DECLASSIFIED I If'' qr q- JAutl1o ' ty fv fl J I l o tc ' r - - - - - - Gy 111 u ' - 'i oa r 1 ' I - - IE CC lit IE'1f' j Preparing Office 01 SD ISA-Eur Reg Do te 7 April 1958 DMP 4 6 lll TO DEFENSE 1-0 IIISTERS CONFEREIICE Pe ria 1 5-iB April 1955 POLITICAL A1Jl'IIORITY FOR USE OF ATOMI C WEAPONS BY NA' l'O FORCES I Recommended U S Pooition I f' the U S muat diocuoo the g_ Gtion of ho r authority -for the use of o tomic 'll'Copon o 1n time of emergency io to be gro nted tho following Ghould be used ao o bOJJiG for diocll oion o The queotion of employment of o tomic le opono where neceoGory io o n inoepc roble po rt of the general queotion of the UGe of force to repel oggreooion In thio connection the U le oi IRBM' o io no different from the ULe of wy other we apons o vniloble to li lTO forceo b The queati oll of employment of f orce io OJ Proprio tcly dealt o nd 6 of the Poli ti co l D1rcct1-ve theoe po ragra phs provide that the shield forceo must include the ccpobility to reopond quickly should the o1tUlltion oo require 'lrl th nucleo r '11e opons to o ny type oi aggression oo o nd the responsibility of governmento to lll 91 c dec1o1ons for putting NATO military plane into nction 1n the - eveut of hostilities 10 no affected by this directive m th in po ro gra pho 5 c The U S pla nD if t1me perm1tc to consult '111th our UATO o ll1es before employing force oto rcs1ct nggresoion d If an o ttack devel ops so quickly e o to render prior consulto t1on 1n NATO 1mpoas1ble the U S '11111 of couroe respond a t once end with o ll c ppropria tc force We vould oi couroe couoult ao ooon OD f e a a1ble after ouch o ct1on We a soume o ll other N 1'0 co Dltriea vould o ct o1m1lo rly e The e x1ot1ng provisions o nd underGt8 lld1nga on this question must obviousl v be bn sed on the conotit ut1ona l lim1to t1ono of ca ch countl 'j In the ca so oi the u s the rcl c vont prov1o1ono ar-e the power of Congress to d eclo re and tho powers of the Preoid ent a a Cornmoodcr1n-Ch1ef of the Armed Forcoa of the U S omong 'llhich tho inherent right end obligo t l on of o Cornmonder to d efc nd his forces if attacked a re f Quite c po rt Crom the conside ration referred to i n e obove there a re wo practical considero tiono 1 ony o ttcmpt to go beyond tho p rese nt s1t u- l tion ond spell out o mechani6lll for toking in common pol1t1coJ decisiono regarding tho u so of force vould oppoo r unroa l1Gtic Equ oJ iy i t '110uld be 1mpoco1blo end undooiroblo to o tt rit to spell out o list I ' ____________ - II 1- --- - - - _ o o o _ ucruoovccoAr 1ue uArio 1 ciUVC o _ - I - - - - o o o o o - ooo __ ' DECLASSIFIED -- t 11 ar q- Autllo ly tvfl _ 'LI f I o o __I ---' '- ----- -- - - - 1 By Al ll ' SA0 1 1-11 'i l i - I lE C I IE 'f DMP 4 6 of lzypothet1col cituntioll l in which nuclear veopon s could or could not be used 2 it iG 1mpero tive not to veolten the deter nt vio- o -v1o the SoViot Union by mok1ng it appear tho t we oubocribe to the concept of grcrl ua ted deterrents or that the UJ TO Council or o n indi Vidu al NATO country ho n a veto power over the Ule of force to reoict o ggreosion or over the employment of atomic wcapono if nececoory rr Diocui sion Since under the NJ TO atoml c otockpile the decioion to relec se nucl o r componento to the torceo of our lill IX c l lleo w1ll 1n the lo ot 8ll8lyoio bo a purely U S decioion for oo legal nutbority goes the pro ctical position boilo down to this The other Nll IX countrtoo are being asked to continue to repoGe confidence 1n the U S and General Norotc d 1n his du al capo city that Atomic apons be UGe -d vhen they ohould be Uled by tho u s Olld lllso released by the U S to other IU 1'0 countries and vill not be UDed wen they should not be us Ao io f'oro'l een 1n tho lo st tvo oentences or po rogroph 5 Port n of the E1oeobover-Moc ml JJ nn DeclArotion of Common Puxpooe ve chould toke all pro cticoblo otepo to make clear to our ol lloe that a ve ho ve the resolution o nd vill to employ force oinot aggression o nd b that ve can be trusted never to mioUDe our obility to employ force including o tomlc vecpon s It muot also be recognized that other countrieG have in practice a veto over tho use by thoir f'orcoo or atomic veepons even though au ch vco pono are released to ouch f'orceo by the U S ao _ One ospect or the matter not dealt vith Gbove i s tho question of our veil-known bilateral e rrongemente vith certain other NATO countrioo _e g the U K where ve have o n obligation to consult be fore lounching attacks from U S ba Ges 1n Brito in T 0 practical facts are relevant The -tfrat ill that any peacetime e rrong nto for b ISe rights ll U Jt recognize the sovereignty of the host country The other is tha t a veto by eny one o the fifteen cojntries over uoo of all bOJJes in tho Allio nee is a much m re unacceptable orisk than the chonce that refusal of one country may prevent the 1 Ule of bnseo in 1 to terrt tory under a bilateral agreement If tho quection ar oes of biloterol consultation between the U S ond ho t countries 1n connection vlth tho working out of the NJ l'O stockpile arrangement the U S ahould reply that th1 s is c J lnttcr 'llh1ch the U S 10 entirely ready to diocuno with countries directly concerned vith the intent or arriving o t mutuol ly satiofdctory a rrnngcments which ore in conconance 1-11 th the require mc ntc of NATO-approved defense plona ond procedurcc ' '-- - 2 ISCCIR Elr This document is from the holdings of The National Security Archive Suite 701 Gelman Library The George Washington University 2130 H Street NW Washington D C 20037 Phone 202 994-7000 Fax 202 994-7005 nsarchiv@gwu edu