https://declassified.library.utoronto.ca/files/original/d27adaaf0628d8fa07b35232b1fc753e.pdf 7bb161feee3319eb445ff22d3a9cbda2 PDF Text Text , SECRET FM fffiVOPARIS J U N 2 1 / 6 2 SECRET I Paraphrase not r e q u i r e d . No unclassified reply or f e S t ^ / e ^ e . ^ ^ J h i s message was referred t o V ^ ^ g *,, , TO EXTERNAL 1495 PRIORITY WO'^SjffiL niir_,. ^3oo>€> ^^~— ^ INFO LDN WASHDC CCOS CJS(W) EMBPARTS"B0NN'"BTO T MGUFVlS*ftMDE£OT R ^To.^<^ PRIORITY BAG B E R L I N FM BONN g—-oopy rptainod by the Duty OffiLLcr ' " ' p / ,D,J,nou u ^ •—" ~"""^n>DTo REF OURTEL U 3 9 J U N 1 5 b. Requested to hold till * ^ NATO DEFENCE PLANNING-MRBMS c. x 3 0C J v/c^c* PRIORffT ~~-"* other Instr. COUNCIL MET IN RESTD SESSION ON JUN21 TO CONTINUE ITS CONSIDERA^ TION OF THIS QUESTIONoSECGEN DID NOT RPT NOT,AS HE HAD ORIGINALLY INTENDED,PRESENT A PAPER ON PROCEDURE,ALTHOUGH-flhE DID OUTLINE HIS THINKING AT SOMEWHAT GREATER LENGTH THAN ON JUN15 AS REPORTED IN fW 3 PARA2 OF OUR REFTELoAFTER OUTLINING AGAIN HIS THREE STAGE APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM HE SAID HE HAD SOME HESITATION AS A RESULT OF USA STATEMENT IN PUTTING FORWARD A PAPER ALTHOUGH HE "^~- „ \ COTINUED TO BELIEVE THAT A PRAGMATIC APPROACH TO THE SUTDY OF v ^ THIS COMPLICATED PROBLEM WAS THE MOST LIKELY TO BE EFFECTIVEoHIS HESITATION IN PRESENTING A^APER WAS BASED PRIMARILY ON DOUBTS njiZ^' p Z^Q ^Mh}>S WHICH HAD ARISEN IN HIS MIND AS TO WHETHER OR NOT RPT NOT USA STATEMENT WAS INTENDED TO QUESTION THE BASIC MILITARY REQUIREMENT FOR MRBMS WHICH HAD BEEN INCLUDED IN ALLIANCE THINKING FOR SOME YEARSoMRBM REQUIREMENT HAD BEEN INCLUDED IN THE COMMUNIQUE ISSUED BY HEADS OF GOVT IN 1957 AND AGAIN SPECIFICALLY IN PARAS29 AND 32 OF MC/700THE STANDING GROUP HAD SET OUT A NATO BASIC MILITARY REQUIREMENT IN OCT/59 IN TERMS WHICH WERE INCLUDED IN DOC PO/60/437 APRU/60oAGAIN THE MILITARY CTTEE HAD UNDERWRITTEN SUCH A REQUIREMENT WITH RESPECT TO MC26MoHE REALIZED THAT MILITARY REQUIREMENTS COULD NEVER BE STATIC BUT THE FORMAL POSITION DID EXIST THAT NATO MILITARY AUTHORITIES HAD EXPRESSED SUPPORT FOR MRBM REQUIREMENT WOULD IT NOT RPT NOT BE DESIRABLE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES TO SEEK AN INDEPENDENT MILITARY JUDGMENT 000384 WITH RESPECT TO USA STATEMENT FROM NATO MILITARY AUTHORITIESo SECRET �SECRET -A\ <s A A Paraphrase " v not required. No unclassified reply or reference, PAGE TWO 1495 HE THOUGHT THAT TO ASK THE MILITARY CTTEE FOR SUCH AN OPINION / ! WOULD TAKE TOO MUCH TIME0HE SUGGESTED THEREFORE THAT IF COUNCIL WISHED,HE WAS CERTAIN GEN NORSTAD WOULD BE GLAD TO SPEAK TO THE COUNCIL SOME TIME DURING JUL* 20PERMREPS DIRECTED THEIR REMARKS PRIMARILY TO TWO PROCEDURAL POINTS,IE(A)WHETHER OR NOT RPT NOT TO INVITE GEN NORSTAD TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COUNCILSANDCB>THEIR OPINIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE SECGENS PROCEDURAL SUGGESTIONS FOR A THREE STAGE APPROACH TO THE PROBLEMoNO RPT NO ONE OBJECTED OUTRIGHT TO A PRESENTATION BY GEN NORSTADoGERMAN REP INDEED BELIEVED THAT CERTAIN CAREFULLY PREPARED QUESTIONS SHOULD BE GIVEN TO HIM IN ADVANCE BEARING ON THE PURELY MILITARY ASPECTS OF THE MRBM QUESTIONoA NUMBER OF PERMREPS DID HOWEVER SUGGEST A NOTE OF CAUTION0TURKISH REP FOR EXAMPLE THOUGHT THAT GREAT CARE SHOULD BE TAKEN NOT RPT NOT TO HAVE SUCH DISCUSSION LEAD TO A DIRECT CLASH BETWEEN GEN NORSTAD AND THE VIEWS OF USA GOVToNORWEGIAN REP WAS SIMILARLY CAUTIOUS, INDICATING THAT COUNCIL ALREADY KNEW GEN NORSTADS VIEWS ON THE SUBJECToHE COULD NOT RPT NOT SEE HOW NORSTADS PRESENTATION COULD BE ANYTHING BUT QUOTE A RESTATEMENT OF WELLKNOWN DIFFERENCES UNQUOTE WITH USA PAPERoUSA REP TURNED THE TIDE BY INDICATING THAT HIS AUTHORITIES SAW NO RPT NO REASON WHY GEN NORSTAD SHOULD NOT RPT NOT BE INVITED TO EXPRESS HIS VIEWS ON THE SUBJECToUSA GOVT HAD PRESENTED THEIR VIEWS WITH THE INTENTION THAT THEY SHOULD FORM THE BASIS OF THE FULLEST POSSIBLE CONSULTATION PROVIDING FOR THE EXPRESSION OF ALL POINTS OF VIEWoUSA THEREFORE WAS 000385 SECRET �SECRET **** not required. ° unclassified reply or reference, N r ^ L s PAGE VHREE AC Pa:aphrase 1495 WILLING TO FOLLOW ANY PROCEDURE WHICH WOULD ENSURE THAT ALL VIEWS WERE HEARDdN THE END THERE WAS AGREEMENT THEREFORE THAT IN DUE COURSE GEN NORSTAD WOULD BE INVITED TO PRESENT HIS VIEWS* 3oTHERE WAS NO RPT NO FIRM AGREEMENT REACHED AS TO W ETHER OR NOT RPT NOT THE SECGENS SUGGESTION FOR THE HANDLING OF THE SUBSTANTIVE PROBLEM SHOULD BE ACCEPTEDoNORWEGIAN REP TENDED TO THE VIEW THAT PERMREPS SHOULD WAIT FOR COMMENTS FROM THEIR GOVTS ON USA PAPER BEFORE TACKLING THE PROBLEM OF HOW TO PROCEED FURTHERoCONFUSION WAS LIKELY TO ARISE IF A WHOLE BATCH OF NEW MATERIAL WAS SENT TO NATIONAL CAPITALS BEFORE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES AD BEEN ABLE TO FORM PRELIMINARY VIEWS ON USA THESIS0USA,UK AND FRENCH REPS WERE ALL AGREED THAT THE HIGH POLITICAL CONTENT OF THE MRBM PROBLEM MADE THE COUNCIL,ACTING ON INSTRUCTIONS FROM GOVTS,THE PROPER FORUM FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION WITH RESPECT TO THIS QUESTIONoTHEY DID NOT RPT NOT NECESSARILY DISAGREE WITH THE SECGENS PROCEDURAL SUGGESTIONS BUT IMPLIED A PREFERENCE FOR FIRST CONSIDERATION OF THE PROBLEM IN GENERAL TERMS BEFORE TURNING TO A STUDY OF ITS ELEMENTS0UK REP FOR EXAMPLE AGREED THAT THE FIRST STEP WAS A CONSIDERATION OF THE MILITARY REQUIREMENT BUT HE WENT ON TO SAY THAT A FRESH LOOK AT THE REQUIREMENT HAD TO BE TAKEN IN LIGHT OF THE TOTAL NUCLEAR STRENGTH AVAILABLE TO THE ALLIANCE IN MID-1962 AND AN OPEN MIND PRESERVED AS TO A DECISIONS OTHER WORDS HE IMPLIED THAT HIS. AUTHORITIES WOULD NOT RPT NOT NECESSARILY WISH TO BASE THE DISCUSSION ON THE STATED REQUIREMENT IN MC26/4 OR INDEED IN ANY PREVIOUS COUNCIL DOCUSo 4oUSA REP REFERRED TO SECGENS OPENING REMARKS AS TO WHETHER OR 000386 SECRET �QrpnCT OLUrvL I m%>y™ A f» Paraphrase HU n o t required. No unclassified reply or reference. PAGE FOUR P1495 NOT RPT NOT USA STATEMENT OF JUN 15 WAS CONSISTENT WITH EARLIER ... NATO DOCTRINE6HE POINTED OUT THAT THE JUN15 STATEMENT DID NOT RPT NOT CONTEND THAT THERE WAS*NO RPT NO MILITARY UTILITY IN THE PROVISION OF MRBMS BUT SIMPLY THAT THEY WERE NOT RPT NOT AN URGENT MILITARY REQUIREMENToNOR RPT NOR DID USA WISH TO RULE OUT ALLIANCE ACTION TOWARDS THE PROVISION OF MRBMS IF THE ALLIANCE AS A WHOLE WISHED TO HAVE THEMoUSA DID NOT RPT NOT AGREE AS TO THE NUMBERS OF MRBMS OUTLINED IN MC26/4 BUT IT SHOULD BE BORNE IN MIND THAT USA DID NOT RPT NOT CHALLENGE THE MILITARY VALUE OF SOME MRBMS 'o\THE POLITICAL VALUE OF A MULTILATERAL MRBM FORCEo 5oFRENCH REP AGREED THAT THE COUNCIL WAS THE APPROPRIATE FORUM FOR THE PRESENTATION OF OPINIONS ON THIS IMPORTANT SUBJECT AND THAT THE VIEWS OF ALL INTERESTED AUTHORITIES SHOULD BE HEARDo USA PAPER RAISED AN IMPORTANT QUESTION AS TO WHETHER CURRENT NATO STRATEGY WAS TO UNDERGO SOME CHANGEoTHE QUOTE NAVAL BASIS UNQUOTE OF USA VIEWS WAS OF INTEREST TO HIS AUTHORITIES WHO HOWEVER CONSIDERED IT IMPORTANT THAT THERE BE QUOTE RETAINED IN EUROPE UNQUOTE A SUFFICIENTLY POWERFUL ATOMIC FORCE* 6oIT WAS AGREED IN THE END THAT NO RPT NO ATTEMPT SHOULD BE MADE TO REACH A DECISION ON FUTURE PROCEDURE UNTIL THERE HAD BEEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CAPITALS TO PROVIDE THEIR PRELIMINARY COMMENTS ON USA PAPER.AS INDICATED ABOVE IT WAS AGREED THAT AS AN ELEMENT OF FURTHER CLARIFICATION,THE PRESENTATION OF VIEWS BY GEN NORSTAD 000387 SECRET �CETPDrT OLUr.L I No unclassified reply or reference. # PAGE FIVE A P -Paraphrase HI/ not r e q u i r e d . 1495 WOULD BE DESIRABLEolT WAS AGREED AS WELL THAT NO RPT NO ATTEMPT SHOULD BE MADE TO FORCE THE PACE TOO QUICKLY ON DISCUSSION ON THIS COMPLICATED TOPICoIT WAS LEFT THAT PLANS SHOULD BE PUT IN HAND FOR A PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL BY GEN NORSTAD WITHIN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IF ANY PERMREP WISHED TO PUT TO COUNCIL THE VIEWS OF HIS AUTHORITIES ON USA PAPER,AN OPPORTUNITY WOULD BE OFFERED* 70WHAT WAS NOT RPT NOT MADE CLEAR DURING THE DISCUSSION WAS WHETHER THE USA GOVT WOULD INRODUCE THEIR VIEWS AS TO THE LACK OF MILITARY URGENCY FOR THE PROVISION OF MRBMS THROUGH THEIR REP IN THE MILITARY CTTEEoTHERE IS OBVIOUSLY A PARADOX BETWEEN USA POSITION TAKEN IN COUNCIL AND THAT AGREED TO BY USA REP ON THE MILITARY CTTEE WITH RESPECT TO MC26/4dT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO HEAR WHN AND IF USA ACTION IS TAKEN IN THE MILITARY CTTEEo 717/22 'JUN 62 000388 SECRET � 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 CDNW04447 Title A name given to the resource CDNW04447 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived "NATO Cooperation Regarding Nuclear Weapons And Missile Bases (IRBM)," RG24-B-1, vol 21469, file CSC 2108:1, part 5, 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