The document describes initial reactions to the signing of the Agreement on the Prevention of Nuclear War in Washington. The new agreement raises concerns over the bipolar focus of US-USSR relations, NATO's traditional strategy, and poses questions related to autonomous European defense.

The 1978 fall sessions of the Eurogroup and the Defense Planning Committee discussed the Alliance's reaction to new nuclear capabilities of the Soviet Union and conventional build up of the Warsaw Pact. Even though the NATO states acknowledge that the Soviet Union will not be able to maintain its current efforts due to its economic problems, 1980s are seen as posing risks to the current peace.

As discussion of a NATO multilateral force (MLF) unfolded, unfolded, one question which had to be addressed was how the Soviet Union would respond to the creation of such a NATO force. Because a NATO force would increase Western military capabilities, Soviet opposition was assumed.

Concerns about the credibility of US nuclear deterrence generated Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) General Lauris Norstad’s proposal for a NATO-controlled medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) force. This lengthy report represented INR’s assessment of “present and future European interest in national or multinational nuclear weapons capabilities,” including the MRBM proposal, and the extent to which an “enhancement of NATO's nuclear role” could “deter national or multinational European nuclear weapons programs.”

Diplomat A.J. Meerburg writes to activist Mient Jan Faber about nuclear proliferation and disarmament issues, illustrating the amiable relations that developed between social activists and national security professionals and activists in the Netherlands.

This memorandum to Commissioner Martino from Ambassador Schaetzel accepts the Soviet Draft Article III as he believes it will permit non-nuclear Euratom countries to negotiate collectively with the IAEA and permit a satisfactory verification concept.

This presentation, given by Felix Oboussier, discusses the potential impacts the NPT may have on the Euratom Treaty. He concludes that a definitive opinion on the whether or not the requirements and objections of non-nuclear member states have been fully taken into account seems premature.

This article by Jan Gijssels discusses the legal implications of Euratom and the proposed Non-Proliferation Treaty.

This document includes council directives to the Commission for the negotiation of a Euratom verification agreement in accordance with Article III, 4, of the NPT.

This note to the Council of Ministers details the jurisdiction and consequences stemming from the American request that an Article III be included into the NPT.