The document presents NPG's decisions about the topics recently discussed at a meeting at the level of Ministers of Defense just concluded (Ankara, 28th-29th September 1967). The topics addressed were: ADM, tactical nuclear weapons, ABM, national participation in the military planning with regards to nuclear issues.

The document reports the evolution of the meeting. Italy was there represented by the new Minister of Defense Tremelloni, the Chief of Staff Aloia, the diplomat Alessandrini (RICA) and others. Topics discussed: possible use of ADM; possible use of tactical nuclear weapons; ABM; Italian participation in military nuclear planning; information about the nuclear weapons deployed in NATO countries. Aloia believes that the discussion was fruitful, keeping in mind the complexity of the nuclear issues, that have just recently been able to count on permanent bodies appropriate to deal with them at a political level. France's negative behavior caused a postponement of the discussion about many military-political topics in the last years.

Cagiati sends Andreotti a report about the meeting in Washington, which concluded Giulio Andreotti's period as Minister of Defense. Cagiati thanks Andreotti for his work, that made sure that "in this period the relationship between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Defense has been strong and efficient like never before". The report describes the meeting (the first meeting of this working group) and the viewpoints of the participants, with special attention payed to the US nuclear policy. The document describes also the fields which require further investigations by the Working Group. There are Cagiati's personal reflections too.

The report describes the second meeting of the Nuclear Planning Working Group at the level of Ministers of Defense, during which a discussion about the planning, the use and the political control of tactical nuclear weapons has taken place. The document analyzes the SACEUR's position, the data related to the opposing armed forces existing in the European theater; the possible hypothesis of local conflicts and the problems related to the various scenarios. The London meeting was "open-ended", without leading to any concrete decision, and the topic appeared more complex than expected. The document observes that within the NATO there are diverging opinions on these matters.

The Diplomatic Adviser Andrea Cagiati - after 4 years of service in NATO - will be moved to Madrid and he sends Andreotti the following:
1) his personal opinions with regards to the meeting recently held in Paris by the MacNamara Committee (document dated 29th July 1966); 2) a note titled "Special MacNamara Committee" - Paris meeting (26th July 1966), dated 28th July, which reports the evolution of the discussions. The recent meeting highlights a difference of approach with regards to the extent and the tasks that face the new committee. The document analyzes the issue of nuclear sharing from both a military-political and a psychological side and the main NATO countries' positions.

The document is a detailed analysis about the possible use of NATO's nuclear weapons, in preparation for the Atlantic Council's December session. The French participation in the Council and the French opposition to any nuclear integration will probably leave this issue without a solution. From their point of view, the US and the Select Committee recently proposed by them should try to overcome the hindrance represented by France, at the same time without jeopardizing the cohesion of the Alliance.

The note describes the proposal made by MacNamara as the most recent element of the US political-strategic thinking. The document explains MacNamara's proposal from its origins to the current situation. The document analyzes the position of various countries, with a focus on the Italian one and some points which still need to be sorted out. Italy seems interested in participating in the proposed Committee.

The telegram announces that the Italian government welcomes MacNamara's proposal of establishing a restricted Atlantic Nuclear Committee. This proposal is in the context of a necessary widening of the Atlantic nuclear responsibilities that now are concentrated in Washington.

The note describes the story of the project to establish a multilateral nuclear force within NATO, from the origins up to the current situation.

The document reports some considerations of MAE with regards to the current situation of Atlantic nuclear forces and possible future developments.