@':, ' ~. ,. L \ I ~ , .•...:.."": '·""0'2"~ 5 ';', ,- .. ,

.. "

. -V{f"S H! NC; TON

DECLASSIFIED UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE INTERAGENCY SECURITY CLASSIFICATION APPEALS PANEL, E.O. 13526, SECTION 5.3(b)(3)

ISCAP APPEAL NO. 2011-064, document no. 35 DECLASSIFICATION DATE: December 19,2013

1August 26, 1980

~1E!"lORANDUMFOR: Mr. Lloi~ Cutler The White House -.

'-"" "~'

From: Warren Christopher W·~· I' [-

Subject: PD-59 Chronology, I" .

I The attached ~hronology has not yet been .,I reviewed by Reg Bartholomew who will be re- I

turni:;)gto \-Jashingtonlater this '.veek .. ' I will send you any rnod.i-Li ca t ions that he suggests.

»>: We have not yet contacted C~ Vance to ask V'"

for i his recollections. Do you wa~~,to do that I', or should we? I

i I···· tI"." .~:._

1I _

'.'

-"_

II

.,' _ c'.; .

Attachment:".'.

As stated.

With Top5ecret Attachment.

~.-.. -

\ :.

'" ..... ,.,".: .

.....•

(.\ .\

~.. .. -.. .,.

. ;."-.

-- "-' .~.

..

-.

:. - -'.~

~

' .. _-' .••. - '" -: :\- -- "1

~

,", ~

--'. . . "".:

. ;

. . - -..

.2

" ". .

PO-59 CHBONOLOGY " .'

".:. ~..•..

.,,-. -~.' ;~.

August 24, 1977 PO-18 (nUS ~ational'Strategy") ~sta~li~he~ general strategic target ing pol icy and =: directed SecOef to undertake a review of .. targeting policy. Pending that review,:.'

. the us was to continue tQ.use its nuclear Jfforces according to NSOM 242. State diiL

V not Earticipate in the ensuing stuay. (vie nave no record of having received a-Copyof August 24, 1977' me mo -to SecDef t a sk i.r-q __ targeting review.) - ~

State expressea an interest in having the targeting review (as well as other npD-,18follow-on" studies) done on an interagency tasis but was told by toe NSC staff that DoD would do the studies and then submit them £pr interaqency reVlew. (No documen-tation.) •.•.

June 1, 1978 State received information copy of Phase I report of the Targeting Policy Review,which analyzed the key issues, after it had been approved by SecDef. No one from State participated in phase I. Outside consultants were involved.

July 14, 1978 Let.t~r from Gompert to Slocombe wi th unso11cited informal comments, suggesting State participation in phase II, and commenting on the contents. (state re-

~ceived no response to these comments and did not participate in Phase II.) .

september 29, 1978 Our records qive no indication that stra-tegic targeting policy was addressed at this meeting. t

3 ~ November 28, 1978 SecDef sends finished Policy Review -- f (Phases I & II) to President, copy to - '.

SecState. . ....

February 21, 1979 Gelb sent memorandum to Aaron/McGiffert/ LTG Smith pn OoD's Nuclear Targeting PolicyReview suggesting that several of the study recommendations (flexibility, endu-rance, political and military planning,

':pop SECRE'f' ..'~~

..... ".

\\ .(

••

<,:

,-'fOP SECRET '"".: ., .; , ." - 2 --

April 4, 25,. -29,1979

Autumn 1979

November-December 1979

February 25, 1980

LUA target package', data. base, DoD exer-·· ...'. " 'cises) be discussed ina PRC. Other sub- - '.' .~ jects for discussion also--:SUggested~. No ..: .':..:,.'. ..• reply' from DoD N~C' »r. •• ':" '~"'. '. : •• "';'. - : ,;.~: .:' :- :.' ~ :.:. .~or :- ,> • - •. ~. :~-:;:;~.;.,' <".: "~'~~':'~;;-<:;:'~'<>:':"~.'J'~'~<'.....;

. see me et i ~~·s..~:m.'targ ~t in'g .: '., ..-".~. . ...::'~~. '.'',> .:.,';__.:"~ "" .;'0::

o First sec meeting. Initial discussion of broad targeting issues:. industry,population, hard target kill. Vance att.ended.

a Second SCC meeting. Four briefings, no discussion. No summary of conclusions received. Vance attended.

rQ Third SCC meeting. Discussion of rangeof targeting issues: China, "regionaliza-tion,n hard t.Qrget kill, launch under at.tack. Christvpher attended. No sum-mary of conclusions received. No deci-sions taken. DaD was directed to draft more specific rationales and.proposals on several key issues. State SCC repre-sentative suggested further work be done

"- .,!on interagency basis but was told byChairman that DaD would do the work and circulat-e .its proposals for interagencycQmment before submission to President.

PM asked OSD and NSC staffs about the'status of the follow-on studies ·called for by the SCC. PM was told that some of the studies were started and some ~hanges to our target-ing plans were being ·made. State received no studies •.~ -•....

State provided working level corr~ents and suggestions on presentation of targetingpolicy in SecDef's FY 1981. Annual Report.

Bartholomew sent memo to Komer suggestinga mini-PRC to discuss current targetingpolicy and the status of follow-on studies· called for by the 1979 SCCs (copy sentt·o MGen. Welch). No reply received.

'fOP SECRBT ~ ,.

, ,;( \~

C!:.C.

~>..

,;''::,

.. .v.

"

.. ..:

" ..' ~:- ~. .~

i'larch5, 1980 Ba r t.ho Lomow asked Slocombe and' McGiffert',,>: ," ':' about status of our r eo u es t; to Komer for:,":,:",'.., , ,~,',a mini-PRC and follow-~n work on; targetirig";,:,:-:);,~~''',',:~ policy. ,OSD "noted", our ~;,:>j inquir-y> "'State:;;,,~:<):>:c,-,,,received none of the follow-on, analyses <>,';":':L": ,:",:; or any o ther information., "",,," "", :=',~.;:-.;:.~

_ -- '.G" - .~ 't,~t>~arch1980 State and ACDA received the Consolidated

.: .$ Guidance (CG) after it had been reviewed and commented upon by the Services and approved by SecDef as basis for FY 82 Defense programs and budgeting. (Thestrategic nuclear forces chapter of the CG concentrated on force survivabilityand modernization issues. It did not discuss strate ic tar eting issues.~

ate ~ suggested reV1S10ns in the earlier Defense Policy Guidance's treatment of str~tegic nucle~~ policY,were not ac-cepted by OSD. •

June 3, 1980 State Deo- 'rst received copy of ecDef's briefing to the NATO Nuclear

Planning Group on SecDef's plane 'enroute to Norway.

Note: ACDA's only participation; in the entire process was at the three SCC meetings -in_1979.

~'., .' . ~.. '.

'fOP SECRE'f

c r <,