Skip to content

Results:

1 - 8 of 8

Documents

September 10, 1954

The Second Secretary at London (Zimmerman) to the Department of State, 'Transmittal of Indian Summary of Tibetan Reports Covering Period January to April 1954'

A summary of the report of the Indian Mission to Lhasa covering January-April 1954.

June 21, 1954

The Second Secretary at London (Zimmerman) to the Department of State, 'Availability of Reports on Tibet from the Indian Consul General at Lhasa'

Robert Zimmerman explains why UK authorities have stopped receiving copies of the reports from the Indian Mission in Lhasa from the Government of India.

February 27, 1952

The Acting Secretary of State (Webb) to the US Embassy, London, A-1330

The Secretary of State hopes that the US Embassy in London and the Consulate General in Calcutta can continue to receive the reports of the Indian Mission in Lhasa.

November 9, 1951

The Acting Secretary of State (Webb) to the US Embassy, London, A-784

The Secretary of State asks the US Embassy in London to try to continue obtaining copies of the reports sent by the Indian Mission in Lhasa.

July 15, 1965

Research Memorandum REU-25 from Thomas L. Hughes to the Secretary, 'Attitudes of Selected Countries on Accession to a Soviet Co-sponsored Draft Agreement on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons'

With a nuclear nonproliferation treaty under consideration in Washington, INR considered which countries were likely to sign on and why or why not. INR analysts, mistakenly as it turned out, believed it unlikely that the Soviet Union would be a co-sponsor of a treaty in part because of the “international climate” and also because Moscow and Washington differed on whether a treaty would recognize a “group capability.”

September 21, 1972

Memorandum of Conversation, 'Indian Nuclear Developments'

A meeting between British Foreign Office and State Department officials on the Indian nuclear problem occurred the same month that Indian Prime Minister Gandhi approved the “final preparations for a PNE.” Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Christopher T. Van Hollen (the father of the future Maryland Congressman) and his colleagues followed the approach taken by the Special National Intelligence Estimate, which was close to that taken by the British Joint Intelligence Committee. According to country director David Schneider, the “odds were about even” that India would make a decision, but once it was made, India could test very quickly. There was “no firm intelligence” that a “go-ahead signal” to prepare for a test had been made. Schneider reviewed bilateral and multilateral steps, proposed in the NSSM 156 study, that the U.S. and others could take to try to discourage an Indian test and the range of reactions that would be available if India went ahead. A “weak” U.S. reaction, Schneider observed, would suggest that Washington would “acquiesce” if other countries followed India’s example.

April 22, 1972

State Department Cable 69551 to US Embassy United Kingdom, 'Indian Nuclear Intentions'

The Canadian embassy had asked the State Department for information on the intelligence reports from earlier in the year that an Indian nuclear test was “imminent.” The State Department denied the request, but informed the Canadians that the reports were so numerous and their “congruity, apparent reliability, and seeming credibility” so striking that it had become necessary to update official thinking about Indian intentions.

April 7, 1972

State Department cable 59655 to US Embassy United Kingdom, 'Indian Nuclear Intentions'

The British Government took the same view as the Canadians, seeing no evidence that the Indians had made a decision to do a nuclear test, although they had the “capability.”