Search | Wilson Center Digital Archive

Switch to Visualization

Related Resources

Soviet soldier taking a photograph of another soldier in Red Square, Moscow, 1959

Eastern Europe

Soviet Union

Portrait of Mao Zedong on Tiananmen Gate in Beijing, China, 1972.

East Asia

China

Aerial view of National Mall

North America

United States

Pyongyang photographed in March 20212

East Asia

North Korea

Emir Farid Chehab

Emir Farid Chehab Collection

Gyeongbokgung

East Asia

South Korea

Cuba's National Capitol Building, January 2010.

Central America and Caribbean

Cuba

Sino-Soviet Relations

Executive Committee of the National Security Committee during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Cuban Missile Crisis

Photograph of Zhou Enlai in 1972.

Zhou, Enlai

1898- 1976

Portrait of Mao Zedong from propaganda poster

Mao, Zedong

1893- 1976

A photo of Joseph Stalin from 1943

Stalin, Joseph

1879- 1953

Kim Il Sung, 1978

Kim, Il Sung

1912- 1994

Press Briefing by Permanent Observer of Democratic People's Republic of Korea to the UN, 7 July 1976.

Inter-Korean Relations

Dr. Syngman Rhee, 1939

Syngman Rhee Era

Sino-Soviet Split, 1960-1984

Aerial photograph of CIA headquarters

United States. Central Intelligence Agency

-

Dr. Syngman Rhee, 1939

Rhee, Syngman

1875- 1965

Results:

13221 - 13230 of 15969

Display:

Sort By:

Documents

March 24, 1972	State Department Cable 50634 to US Embassy Canada, 'Indian Nuclear Intentions' Further discussions with the Canadian embassy counselor disclosed Ottawa’s view that it had no evidence of Indian intentions to test a nuclear weapon or a PNE. The Indians were “leaving their options open.” If they decided to test, however, it would be “impossible” for them to move forward “without revealing some indication of their intentions.”
March 14, 1972	US Embassy Canada Cable 430 to State Department, 'India’s Nuclear Intentions on South Asia Situation' Elaborating on his earlier cable and responding to the general issues raised by the Department’s 9 March message, science attaché Hudson questioned Lauren Gray’s evaluation of Sethna, suggesting that by combining “guile” and “technical proficiency,” the latter could easily have “easily misled” the Canadian. Based on consultations with a variety of Canadian insiders with knowledge of and experience with the Indian nuclear program, the Embassy saw no technical or fiscal barriers to an Indian test. Moreover, any pressure on India not to test would increase the “likelihood” of that happening.
March 9, 1972	State Department cable 40378 to US Embassy Ottawa, 'Indian Nuclear Intentions' During a discussion with the Canadian embassy counselor, U.S. country desk director David Schneider opined that Indian was unlikely to test a device in the “near future” but he wanted Ottawa’s prognosis. Schneider was also interested in whether the Soviets, with their close relationship with India, might be able to use their influence to “deter” a test. If India tested, the U.S. could respond with a “strong statement,” but whether “punitive” measures would be taken would depend on whether the test “violated existing agreements.” In October 1970, the State Department had cautioned the Indians that a “peaceful nuclear explosion” was indistinguishable from a weapons test and that the test of a nuclear device would be incompatible with U.S.-Indian nuclear assistance agreements.
March 7, 1972	US Embassy Canada cable 391 to State Department, 'India’s Nuclear Intentions' U.S. embassy officials report on an interview with Lauren Gray, the chairman of Canada’s Atomic Energy Control Board (AECB), who had recently visited India. Having spoken with Homi Nusserwanji Sethna, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, and other officials, Gray believed that Sethna opposed a test and that as long as Sethna and Indira Gandhi were in office “there was no chance” that India would test a nuclear device, which would take three to four years to prepare. Other officials with the AECB disagreed with Gray's estimates - based on their assessment of Indian’s ability to produce weapons grade plutonium, they argued that it would take no more than a year to produce a device. They also pointed out that about 18 months earlier there had been a “blackout” of statistical information on plutonium production in India.
February 23, 1972	Memorandum from Ray Cline, Director, Bureau of Intelligence and Research, to Director of Central Intelligence Richard Helms, enclosing 'Possibility of an Indian Nuclear Test' At the request of Undersecretary of State John Irwin, the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) prepared an assessment which included a detailed review of Indian’s nuclear facilities and their capacity to produce weapons-grade plutonium as well as capabilities to deliver nuclear weapons to a target. While India had signed agreements with Canada and the United States that nuclear reactors were to be used for peaceful purposes, the Indians were likely to claim that an explosive device for “peaceful” purposes was consistent with the agreements. Whether the Indians were going to test in the near future was in doubt. INR could not “rule out” one in the near future. Further, the “strongest incentive [to test] may well be the desire for the increased status of a nuclear power.” All the same, “it our judgment that a decision to authorize a test is unlikely in the next few months and may well be deferred for several years.” Weighing against a test were the financial and diplomatic costs, for example, “India's full awareness that assistance from the US and other countries (possibly including the USSR) would be jeopardized.”
January 21, 1972	US Embassy Airgram A-20 to State Department, 'India’s Nuclear Intentions' In response to the State Department's request, the U.S. Embassy in India identified a number of reasons that made it unlikely that India would a test a nuclear device in the coming weeks, but saw “straws” suggesting an underground test “sometime in future.” For example, the Government of India had publicly acknowledged ongoing work on the problem of safe underground testing. Moreover, India might have an interest in making its nuclear capabilities known to “enemies.” Whatever the Indians decided, external pressure would have no impact on a highly nationalist state and society: “we see nothing US or international community can presently do to influence GOI policy directions in atomic field.”
January 14, 1972	State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research Intelligence Note, 'India to Go Nuclear?' The State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) evaluates the available intelligence on India’s nuclear intentions. There were varying reports that India would test a device that month, sometime in 1972, or that the government was undertaking a program to test a “peaceful nuclear explosive.” According to INR, India had the capability to produce some 20-30 weapons, and it could easily test a device in an underground site, such as an abandoned mine, that would be hard to discover. Because the U.S. government had given a “relatively modest priority to... relevant intelligence collection activities” a “concerted effort by India to conceal such preparations... may well succeed.” What would motivate India to test, the analysts opined, were domestic political pressures and concerns about China and Pakistan.
January 6, 1972	State Department cable 3088 to Embassy New Delhi The State Department asks the U.S. Embassy in India for its assessment of the likelihood that India is planning a nuclear test explosion.
1985	Return Address: Moscow, Issue 3 Bulletin by the Group for Establishing Trust Between the USSR and the USA, an independent peace organization in the Soviet Union. Three issues were editor Sergei Batovrin and published from New York City. They contain news on the peace movement in the Soviet Union and the harassment and imprisonment of activists by the government.
January 20, 1965	Minutes of the Meeting of the Political Consultative Committee of the Warsaw Pact Member States, Warsaw Romanian meeting minutes of Warsaw Pact Political Consultative Committee meeting concerning non-proliferation.