Skip to content

Results:

121 - 130 of 133

Documents

December 7, 1959

C. L. Marshall, Director, Division of Classification, to A. A. Wells, Director, Division of International Affairs, 'Cooperation in the Field of Gas Centrifuge'

US Atomic Energy Commission classification director C. L. Marshall explains to international affairs director A. A. Wells that the design for the gas centrifuge must be classified for fear of providing an ā€œunfriendly nationā€ a low-energy consuming method for ā€œthe separation of heavy isotopesā€¦an important part of a [nuclear] weapons program.ā€

May 16, 1956

Bhabha and Jawaharlal Nehru Correspondence on Indian Nuclear History

A series of letters between Dr. Bhabha and Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru covering a wide range of subjects, including the appropriate venues to voice opinions, the status of the Colaba site, meeting with the Pakistan Association for the Advancement of Science, and issues with coordination between the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Education on scientific research and education. Also includes a copy of a letter from The Tokyo Shimbun requesting Dr. Bhabhaā€™s presence at a forum discussing the justifiability of American hydrogen bomb tests in the Pacific.

August 6, 1976

Telegram from Pyongyang to Bucharest, SECRET, Urgent, No. 067.190

The Embassy of Romania in Pyongyang summarizes and analyzes the ā€œdeclaration of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea government,ā€ a report prepared by Jeon Myeong-su, DPRK Deputy Foreign Minister.

March 6, 1976

Telegram from Pyongyang to Bucharest, SECRET, Urgent, No. 067.046

The Embassy of Romania in Pyongyang summarizes remarks made by Ri Jong-mok, the North Korean Deputy Foreign Minister, on the military and security situation on the Korean Peninsula.

July 21, 1975

Telegram from Berlin to Bucharest, No. 018.998

Comments regarding the recent US declaration on the use of nuclear arms in case of a conflict on the Korean Peninsula. Most communist countries agree that the two Koreas show little interest in generating armed conflict on the peninsula. The DPRK reiterates its plans for a peaceful unification of Korea.

May 28, 1962

Memorandum by Edward Biegel, Bureau of Western European Affairs, 'WE Answers to the Ball Questionnaire'

Edward Biegel of the Bureau of Western European Affairs answers Undersecretary Ball's questions on French nuclear ambitions and Western European collective security. He makes the arguments against nuclear sharing, and also mentions the fact that a Baltimore Sun article likely alerted the Soviets to the fact that the US deployed tactical nuclear weapons on the German front.

August 24, 1962

Conversation between Soviet Ambassador in North Korea Vasily Moskovsky and North Korean Foreign Minister Pak Seong-cheol

The North Korean Foreign Minister discusses with the Soviet Ambassador the nuclear hegemony of the US and their ability to control nuclear proliferation.

May 27, 1963

Report, Embassy of Hungary in North Korea to the Hungarian Foreign Ministry

A North Korean political officer speaks of Kim Il Sung's firm belief that an American nuclear attack could not destroy North Korea for their country would find refuge in the maze of underground caverns.

August 4, 1983

Report, Embassy of Hungary in North Korea to the Hungarian Foreign Ministry

The Bulgarian Embassy in North Korea urges the DPRK to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty. North Korea won't commit, citing presence of US nuclear weapons in South Korea

April 14, 1988

Lecture by Sergei Akhromeyev, 'The Current State of Soviet Military Doctrine'

This is a transcript of a lecture delivered by Sergei Akhromeyev, the Chief of the General Staff of the Soviet Armed Forces, to the Polish General Staff about Soviet military doctrine in early 1988. The document defines what the Soviets meant by military doctrine, differentiating between the doctrine of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact by stressing the formerā€™s wider range objectives, especially concerning the use of strategic nuclear weapons. In addition, it identifies contemporary issues facing Soviet doctrine and analyzes topics such as nuclear non-proliferation, reduction of nuclear stockpiles and refutes the idea that nuclear weapons should be used in a counter-offensive operation. It stresses the importance of defense, negating offensive military preparedness in lieu of purely defensive Warsaw Pact capabilities (albeit altogether sufficient to successfully deter a NATO attack from the West). It also discusses the results of the March 2-3 1988 NATO talks and concludes that the West is not willing to stop the arms race and is increasing its offensive capabilities. The Warsaw Pactā€™s response should include increased military research, better vigilance to capture signals of a possible attack and more tactical and technical training for the military command. It asserts that even though a war is less likely than in the past, quoting Gorbachev, ā€œthe nature of capitalism itself can be the cause of war.ā€

Pagination