Documents / FOIA release

Warsaw Pact Forces opposite NATO, NIE 11-14-79, Volume II, the Estimate, CIA/NFAC, 31 January 1979

Central Intelligence Agency · 201 pages · text from the file's own layer

This is Volume II of National Intelligence Estimate 11-14-79, Warsaw Pact Forces Opposite NATO, issued by the Director of Central Intelligence and dated January 1979. The National Foreign Intelligence Board concurred with it. It was the first comprehensive estimate of Pact forces facing NATO since 1971. It covers Pact doctrine, the ground, air, naval, nuclear and chemical forces, command and control, and campaign plans for war in Europe. It judges that Central Europe would be the decisive arena, and it lists Pact weaknesses in pilot training and antisubmarine warfare. The document contains no UFO material.

  • p. 25 …and subsidiary systems such as command and control, radioelectronic combat (REC), and reconnais- sance data link…
  • p. 31 …Some of these submarines might alternatively have missions of minelaying near NATO naval bases or patrolling…
  • p. 33 …The Soviet Union views control of its East Euro- preparerd for any mission, froni defending against…
  • p. 42 …The USSR attributes a littoral of Europe have significant capabilities in either broad range of missions…
  • p. 51 …Improved models of the radio-controlled The SA-9 and ZSU-23-4 are probably with…
  • p. 55 …All Pact countries have well-organized mobili- direct control of the VGK to tactical-level missions…
  • p. 58 …These have pervasive control over the soldier's activities and commanders are expected to be closely…
  • p. 59 …Frontal Aviation missions include counterair, ground attack, Warsaw Pact Fixed-Wing Tactical Aircraft reconnaissance, electronic warfare…
  • p. 62 …Pilot Training and Proficienc. 3Y US stand- facilities, hardening command and control facilities, and establishing pipeline…
  • p. 66 …control system which is designed to provide the coordination necessary to conduct close-in missions when…
  • p. 68 major ground formations is used by tactical controllers conventional weapons or to have an operational weap…
  • p. 71 …countries, are tailored primarily for control of guished by missions: antiship strike, reconnaissance those two seas…
  • p. 75 …missions of the Warsaw Pact's general purpose naval forces are to exercise sea control 110…
  • p. 84 …this mission. The combat radii of Soviet ASM-equipped naval Capabilities for Exercising Sea Control in…
  • p. 85 …signed missions; submarines would not neces-" The holders of the second view are the Director, Defense…
  • p. 87 …the Soviets, Poles, and East Germans other missions. Most bombers would be required for have the…
  • p. 118 …would be detached from national control. Re- - The Western TVD. This theater would include, sidual forces…
  • p. 122 …and control functions is central to Soviet control and integration of Pact military operations. Such groups…
  • p. 134 …against HEAT ammunition, the Soviets have incorpo- control and combat support communication links. rated composite or…
  • p. 135 …The Air Operation have been ascertained from classified missions assigned to the NSWP forces are intended…
  • p. 141 …Pact air forces to perform their primary missions in poor flying weather. ould be the preferred…
  • p. 143 …Others believe that no judgment with flying combat missions at low altitudes or over long any…
  • p. 158 …The establishment of control of the Norwegian drastically the likelihood of a major, preemptive at- and…
  • p. 163 …aircraft carrier probably would be unable secondary mission of antiship attack. The Kiev prob- to cope…
  • p. 175 …be building a mand and control and electronic warfare missions. force capable of siniultaneously lifting much…
  • p. 176 …The Pact's early warning network is scheduled current roles of sea control in limited areas…
  • p. 178 …We do not know how the Soviets assess the achieving sea control and in providing support…
  • p. 182 …subma- to control Pact forces once they are released from rines with peripheral missions declines, some…
  • p. 186 …Soviet sea control capabilities gravity to require an early Soviet counteraction. The against US carrier and…
Io ecr.
USSR if the war were going badly for the Pact.
Accordingly, it is Soviet military policy to acquire and
maintain forces capable of successfully fighting a - Escalation of the intensity of nuclear strikes
nuclear war in Europe, to establish the command over time.
relationships necessary to control these forces, and to
formulate a doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons
against NATO in a European conflict.
11. In the 1960s it was Soviet policy to retaliate
against any NATO nuclear initiative with a theater- the Sovi-
wide strike. By 1970, however, the Soviets had adopt- ets have at least considered the possibility of
ed a policy for more flexible use of nuclear weapons graduated escalation, either at their own discre-
against NATO. the tion or in response to NATO.
qualitative and numerical advances in their forward- 12. Despite the Soviets' having adopted a policy for
based tactical nuclear forces since 1970, reflect a more flexible use of tactical nuclear weapons, and
concerted program to improve the Pact's nuclear notwithstanding the impressive improvements they
flexibility and develop alternatives to the single option have made in forward-based tactical nuclear capabili-
of a theaterwide response to even a small-scale NATO ties, they have not sought to match NATO's capacity
use of nuclear weapons. Alternative responses that for accurate and selective use of very-low-yield nu-
have at least been examined include. clear weapons. Although they have evidently been
- Delayed responses to NATO's first small-scale working on nuclear artillery for at least 20 years and
use of nuclear weapons. have nuclear-capable artillery units in the western
USSR, they do not appear to have given high priority
to fielding it in Central Europe. Also, their armory of
tactical nuclear warheads has shown a strong trend
toward higher rather than lower yields.
Although the Soviets now have the necessary forces
and employment doctrines to conduct limited nuclear
war in Central Europe, we believe that they remain
skeptical of the possibility of controlling escalation.
Soviet planners may 13. In sum, we cannot predict how the Soviets
have begun to regard the limited, selective use of might respond to a limited and selective NATO first
nuclear weapons by NATO as a distinctive, if use of nuclear weapons or to their perception of
transitional, phase of conflict that would not NATO's preparations for the imminent use of nuclear
necessarily require an immediate nuclear weapons. They might conceivably continue purely
response nonnuclear operations, or they might respond with
small-scale nuclear strikes of their own. They might
- Responses at the lower end of the nuclear aloaucateariencersrk.
spectrum with small-scale strikes by forward- also launch a theaterwide nuclear strike.
based systems rather than with theajerwide
strikes involving USSR-based systems.
We have reliable evidence that
in 1970 the Soviets decided that NATO's selec-
tive use of tactical nuclear strikes may, in certain 14. Neither can we be certain of the circumstances
circumstances, make it necessary for the Soviets under which the Soviets might initiate nuclear oper-
to make corresponding strikes and that certain ations in a NATO-Warsaw Pact war.
missile units must be kept ready for selective
strikes.
1-5
Top'Seret

Not linked to a story yet.

About this file

FOIA release, from the cia-readingroom collection. The PDF is mirrored here; the original link is above. 201 pages are in the text index: search them above, or from the library's search.