https://declassified.library.utoronto.ca/files/original/12332420406a99f4a461730a892c0a60.pdf 9db16cfc09d87e3fa6e2683768f0b173 PDF Text Text .: CC: ;', • SSEA US SEA D.L. (1)/EPBlayk/-sh-._ ·-·---- --. _ _ , Mr. Dier Liaison Services S 5 219--'Jtl-'- -L- C R E T . Ottat·Ia, June 3, 1963. THE PR::GlE EllUSTZR Visit of Livingston Uerchant - A UATO F.i:ultilateral Nuclear Force U-ILF) You nay lJish to have the following background documents available in anticipation of the visit this ueek of the USA Special Ambassador Living ... ston Ilerchant to outline the proposc..ls fer a multilateral nuclear force. These documents are as follous: (1) ·It brief prepared by the Departr:1ent of :external Affairs, on the UATO Iiultilateral nuclear Force. This represents an up-dating of the brief prepared for the Hyannis Port meeting. (2} An account of the visit on November 15; 1962 of a USA team headed by Gerard Swith of the State Department and Admiral Lee, U. s. Navy, to brief Canadian senior service officers and officials on a multilateral seaborne jJRRi force. Uhile this docuoent has been overtaken by events, it is uorth reading for the differences betueen the approach of the U. s. Govern_ment to this at that now. ( 3) A copy of a :t;ILF • us;\ feasibility study of the BY W1ARTIN 000039 < � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CDNW03693 Title A name given to the resource Memorandum for the Prime Minister from Paul Martin Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived "NATO - Nuclear weapons - Policy - NATO long term planning," RG25-A-3-b, vol 5960, file 50219-AL-2-40, part 9-1, Library and Archives Canada (LAC). Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Canadian Crown Subject The topic of the resource Nuclear Weapons Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Canada Declassified Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource PDF Language A language of the resource en Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 3-Jun-63 https://declassified.library.utoronto.ca/files/original/df4540a7aec28d3413099a2e8b752530.pdf a2899838327b117ea64d83e04f5f123b PDF Text Text SECRET A tl.(tTO l';ult-.tlatersJ, Uuelejlt Fgree The eosential problem posed by the Uassau Agreement is ho"1 the United States is to share control of nuclear treapons 11ith its allies, particularly the Europeans. In recant years the United States has becooe noro vulnerable to a nuclear attack by the Soviet Union. In these circuosta.nces som2 Europeans have come to doubt tJhether the United States 11ould risk its otm destruction in· a crisis in t7hich European interests trere pricarily at stake. Successive United States have atte:npted to devise l'Iays for rea::it.\"iJI'i.ng Europeans by assi.:;ning tJ. s. strategic foreet:; to IlATO and by proposing different for g!ving Europeans a ereater sense of participation in the strategic de£ence a.rrangeoents of the Alliance. The latest of these schemes has been the proposal for a oultilateral mixed-manned sea-borne or submarine force aroed with the Polaris missile. The proposal raises problems or great complexity · "Which td.ll take considerable time to clarify.. There is the question whether the United States Congress can be persuaded to amend the r.1acrlahon Act so as to the United States Administration to transfer the m·mership and control of nuclear 1·rarheads for such a force to some sort o£ multilateral legal entity undor llATO. There ia also the question tJhether satisfactory control arrangements can be devised trhieh t1ould permit a number of members of the Alliance to participate in collective decisions about the use of the weapons in the force. A cutting edge has been introduced into the discussions of tho paragraph 8 force by the U.S. "Oampaiening" for consideration of a force of surfnc·e ships armed \11th Polaris type missiles. This force eould bo multinationally otmed, controlled, and manned by G.:\TO in the 1960-70 time period. The concept of a force of surface vessels armed tdth s is not ne\1 and predates Ua.ssau. Hot!evcr, the main evolution in the characteristics of the multi· lateral nuclear force from those envisaged at the tlassau oeeting is the inclusion of this mixed-manned surface eleoent. Some confusion exists as to the composition of the proposed paragraph g multilateral force. This confusion in due in part 'to the SOtleuhat free use of oultiple tams. Hot·Jever,. all versions o£ the UA'i'O rnultilateral nuclear force comprise one or more of the follolting elements: (a) A British submarine Polaris force of as yet unspecified numbers to be equipped uith U. s .. Polaris missiles and armed British nuclear uarheads. 000040 �SECRET ... 2 - {b) least abovo. is termed 0 UJA forces at to those in paratt,raph (a) · PrL>Oumnbly these .forces could be either 'iolaris submarines or liinutenmn ICB::i• s ·or some othar. delivery system. (c) A oea based 100I,1 £orca. The tias.sau agreement only makes mention in parac;raphs 7 and 8. Hol1ever, the curre.."lt u. s. ·proposal for a surface ship force adds oultilateral ownership and oixed-oanning to the original plan • It should be noted in passina that this olernent is referred to by tho u. s. as ffThe I1ultilateral Foree (r.J.-F)n. ot a IJATO mUltilateral nuclear force AlthoU3h thero are reservations among sooo NATO members, on the eventual composition of a sea based force. the u. s. proposal env1saces a force or approximately 25 surface vessels equipped tdth 8 Polaris type missiles onCh. The u. s. has produced a detailed feasibility study of this force and has appointed special Ambassador Livincston I:IGrchant trlith a team to tour UA.TO capi ... tals on request and brief notional authoriti.es on tho major aspects of tho proposal. Ue understand that tho Uost German Govern- u.s. Government or its l·r.i.llingness to take part in a HATO !-1ultilateral lluclear Force. The British Goverrunent is reluctant to play other than a minor role in this foreo and the USA is ensnced in trying to porouade the British to take n larger role. Italy ho.s indicated an interest but it clear, af'ter the r3oent election results, this is otill ment has now officially ·informed the the ease. Greece and Turkoy have indicated a t·Iillingness to take but are not 1n t\ position to malce financial contribution. Tho Belgians have indicated an interest and, to a extent,. so have the Dutch but until a neu ·Dutch Government is formed tnere is no official Dutch position. The French do not tr.ish to talte part nor do the Danes and Horueeians. Some of the argumanta for and against Canadian participation in the J;aF are: tor Cang.d!in s:up:eort. l) Tho proposal to establish the ll.LF is an is.aginative idea tthich by eneourag:Lt\s _a oupra.. nationa1 force l'lithin the Alliance could go soma tray to creating a nel-1 basis for defence co-opera• t ion in the tJest. 2) The experionce gained in I.UJ? could have important implications for U. the peace-keeping machinery an4 the 'establishment o! the I·ILF could provide useful experience in any •.. /J 000041 �.. .. .-3future international arcs control organization. ; ) Canadian participation in the I!iLF might provide . Canada td.th a "1orth11hile military contri• bution tlithin liATO in the 1970' a. tJhether or not this '-rould be the case tJould require detailed l;ltudy by the Department of National Defence. 4) In vieH o£ the strong commitment to the establishment of the on the part of President Kennedy and the USA Administration, Canadian lack of interest in participating in the .force could have an adverse effect on other areas of Canadian-U.s.· defence co-operation. 5) German agreement to take part in the I!iLF and contribute substantially to it will encourage unity within the Alliance and o£tset to some extent French efforts to establish a n11ttle Europe" under French leadership. 6) has a requirement for a land• based HftBi.1 force and the HLF although not land.. based l1ould go some l'ray to meet this request. Argumep.ta aga!p.st Canf+<!!an SUJ2po[-,;. l) Since all nuclear weapons systems are extremely expensive, the sharing or the financial burden o£ a NATO force vrill raise a major issue for the Alliance. Even i£ a basis for financial arrang&"!lent s can be agrQed to in terms o£ current or knotm systems it is · increasingly difficult to forecast future requirements for modernization and replaceoent. Precise 1Y.formation is, on long ter.m costs but the current USA esttmate of total cost is 0500 n annually £or ten years; a national share is 05 z,l annually. · 2) It is by no means clear at this time bOlf the force tdll fit into the NATO Alliance nor indeed is there any assurance that this novel concept can be translated into an effective military force. 3) The French Government is quite opposed to the establishment of the MLF and it is questionable whether at this time it is l"lorth pro• ceeding rdth a policy t1hieh risks a further split in the Alliance. 4) t1est Germany's position in the will give it an extremely important say in the nuclear policy of the Alliance and it is for consideration whether it is in the interests of NATO to give the tlest Germans such an important role in the force. 5) The Soviet Union has indicated that it regards the )fi..F as an absolute increase in Uestern .•• /4 000042 �- 4- S ECRET strategic power which has in it the seeds of an independent German nuclear capability.. Extreme Soviet reaction to the establishment of the MLF is a risk that must be taken into account. 6) . · Participants in the MLF may be 'Ulltlble to spend the additional funds which be re• quired to meet their conventional force goals. ,, 7) It is for consideration 1fbether the l'lest is ready at this stage for the abandonment of national sovereignty to the extent vhat tdll be required if an r..lLF is established. June 3, 196.3. 000043 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CDNW03692 Title A name given to the resource "A NATO Multilateral Nuclear Force (MLF)" Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived "NATO - Nuclear weapons - Policy - NATO long term planning," RG25-A-3-b, vol 5960, file 50219-AL-2-40, part 9-1, Library and Archives Canada (LAC). Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Canadian Crown Subject The topic of the resource Nuclear Weapons Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Canada Declassified Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource PDF Language A language of the resource en Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 3-Jun-63