Report from NATO's Intelligence Conference (AHIWG) where member states reviewed and updated two key intelligence documents: "Strength and Capabilities of the Soviet bloc" (MC 161/73) and "Warsaw Pact Penetration and Military Presence in the Middle East, North Africa and adjacent areas" (MC 255/73).

The document describes the Declaration produced at the meeting of Heads of state and governments in Brussels. The declaration reaffirms solidarity between the Western allies and the essential nature of the transatlantic relations in managing security and disarmament.

The document discusses the internal debate caused by Schultz's address at the Atlantic Council of Ministers. NATO countries are divided into two camps regarding the strategy and pace of nuclear disarmament and reduction talks.

Overview of the key security issues facing the Alliance in preparation for the December 1984 meeting in Brussels. The document discusses the state of Alliance, conventional and nuclear weapons, and the installment of INF in Europe, focusing on the potential for continuing East-West dialogue around disarmament.

This rather technical document compares the strategic capabilities (conventional and nuclear) of Warsaw Pact and NATO. The document notes that Warsaw Pact has considerably increased its capabilities catching up with the West, and raises the question about Soviet intentions, and whether continuing armament is in line with peaceful coexistence.

Summary of the DPC meeting in Brussels where the alliance members discussed potential responses to the increasing and modernizing capabilities of the Warsaw Pact. Although US Secretary of Defense Laird highlights US commitment to its allies, Italy and other NATO members should not resort to "optimism of convenience", but fully commit to common defense.

The document discusses the weak state of European defence in light of the threat posed by Warsaw Pact that continues to increase its capabilities. It underlines the minimal participation and marginal role of Italy in the alliance, demanding a more meaningful financial and military contribution.

Ambassador Livingston Merchant, who was responsible for the U.S. diplomatic effort to win support for the MLF, asked INR to report on the degree to which non-nuclear European members of NATO were satisfied with their “lack of a share in ownership or control of nuclear weapons.” Based on the evidence, mainly various statements made by leading politicians, diplomats, and policymakers, INR experts concluded that most of the countries surveyed (Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, and Greece) were “relatively satisfied,” while only West Germany was “restive” to the extent that some of its officials were interested in a NATO or European nuclear force.

Concerns about the credibility of US nuclear deterrence generated Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) General Lauris Norstad’s proposal for a NATO-controlled medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) force. This lengthy report represented INR’s assessment of “present and future European interest in national or multinational nuclear weapons capabilities,” including the MRBM proposal, and the extent to which an “enhancement of NATO's nuclear role” could “deter national or multinational European nuclear weapons programs.”

An outline of key points made in each of several meetings over a one week period. Includes the following: the Netherlands and Belgium will try to decide as late and as simultaneously as possible on TNF modernization; Italy will try to help the Dutch influence FRG and U.S. positions; U.K. is committed to helping Dutch cabinet remain intact; FRG does not oppose the Dutch move to delay their decision but also believes Netherlands should not try to block NATO decision-making.