[1] During the period of the Cold War, NATO members recognized the need for incorporation of nuclear weapons as part of their defense strategy.

[1] Consequently, the lack of transparency from the US caused other members to become concerned as to whether the US would support their NATO allies in the event of a general war,[1] particularly in terms of US willingness to use nuclear weapons.

[1] Due to the lack of information on US nuclear capabilities, European members doubted their ability to defend themselves against the Soviet Union.

The National Security Council developed NSC 151/2 which included policy to share information on nuclear weapons with particular NATO members.

Towards the end of 1953, President Eisenhower called for an increase in sharing of nuclear technology for civilian purposes during his speech "Atoms for Peace" addressing the United Nations.

[2] US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara saw the need for a different approach to nuclear sharing and supported a committee made up of NATO members.

This level consists of defense ministers of the Nuclear Planning Group's members and is chaired by Mark Rutte, the Secretary General of NATO.

Established in 1977 and led by the United States, this group involves meetings of high-ranking officials from the capitals of NATO members.

[9] The United States was also concerned of the capacity of the North Atlantic Council to handle important nuclear decisions during the Cold War period.

[5] Another reason why the United States wanted to create the High Level Group was in order to have the senior officials of the NATO members’ capitals be more involved in nuclear discussion.

[9] Reports of discussions are created and given to the defense ministers, who are involved in the ministerial level of the Nuclear Planning Group.

These countries are Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Montenegro, the Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States.

In the 2008 French White Paper on Defense and National Security, France argued that its nuclear forces are completely independent and will not participate in the group.

[3] The concept of ADMS has been argued by some scholars like Thomas Legge as controversial, due to how it would have to be deployed at the early stages of a conflict in order for it to be effective.

[3]  At the same time, the Nuclear Planning Group continued to show interest in ADMS as they believed that it was a favourable defensive strategy.

[8] TNF originally stemmed from the 1953 decision of the Eisenhower administration to deploy nuclear weapons in Europe for tactical use and store it there as well.

In more recent times, the Nuclear Planning Group upholds the norms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty which was signed on August 5, 1963, and was officially ratified by all NATO alliance members except for France in the 1970s.

[2] Scholar Robert Krone argues that considering both political and military inter-groups within NATO has allowed the Nuclear Planning Group to achieve consensus through incremental changes.

[4] Additionally, outside of the organization, the Nuclear Planning Group has maintained its presence without the worry of political action from non-alliance members.

[16] Through the strategic connection with the non-proliferation treaty, the planning group was able to be active without threatening the Soviets to take nuclear action.