THE NRO STAFF

15$- NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WASHINGTON, D.C.

ICIMMIPSIng

21 June 1972

MEMORANDUM FOR DR. MCLUCAS

SUBJECT: White House Decision Not to Disclose "Fact Of"

The following is a reconstruction of events leading to

the NEC letter of 17 June on the "Fact Of." We have been

promised the "full story" on the recent internal activity of

the NSC Staff at an early date, so it can only be conjectured

at this point as to what occurred.

May 4 - NSC Staff requested State to originate a paper

for the Verification Panel on public statements about U. S.

verification capabilities. This request, in effect, transferred the "fact of" question from the NSAM 156 Committee to

the Verification Panel. ACDA was also requested to prepare

a series of questions and answers about the agreements.

May 12 - State distributed its paper containing four

alternative levels of disclosure, which ranged from retention

of the present non-disclosure policy to disclosure of the

entire verification capability. The paper was biased towards

disclosure of the "fact of" photographic satellites. JCS

comments pointed to the inadequacy of the paper and reqUested

State to hold a Working Group meeting. State did not apparently desire to redraft the paper since no second draft was

ever accomplished.

May 12 - ACDA distributed its question and answer paper.

The portion on verification capabilities was withdrawn from

the first draft at the request of the NSC Staff.

--TOP-SECRET11114111011111 MIN INITOMMIC 1111111141111111

NO MIPECIWE DIN IS eon MOT &..0

MIKA NO Internal 

1 ay 2

Pif--71—°;771-77::
TOP-SECRETMay 23 - Dr. Naka hosted a meeting which was attended by

Dr. Tucker, Mr. Benington, and NRO Staff members. It was

decided that a position paper on the "fact of" issue would be

prepared for Secretary Laird and that Dr. Tucker would be the

spokesman for the consolidated OSD position.

May 26, - A second meeting was held with Mr. Eagleburger.

Mr. Morrison was also in attendance, and Mr. Wood attended for

Dr. Tucker. It was decided to draft a one page left-hand memo

for Mr. Laird to accompany the longer "consensus" OSD paper

which was agreed to by ASD (ISA), (SA), and (I); DDR&E; and

NRO.

May 29 - Dr. McLucas met with Mr. Wood, Mr. Eagleburger,

and Mr. Morrison. The action was passed to ASD (SA) for

Dr. Tucker to present to Mr. Laird. No further action was

ultimately pursued on this paper.

June 7 - AlthoUgh the SALT agreements had been made

public and were accompanied by much press speculation on the

use of satellites, no official disclosure had been made. The

Verification Panel met to approve the Letter of Transmittal•

of the Agreements. The first draft of the letter contained

a passage citing an example of "non-interference with national

means" and stating that the Soviets would not use anti-satellite

weapons against U. S. satellites in orbit. At JCS request this

passage was withdrawn from the letter. The Verification Panel,

in its session, approved the letter without the passage.

State then obliquely raised the "fact of" issue. After much

confusion and since Dr. Kissinger had left the meeting,

Mr. Odeen asked that the Agency Heads' positions be made known

to the White House on June 8. A late . in the:day memo to the

Verification Panel from NSC stated that decision was to include

the non-interference example in the transmittal letter.

June . 8 - ASD (SA) obtained views on "fact of" disclosure

from DNRO, ASD (ISA), ASD (I), DDR&E, Mr. Nitze, and Mr. Rush

for presentation to Mr. Laird. The latter two were in favor.

of disclosure; Dr. Hall and Mr.•Eagleburger were the strongest

against disclosure. Dr. Tucker maintained a non-advocacy position. Mr. Laird decided to support the release of "fact of"

and limited discussion by a limited number of spokesmen. CIA,

ACDA, and State also supported "fact of" disclosure.

-TOP-SECREF

t ••er 1100%. 11 1 C 

I34 SICI ..11 PS) • C :VS •••ty

um.... Internal 

1 . 2 • eomu
TOP-S.ECREF

Dr. David took a strong opposing stand. Dr. Kissinger left

for Japan without a definite "fact of" decision having been

made.

June 13 - Mr. Walsh informed us that there was some

internal disagreement in the NSC Staff on the "fact of" issue

but that he did not have any details.

June 14 - General Haig made the statement that (in the

view of the NSC Staff) the Letter of Transmittal for the

Congress did not constitute a disclosure of "fact of."

June 16 - Mr. Helms signed a memorandum to the USIB

principals saying that in the event of a "fact of" disclosure,

such disclosure would be limited and only designated spokesmen

would be authorized to address the subject.

June 17 - General Haig signed a letter for Dr. Kissinger

to the Heads of Agencies which stated that it had been decided

"not to reveal the 'fact of types of systems to be used for

verification." A follow-up query by JCS was made to the NSC

Staff pertaining to the Letter of.Transmittal reference to

satellites. JCS was told that the Letter of Transmittal

reference should be construed as hypothetical in nature and

not a disclosure of the "fact of."

. In summary, it is hypothesized that Dr. Kissinger, having

heard agruments for and against disclosure, felt that no real

benefit to ratification would accrue from disclosure at this

time and that the near-term uncertainties vis-a-vis Soviet and

third-country reactions did not make an official disclosure

practical. In any case, with the impetus favoring disclosure

as recently as a week ago, the rather sudden and curious turn

of events was unexpected but not unwelcomed by the NRO Staff.

We will provide you with additional details when they are

known.

41111111111111P

--TevSECRETtaCuniI3 'NOV Aulatta•.0

aaa stn 11CC • 1 DOC% %Of avas t

Internal 

C00.1 ants

PAM vats