'. ( 

HANDLE VIA. 

Approved for Release: 2018/02/01 C05101991 " k '. , HANDLE V1A ( .lOP SECRET TALENT·KEYHOLE CONTROL SYSHM 

ySJ NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1400060593D 

October 10, 1968 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD 

SUBJECT: State Department Resource Survey Satellite Initiative 

On October 2, 1968 we were furnished a copy of a draft II Out line 

for a Resource Survey Satellite Initiative at the United Nations II prepared by Mr. J. P. Lorenz, IO/UNP, State Department, on August 3D, 

1968 (Tab A). Aside from our concern over the proposed approach, 

State IS rationale and State IS assessment of related considerations, we 

were particularly troubled by two paragraphs contained in the August 30 

draft. Both were considered, by us, to be in violation of the TALENTKEYHOLE security system. The one exposed the "fact" of !lour military reconnaissance satellites 11 and related as an additional political 

issue the use of observation satellites for the purpose of arms control 

verification -- a subject currently under consideration by the NSAM 

156 Committee. The other revealed that l'cameras of less than 100' 

resolution would, in the opinion of DOD, record little of military significance. This order of reconnaissance is in any case of no concern 

to the United States and Soviet Union, both of which are living with observation by cameras of far higher resolution. " 

On October 4 we had a copy of Tab A retyped to remove the identification of the source. We were then prepared to take some appropriate 

action to have the draft revised by State and the objectionable paragraphs 

removed. A copy of the retyped draft is at Tab B. 

Before we were able to take this action, we received from Colonel 

Keator, JCS (SAAC), on October 8 a revised State Department draft of 

this same paper (Tab C) dated October 3, 1968 with a covering memo 

to members of a Study Group on International Organizations and Outer 

Space, which (1) indicated that the Group at its last meeting agreed that -

CONTROL NO, ______ _ 

ILENT ·KEYHOLE COPY_-:;---_OF ___ COPIES 

CONTROL SYSTEM EXCLUDED FROM AUTOMATIC REGRADING 

DOD DIRECTIVE 5200.10 DOES NOT APPLY 

Approved for Release: 2018/02/01 C05101991 

PAGE. __ 1 __ OF ___ PAGES 
HANDLE VIA 

Approved for Release: 2018/02/01 C05101991 I ( ....JOP-SfC1{ft f HANDLE VIA l , , 

TALErrr:~~!~OLE f 

resource survey satellites constituted one of the principal problem 

areas in outer space and foreign policy (2) offered the revised draft 

as an attempt to define these problems and develop possible solutions, 

and (3) proposed a meeting of the Study Group on October 10 to discuss the paper. 

We reviewed the revised draft and found that one of the objectionable paragraphs -- that having to do with the order of resolution -- had 

been removed. We found further that several other statements with 

which we were initially concerned had been adjusted to read more acceptably (see Tab D). Unfortunately, the revised draft did not remove 

the reference to "our military reconnaissance satellites" nor the references to arms control verification possibilities. We decided then 

on October 8 to officially approach State (since the revised draft was 

furnished us by an official OSD participant) and request that the one remaining objectionable paragraph be removed on the basis of security 

policy. In the PM of October 8 Mr. Ladner called Mr. W. C. Marvel, 

BCO/TCO, State, to suggest that he review the material and arrange to 

have the offensive paragraph removed from the draft. Mr. Marvel expressed his reluctance to take any such action and indicated to Mr. 

Ladner that he did not consider it either feasible or appropriate. We 

immediately called Mr. Marvel back for an appointment at 0900 on 

Wednesday, October 9, indicating that we wanted to discuss this matter 

further in person. We then retyped the October 3 draft, carefully removing the offensive paragraph, and assuring that the continuity of the 

paper was not destroyed (Tab E). We reproduced 40 copies of this paper 

in preparation for our meeting with Mr. Marvel on Wednesday. I (accompanied by Mr. Ladner and Lt Col Haskins) met with Mr. Marvel and 

related to him our serious concern over the presence of that particular 

paragraph in the State draft and strongly urged Mr. Marvel to have it 

removed on the grounds that it violated TALENT-KEYHOLE security. 

Mr. Marvel was terribly upset at the thought of having to take any such 

action on this paper and began to rationalize his reluctance to have to 

do so. He proceeded to inform us of the principal motive of the NSAM 

156 Committee in its earliest and all subsequent deliberations, i. e. , 

lito strive toward acceptance of satellite observation while precluding 

possible embarrassment to the U. S. II I countered his statements by 

filling in the key issues discussed and acted upon by the NSAM 156 Committee and attempted to place the case he was apparently trying to build 

in its proper perspective. After some discussion and exchange of views 

CONTROL NO ______ _ 

! I 

I 

I 

l 

I 

I 

r 

I 

~ 

fOp SECRET- 'ALENT·KEYHOLE COPY ___ OF ___ COPIES 

CONTROL SYSTEM EXCLUDED FROM AUTOMATlC REGRADING PAGE 2 DOD DIRECTIVE 5200 10 DOES NOT APPLY 

Approved for Release: 2018/02/01 C05101991 

OF ___ PAGES 
", 

HANDLE VIA 

Approved for Release: 2018/02/01 C05101991 f 

( JIlP-SfCR!f f ,C 

HANDLE VIA ~ 

TAlE!!::~~Y.!'olE I 

with Mr. Marvel I felt we were really not winning our case so I resorted to emphasizing that "accept it or not, there did exist two security 

control systems established specifically to protect the sensitive information being divulged in the State paper, and that we could not hope to rationalize our actions to dispose of the, I perhaps distasteful', thought 

that the paper did violate TALENT-KEYHOLE security. If I offered Mr. 

Marvel our substitute version and suggested that he proceed to replace 

all copie s of the pres ent State draft with the substitute version. I reassured him that we had not harmed the text of the paper in any way, 

as a matter of fact, we had probably strengthened the paper by removing 

the satellite reconnaissance consideration which should not have been 

addressed by this Group and which could not possibly enhance the State 

initiative. Mr. Marvel reluctantly then accepted the 40 substitute copie s 

of the paper. He added that he had investigated the possibility of indoctrinating TALENT-KEYHOLE a Mr. Ward P. Allen who had and would 

serve as the chairman of the Study Group. We agreed that Mr. Allen, 

from a witting standpoint, could perhaps insure that the sensitive aspects 

of this subject were not discussed by the Study Group but insisted that it 

was necessary that the substitution of the paper be made in order to disquiet additional discussion of the sensitive points. Mr. Marvel indicated 

only that he would "see what he could do about it. If 

On October 10 I met with Mr. Dwayne S. Anderson, an OSD/ISA 

employee on detached duty with ACDA, a member of the Study Group, to 

seek his help in assuring that the substitute draft was provided the Study 

Group and that discussion of sensitive information was eliminated. I 

also provided Mr. Anderson a copy of Col Worthman's comments on the 

State initiative (Tab F). 

Important to note were several comments by Mr. Anderson: 

1. Mr. Anderson indicated that he personally had espoused our 

feelings on satellites vs. aircraft as an earth-sensing platform for the 

past two years and still considered it to be the most feasible way to go. 

2. He was in complete agreement with our comments and hence 

our suggestion that the initiative be deferred until such time as several 

NASA efforts had been completed and some further study by State had 

been made on the potential backlash inherent in any such initiative. 

f 

r 

I 

! 

r 

I 

I 

I 

! 

! 

I 

, 

! 

i 

r 

I ... , 

! 

I 

I 

~ 

.. 

r 

i 

... 

fOp SECREl- CONTROL NO, ______ _ 

ALENT ·KEYHOLE COPY ___ O' ___ COPI ES 

CONTROL SYSTEM EXCLUDED FROM AUTOMATIC REGRADING PAGE._..::.3 __ OF ___ PAGES 

DOD DIRECTIVE 5Z00.10 DOES NOT APPLY 

Approved for Release: 2018/02/01 C05101991 
Approved for Release: 2018/02/01 C05101991 

~ t 

TAl[!!t~R~~Ol[ I 

HANDLE VIA 

3. He personally feels that the probability that such an initiative 

will make it before the UNGA this fall is almost nil. 

4. He pointed out that ACDA I s position on such an initiative has 

been and continues to be a rather "mild" one, i. e. ACDA is generally 

interested in any initiative that would tend to legitimize the use of observation satellites in arms control but feels that there is not much 

hope in an initiative such as that proposed by State (IO). 

5. He indicated that State CIo)' on the other hand, is presenting 

this initiative for the very purpose of attempting to attain international 

acceptance of satellite observation in terms of its "potential political 

capital. II 

Mr. Anderson promised a report back on the proceedings of the 

Study Group meeting. 

Mr. Anderson visited us on Thursday PM, October 10, to debrief 

the proceedings of the meeting. He indicated that he felt all went well. 

Key points of interest: 

1. Our substitute draft was passed out to replace the earlier 

{October 3) State paper -- without comment or question. 

2. Mr. Anderson presented a strong case for investigating first 

the potential of aircraft vs. satellites for such surveys. 

3. To our surprise, Mr. Anderson had xeroxed and passed to each 

participant a copy of the comments prepared by Colonel Worthman --

not as a DOD position but rather as comments for review and consideration by the members. 

4. The NASA spokesman, Mr. Morris, violently protested the 

proposed State initiative (obviously out of concern that an international 

approach would lead only to further erosion of the NASA space mission). 

5. State has overruled the "objections II and is insisting on an initiative of some kind in the UNGA next week. 

CONTROL NO ______ _ 

'ALENT -KEYHOLE COPY_--..-_OF ___ COPI E5 

CONTROL SYSTEM EXCLUDED FROM AUTOMATIC REGRADING ·4 DOD DIRECTIVE 5200.10 DOE5 NOT APPLY 

Approved for Release: 2018/02/01 C05101991 

PAGE ___ OF ___ PAGES 

I 

r, 

I 

I 

I 

f 

f 

.. , 

I 

! 

, 

; 

... , 

III 

I 
HANDLE VIA 

Approved for Release: 2018/02/01 C05101991 

~ J 

{. 

\ 

HANDLE VIA I TALE~!:~~!~OLE i 

6. IO of State is obviously going it alone -- since strong support 

from even other elements of State was not forthcoming. 

Lt Colonel, USAF 

Copy sent to SS-3 on October 14/ mjn 

CONTROL NO ______ _ 

f 

, 

! 

, 

! 

f 

, 

[ 

I 

! 

l 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

i 

l 

-

, 

I 

-

ALENT-KEYHOLE COPY OF ___ COPIES 

5 CONTROL SYSTEM EXCLUDED FROM AUTOMATIC REGRADING 

DOD DIRECTIVE 5200.10 DOES NOT APPLY 

Approved for Release: 2018/02/01 C05101991 

PAGE ____ OF ___ PAGES