Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963, Volume XIII, Western Europe and Canada

190. Circular Telegram From the Department of State to Missions in the NATO Capitals⁰

Washington, April 15, 1963, 7:06 p.m.

1773. Department has noted substantial confusion in minds Embassy and other observers here re relationship between Inter-Allied Nuclear Force (IANF) and Multilateral Force (MLF). Following may be helpful to addressees in dealing with similar confusion which may arise in field.

1. IANF is name for those nationally-owned nuclear delivery forces (including UK V-bombers and US Polaris subs) which are assigned by member governments to NATO and which constitute those forces committed to SACEUR’s Scheduled Program, i.e. which are pre-targeted by SACEUR as opposed to battlefield weapons systems. “Membership” in IANF would be automatic for all such forces unless individual country explicitly withdraws forces from SACEUR’s program. These forces will continue under national ownership, may be withdrawn from NATO assignment in accordance with regular NATO procedures, and will be equipped with US- or UK-owned warheads which will remain under present custodial arrangements—i.e. weapons will not be owned by nation assigning delivery systems (except for US forces and for UK forces equipped with UK warheads) or by NATO as a whole. IANF will be under SACEUR command and no new command or NATO political control arrangements will be set up, although some staff reorganization will take place in SHAPE (see Circular 1729)¹ as well as certain possible adjustments at Omaha and Norfolk, all of which designed to increase European participation in NATO nuclear affairs. IANF thus is evolutionary development of NATO nuclear organization rather than radical new departure.

2. MLF will be seaborne MRBM force to be multilaterally owned and manned by founding governments and assigned by them to NATO. When assignment made SACEUR will have same command and targeting authority over MLF as he will have over IANF forces: force would be part of SACEUR nuclear strike plans and committed to Scheduled Program. MLF and IANF together will constitute NATO Nuclear Force (NNF): whether new command arrangements under SACEUR or new political arrangements in NATO will then be required for NNF not a matter for decision at this time.MLF will have political governing body of its own to perform those functions with respect to MLF which are now performed by national governments with respect to nationally owned and manned forces, i.e. basic political decision re release, use of nuclear weapons and all logistic, administrative, etc., decisions now taken by national governments. Warheads in MLF will be under multilateral ownership and custody and not retained under exclusive US ownership or special US custodial arrangements aboard vessels. MLF would be at disposal owning governments under terms to be agreed among themselves, and could not be withdrawn from NATO except by decision among owners. MLF would be “open-ended” and any NATO member who wished contribute necessary resources would be able to join—purpose is not to set up inner circle or “Alliance within an Alliance.” In introducing principle multilateral control, manning, and ownership of nuclear weapons MLF would be means of giving non-nuclear powers more basic participation in nuclear deterrence and would thus be important new departure, both in military and political terms, in NATO affairs.

Ball

0. Source: Department of State, Central Files, Def 12 NATO. Confidential. Also sent to CINCLANT for POLAD. Drafted by Spiers; cleared by Weiss, Furnas, and Owen; and approved by Popper.
1. Dated April 7, it outlined the status of the consideration of IANF forces based on various discussions that had taken place up to that time. (Ibid.)