https://declassified.library.utoronto.ca/files/original/02019a0d4b1b252de864eb5baa0a02db.pdf e7af5ef1dabe474ee3664b14e605f51e PDF Text Text CCT 25 FM LDN OCT24/60 UNCLAS TO EXTERNAL 3223 PRIORITY jrorl.jjO' M/e^ 2/a?-7 REF OURTEL 3202 0CT21 NATO DETERRENT THE FOLLOWING IS THE TEXT OF AN EDITORIAL IN YESTERDAYS SUNDAY TIMES,COMMENTING ON THE IDEA OF A POTENTIAL NATO DETERRENT QUOTE USA GOVT IS REPORTED TO BE CANVASSING THE IDEA OF A QUOTE NATO DETERRENT, UNQUOTE THAT IS TO SAY, ARM ING NATO WITH H-WEAPONS SUCH AS THE POLARIS MISSILE UNDER NATOS OWN CONTROL.THIS PROJECT ORIGINATED IN A SPEECH BY GEN NORSTAD MANY MONTHS AGO.AS PUBLICLY KNOWN,IT IS TOO SHAPELESS FOR DETAILED CRITICISM.BUT IT SEEMS COMPLETELY INADMISSIBLE ON GROUNDS OF PRINCIPLE. NATO IS NOT RPT NOT A SEPARATE POWER.IT IS NO RPT NO MORE,IN TERMS OF SOVEREIGN EXISTENCE,THAN THE SUM OF ITS PARTS.ITS SOLE SOURCE OF AUTHORITY IN DEFENCE IS ARTICLE 5 OF NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY,WHICH READS: THE PARTIES AGREE THAT AN ARMED ATTACK AGAINST ONE OR MORE OF THEM IN EUROPE OR NORTHAMERICA SHALL BE CONSIDERED AN ATTACK AGAINST THEM ALL AND CONSEQUENTLY THEY AGREE THAT IF SUCH AN ARMED ATTACK OCCURS EACH OF THEM... WILL ASSIST THE PARTY OP PARTIES ATTACKED BY TAKING FORTHWITH,INDIVIDUALLY AND IN CONCERT WITH THE OTHER PARTIES,,SUCH ACTION AS IT DEEMS NECESSARY, INCLUDING THE USE OF ARMED FORCE,TO RESTORE AND MAINTAIN THE SECURITY OF NORTHATLANTIC AREA. THE EFFECT OF THIS IS QUITE PLAIN.IN THE EVENT OF SUCH AN ATTACK, MEMBERS OF NATO ARE OBLIGED TO TAKE ACTION,BOTH ON THEIR OWN AND IN CONCERT,BUT ARE NOT RPT NOT OBLIGED TO TAKE ANY OTHER ACTION THAN THEY SEVERALLY DEEM NECESSARY.THERE IS NO RPT NO WARRANT OR FOUNDATION HERE FOR ANY JOINT QUOTE DETERRENT UNQUOTE.FOR A DETERRENT,TO BE SURE OF DETERRING,REQUIRES CERTAINTY OF ITS USE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH IT IS INTENDED TO DETER.ONCE CERTAINTY �ft PAGE TWO 3 2 2 3 IS QUALIFIED,THE DETERRENT VALUE FADES. IT WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE WORD AND SPIRIT OF THE TREATY NOT RPT NOT TO GIVE EVERY MEMBER-NATION A RIGHT OF VETO ON THE USE IN CONCERT OF A PARAMOUNT WEAPON WHICH IT MIGHT DEEM UNNECESSARY IN THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF ANY ATTACK.IF EACH OF FIFTEEN NATIONS HAS A VETO,WHAT FOLLOWS7A NATO DETERRENT COULD ADD NOTHING OF DETERRENT VALUE TO AMERICAN DETERRENT;FOR IT COULD NOT RPT NOT BE USED WITHOUT AMERICAN CONSENT,AND USA WOULD PRESUMABLY CONSENT ONLY IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE SHE WOULD BE READY TO USE HER OWN DETERRENT TOO.INDEED IT COULD ONLY SUBTRACT;FOR A WEAPON WHICH THE MOST VULNERABLE OR MOST TIMID EUROPEAN MEMBER OF NATO COULD VETO WOULD BE SO UNRELIABLE THAT USA MIGHT WELL SAY,IN EFFECT, QUOTE IF EUROPE WONT USE ITS OWN DETERRENT,IM DARNED IF ILL USE MINE IN EUROPES DEFENCE UNQUOTE. WE MAY WELL ASK WHAT I S THE OBJECT OR MOTIVE OF SO ILLOGICAL A PROPOSITION.IT SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN A MOVE TO DEFLECT FRANCES AMBITION TO BE AN INDEPENDENT NUCLEAR POWER,AN AMBITION THAT MIGHT BE EMULATED BY OTHER NATO COUNTRIES„TO THE INJURY OF THEIR CONCERTED CONVENTIONAL STRENGTH WITHOUT ADDITION TO THE TOTAL DETERRENT VALUE OF WESTERN H-POWER.THAT A PATRIOTIC ASPIRATION OF GEN DE GAULLE COULD BE DIVERTED BY AN INTERNATIONALAST DEVICE ISpHOWEVER,A FATUOUS KISCALCULATION.MOREOVER,HIS PURPOSE IN WISHING FOR HIS OWN DETERRENT IS NOT RPT NOT,AS WE IN BRITAIN SHOULD KNOW,MERE NATIONAL VAINGLORY?IT I S TO HAVE A REINSURANCE AGAINST THE INSECURITY OF THE DETERRENT IN OTHER HANDS.A NATO DETERRENT,AS ARGUED ABOVE,WOULD BE USELESS IN SERVING THAT OBJECT. THOUGH GEN DE GAULLES APPARENT LACK OF LOYALTY TOWARDS NATO IN OTHER FIELDS I S NOT RPT NOT TO BE CONDONED,IN THIS RESPECT HE PERHAPS HAS A MORE LOGICAL VIEW OF THE POLITICAL STRATEGY OF THE SUPREME DETERRENT THAN GEN NORSTAD AND CERTAIN OTHER AMERICAN 001556 �PAGE THREE 3223 LEADERS.THE DETERRENT HAS THE OBJECT OF PREVENTING WAR SEEN AS AN INADMISSIBLE DISASTER;CONVENTIONAL ARMS,AND NATO APPARATUS, THOUGH LIKEWISE INTENDED TO PREVENT WAR,ARE ESSENTIALLY MEANS OF WAGING WAR SEEN AS A POSSIBLE EVENT.TO INTERMINGLE AND CONFUSE THE TWO IS EITHER TO ACCEPT H-BOMB WAR AS A POSSIBLE EVENT—WHICH WOULD MAKE IT MORE LIKELY TO HAPPEN—OR TO ACCEPT THAT A NATO DEFENSIVE REACTION TO AN ACTUAL ATTACK MIGHT LEAD TO AN INADMISSIBLE DISASTER;THAT LIKEWISE WOULD MAKE SUCH AN ATTACK ITSELF MORE LIKELY.IN THESE MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH FOR MILLIONS OF HUMANITY, CLEAR POLITICAL THINKING IS JUST AS IMPORTANT AS VAST TECHNICAL POWER UNQUOTE. 001557 � 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 CDNW04333 Title A name given to the resource CDNW04333 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived "NATO Cooperation Regarding Nuclear Weapons And Missile Bases (IRBM)," RG24-B-1, vol 21468, file CSC 2108:1, part 4, 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