147. Briefing Note for the March 5 NSC Meeting1

[Facsimile Page 1]

NSC 5904

At its meeting on January 22, the Council discussed NSC 5401/1, “U.S. Objectives in the Event of General War with the Soviet Bloc”, in the light of a series of questions sent forward by the Planning Board. With the guidance from the Council discussion, the Planning Board has drafted a new statement of policy, NSC 5904, which is before you today. The new paper is entitled, “U.S. Policy in the Event of War”, and is divided into two separate sections: a first section (Section A) deals with general war; then, because some Planning Board members felt that the paper should also give policy guidance for limited war, a second section (Section B) was written addressed to other kinds of war than general war.

Taking up Section A, then, there was general agreement as to the first objective.

(READ Para 1)

There was also agreement as to the second objective and the policy guidance to carry it out, insofar as the USSR is concerned.

(READ Para 2a with last 2 lines, Para 6a with last line)

There was a split as to whether the same objective and guidance that apply to the USSR should automatically apply to Communist China; the European Bloc countries, such as Albania or Poland; and the non-European Bloc countries, such as North Viet Nam, North Korea or Outer Mongolia. As indicated by the bracketed clauses in Paragraph 2 [Facsimile Page 2] and Paragraph 6, some members of the Planning Board believed that the guidance should apply to those other Bloc countries only if they were “involved in the hostilities.”

Other members of the Planning Board pointed out the difficulty of determining whether a Bloc country was “involved in the hostilities” once general war was upon us. There was a strong feeling that whether or not we were “at war” with Country A or Country B in the classical sense would be academic; and that the purpose of the policy guidance [Typeset Page 683] was to authorize, in advance, the use of requisite military force against selected targets in the country or countries listed.

(CALL ON: GOVERNOR HERTER
GENERAL TWINING
SECRETARY McELROY
and attempt to resolve splits)

The objective in Paragraph 3 follows generally the language of the old paper except that the language “over their own peoples” is an addition.

(READ Para 3)

The objective in Para. 4 is the same as in the old paper except that the word “effective” before allies has been omitted.

(READ Para 4)

Paragraph 5 is now and provides:

(READ Para 5)

The other split in Section A is a proposal by State and OCDM for a Paragraph 7 of the Policy Guidance to read:

(READ Para 7)

[Facsimile Page 3]

The remainder of the Planning Board felt that guidance on developing a recovery capacity was out of place in a paper on policy in the event of general war, that is, after general war has started, and believed that the proposal should be advanced in connection with the review of Basic National Security Policy.

(CALL ON: GOVERNOR HERTER
GOVERNOR HOEGH)

Paragraph 8 is new.

(READ Para 8)

There are four paragraphs (Paras 9–12) on Post-War Objectives. These are necessarily stated in the most general terms, but could serve as a basis for forward planning by the responsible agencies.

Turning next to Section B, the majority of the Planning Board would entitle the section, “U.S. Policy in the Event of War with a Sino-Soviet Bloc State (or States) Other Than the USSR.” I call particular attention to the footnote at the bottom of page 4 which reads:

(READ Footnote)

The JCS propose a different title, on the grounds that Section B should cover any limited war and not be restricted to limited war with a Sino-Soviet Bloc state. I shall later call on General Twining to explain their position.

In their written comments, the JCS withdraw their proposal for a Paragraph 13.

[Typeset Page 684]

There is agreement on the rather general objective in Paragraph 14:

(READ Para 14)

[Facsimile Page 4]

There is also agreement on the first part of the Policy Guidance in Paragraph 15, the JCS in their written comments having withdrawn the bracketed phrase.

(READ first 3 sentences, Para 15)

A real difference of opinion developed as to our policy after U.S. forces are once committed, as indicated in the splits at the end of Paragraph 15 (Page 5). The majority proposal is:

(READ Majority Proposal)

The JCS have an alternative which would say:

(READ JCS Alternative)

Defense proposed still a third alternative, which I shall ask Mr. McElroy to explain in a moment. Since the paper was written, the JCS have prepared language for a fourth alternative (Appendix B, JCS comments). But first let us hear an explanation of the JCS splits, beginning with the title.

(CALL ON: GENERAL TWINING
GOVERNOR HERTER
SECRETARY McELROY)

  1. Source: NSC 5904. 4 pp. Eisenhower Library, Whitman File.