MINUTES OF 8 JULY 1982 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING: LONG-RANGE PLANNING--TECHNICAL COLLECTION CAPABILITIES.

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP89-01114R000300040018-1
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 9, 2005
• Sequence Number: 18
• Publication Date: July 14, 1982
• Content Type: MF

Approved F Release 2005/08/15: CIA-RDP89-01 4R000300040018-1
EXCOM 82-7026
14 July 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR: Executive Committee Members
s
tant to the DDCI
Executive Assi
SUBJECT: Minutes of 8 July 1982 Executive Committee
Meeting: Long-Range Planning--Technical
Collection Capabilities.
1. The Executive Committee met on 8 July 1982 to begin
Phase III of this year's long-range planning exercise,
identifying the capabilities required to meet the intelligence
needs projected in Phase II. The DDS&T developed the paper for
discussion, Technical Collection and Processing Alternatives.
.. i ..
Stein (DDO); Gates (DDI); Fitzwater
(DDCI)
;
Messrs. McMahan
DA ? Taylor (ADDS&T); Childs (Comptroller); Glerum (D/OP); and
(Acting IG). (AIUO)
2. Mr. Taylor noted that to date, the planning process has
ther
th
e o
been driven by identifying the DDI's needs and what
Directorates need to do to support those needs. He pointed out
that unlike the DDO or DDI, which could develop specific
capabilities to meet specific needs, the DDS&]' had to deal
--- i a .,.--+ . >,1lmhcar of nPPas.
b
i J. i
ener i s capa
(C/PD/P&RS/S&T) then highlighted the technical collection
paper and the methodology used in developing it. He focused on
the proposed alternatives that could be most productive,
including artificial intelligence, technology aids to clandestine
access, quantitative modeling and millimeter wave technolod
3, reviewed the steps in the planning process,
noting that the end result should be guidance for the direction
of future budgets. He pointed out, however, that at this stage
the planning papers should not be constrained by budget
considerations. He mentioned his understanding that the DDS&T
had a preliminary assessment of how technical collection could be
applied to the DDI's needs, but it had not been included in the
d for the Committee's
k
e
DDS&T paper at this point. He then as
views on the paper. (U)
4. Mr. Fitzwater suggested that the paper should reflect
some sense of priorities regarding how well each alternative
might satisfy the DDI's requirements. He also noted that the
recommendations scattered throughout the paper should be drawn
together into a strategic plan. He suggested that the ties to
Approved For Release 2005/08/15: CIA-RDP89-01114R0
25X1
25X1
25X1
 Z 7. _1
a
Approved Fow?Release 2005/08/15 CIA;3-RDP89-01 111 8000300040018-1
HUMINT collection capabilities should be spelled out, and he
questioned how his Directorate could develop a paper on required
support capabilities to address the alternatives discussed in the
paper. (C)
5. Mr. Gates stated that the paper underscored his concern
that technical collection systems tend to develop a momentum of
their own that may or may not be related to substantive needs.
He noted the lack of a zero-based review, balancing existing
capabilities against priority needs and eliminating capabilities
that are not addressing priority concerns. He emphasized the
importance of linking the DDS&T's generic capabilities to the
DDI's substantive needs and concurred with Mr. Fitzwater's
comments on spelling out the interplay between technical
collection and HUMINT collection. Mr. Stein agreed, stating that
DDO and DDS&T had to focus on whether any of the proposed
alternatives could fill existing gaps in access to information.
(S)
6. Mr. Childs observed that the paper represented a useful
step in the planning process and an additional step would be
necessary to tie the proposed capabilities to the DDI's
requirements. Mr. Glerum emphasized the importance of DDO
involvement in that next step. Mr. Taylor acknowledged that the
DDS&T's proposals should be reviewed to determine their relative
importance, relevance and cost. (A/IUO)
7. Mr. McMahon noted an imbalance in the paper, finding it
strong; in those areas of traditional concern to the DDS&T, like
technical collection and processing, but weak in those areas
where the DDS&T has been less comfortable, such as support to
HUMINT collection. He cited the need for more imaginative
approaches enhancing the polygraph and improving technical
devices to support DDO operations. He requested that the DDS&T_
spell out the relationship between the proposed alternatives and
the DDI's substantive needs and the DDO's HUMINT collection
support needs. At a subsequent session the Executive Committee
could then determine the relative priorities among the proposed
capabilities. Mr. McMahon suggested the DDS&T should also set a
figure, possibly 10 percent of its R&D budget, to apply against
its own research needs and use its own judgment in determining
priorities. (S)
8. pointed out that during the support phase of
the planning process, major information handling projects,
including SAFE, would have to be factored into guidance
decisions. He noted that this session should be considered
informational, and an additional meeting will be held to consider
a supplemental paper linking technical collection capabilities to
Phase II needs. He then adjourned the meeting. (U)
25X1
Approved For Release 2005/08/15 : CIA-RDP89-01114R000300040018-1