Presenting NSSM 200: "Implications of Worldwide Population Growth For U.S. Security and Overseas Interests"

Tyler Durden's picture

One of the topics touched upon by Eric deCarbonnel in the earlier article discussing the potential, if not necessarily probable absent further validation, implications of the Exchange Stabilization Fund, is that of the nature of AIDS. Which got us thinking. While we won't necessarily go into the implications proposed by none other than Chuck Palahniuk in his book Rant (word search Kissinger, especially what Neddy Nelson has to say on the topic), it made us recall that particular National Security Study Memorandum, aka NSSM 200, better known as "The Kissinger Report" authored on December 10, 1974 and immediately classified under Executive Order 11652 until 1989, titled simply, "Implications of Worldwide Population Growth For U.S. Security and Overseas Interests." What did the report say and why is it relevant, especially in our day and age when so many believe that all important substance - black gold - may have peaked? Well, since it has 123 pages full of very, very curious information as pertains to how US foreign policy is truly styled, we will leave it up to our readers to make their own conclusions, but here are some preliminary observations to help them on their way...

The basic thesis of the memorandum was that population growth in the least developed countries (LDCs) is a concern to U.S. national security, because it would tend to risk civil unrest and political instability in countries that had a high potential for economic development. The policy gives "paramount importance" to population control measures and the promotion of contraception among 13 populous countries, to control rapid population growth which the US deems inimical to the socio-political and economic growth of these countries and to the national interests of the United States, since the "U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad", and these countries can produce destabilizing opposition forces against the United States. It recommends the US leadership to "influence national leaders" and that "improved world-wide support for population-related efforts should be sought through increased emphasis on mass media and other population education and motivation programs by the U.N., USIA, and USAID."


Thirteen countries are named in the report as particularly problematic with respect to U.S. security interests: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Turkey, Nigeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil. These countries are projected to create 47 percent of all world population growth.


The report advocates the promotion of education and contraception and other population control measures. It also raises the question of whether the U.S. should consider preferential allocation of surplus food supplies to states that are deemed constructive in use of population control measures.

Some of the key insights of report are controversial:

"The U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries [see National Commission on Materials Policy, Towards a National Materials Policy: Basic Data and Issues, April 1972]. That fact gives the U.S. enhanced interest in the political, economic, and social stability of the supplying countries. Wherever a lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the economic interests of the United States. . . . The location of known reserves of higher grade ores of most minerals favors increasing dependence of all industrialized regions on imports from less developed countries. The real problems of mineral supplies lie, not in basic physical sufficiency, but in the politico-economic issues of access, terms for exploration and exploitation, and division of the benefits among producers, consumers, and host country governments" [Chapter III-Minerals and Fuel]. 


Whether through government action, labor conflicts, sabotage, or civil disturbance, the smooth flow of needed materials will be jeopardized. Although population pressure is obviously not the only factor involved, these types of frustrations are much less likely under conditions of slow or zero population growth" [Chapter III-Minerals and Fuel].


"Populations with a high proportion of growth. The young people, who are in much higher proportions in many LDCs, are likely to be more volatile, unstable, prone to extremes, alienation and violence than an older population. These young people can more readily be persuaded to attack the legal institutions of the government or real property of the ‘establishment,' ‘imperialists,' multinational corporations, or other-often foreign-influences blamed for their troubles" [Chapter V, "Implications of Population Pressures for National Security].

"We must take care that our activities should not give the appearance to the LDCs of an industrialized country policy directed against the LDCs. Caution must be taken that in any approaches in this field we support in the LDCs are ones we can support within this country. "Third World" leaders should be in the forefront and obtain the credit for successful programs. In this context it is important to demonstrate to LDC leaders that such family planning programs have worked and can work within a reasonable period of time." [Chapter I, World Demographic Trends].

The kicker:

The report advises, "In these sensitive relations, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion."

And much more...

So just what do you call when Dr. Mengele applies the principles of eugenics, only not to his own population, but to everybody else's? We have no idea although it certainly sounds like yet another crack pot, tinfoil conspiracy theory.

For those who enjoy factual historical documents, here are some other of the good Doctor's (Kissinger, not Mengele) observations:

Because of the momentum of population dynamics, reductions in birth rates affect total numbers only slowly. High birth rates in the recent past have resulted in a high proportion the youngest age groups, so that there will continue to be substantial population increases over many years even if a two-child family should become the norm in the future. Policies to reduce fertility will have their main effects on total numbers only after several decades. However, if future numbers are to be kept within reasonable bounds, it is urgent that measures to reduce fertility be started and made effective in the 1970's and 1980's. Moreover, programs started now to reduce birth rates will have short run advantages for developing countries in lowered demands on food, health and educational and other services and in enlarged capacity to contribute to productive investments, thus accelerating development.


U.N. estimates use the 3.6 billion population of 1970 as a base (there are nearly 4 billion now) and project from about 6 billion to 8 billion people for the year 2000 with the U.S. medium estimate at 6.4 billion. The U.S. medium projections show a world population of 12 billion by 2075 which implies a five-fold increase in south and southeast Asia and in Latin American and a seven-fold increase in Africa, compared with a doubling in east Asia and a 40% increase in the presently developed countries (see Table I). Most demographers, including the U.N. and the U.S. Population Council, regard the range of 10 to 13 billion as the most likely level for world population stability, even with intensive efforts at fertility control. (These figures assume, that sufficient food could be produced and distributed to avoid limitation through famines.)


Growing populations will have a serious impact on the need for food especially in the poorest, fastest growing LDCs. While under normal weather conditions and assuming food production growth in line with recent trends, total world agricultural production could expand faster than population, there will nevertheless be serious problems in food distribution and financing, making shortages, even at today's poor nutrition levels, probable in many of the larger more populous LDC regions. Even today 10 to 20 million people die each year due, directly or indirectly, to malnutrition. Even more serious is the consequence of major crop failures which are likely to occur from time to time.


Countries with large population growth cannot afford constantly growing imports, but for them to raise food output steadily by 2 to 4 percent over the next generation or two is a formidable challenge. Capital and foreign exchange requirements for intensive agriculture are heavy, and are aggravated by energy cost increases and fertilizer scarcities and price rises. The institutional, technical, and economic problems of transforming traditional agriculture are also very difficult to overcome.


In addition, in some overpopulated regions, rapid population growth presses on a fragile environment in ways that threaten longer-term food production: through cultivation of marginal lands, overgrazing, desertification, deforestation, and soil erosion, with consequent destruction of land and pollution of water, rapid siltation of reservoirs, and impairment of inland and coastal fisheries.


Rapid population growth is not in itself a major factor in pressure on depletable resources (fossil fuels and other minerals), since demand for them depends more on levels of industrial output than on numbers of people. On the other hand, the world is increasingly dependent on mineral supplies from developing countries, and if rapid population frustrates their prospects for economic development and social progress, the resulting instability may undermine the conditions for expanded output and sustained flows of such resources.


Rapid population growth creates a severe drag on rates of economic development otherwise attainable, sometimes to the point of preventing any increase in per capita incomes. In addition to the overall impact on per capita incomes, rapid population growth seriously affects a vast range of other aspects of the quality of life important to social and economic progress in the LDCs.


The universal objective of increasing the world's standard of living dictates that  economic growth outpace population growth. In many high population growth areas of the world, the largest proportion of GNP is consumed, with only a small amount saved. Thus, a small proportion of GNP is available for investment - the "engine" of economic growth. Most experts agree that, with fairly constant costs per acceptor, expenditures on effective family planning services are generally one of the most cost effective investments for an LDC country seeking to improve overall welfare and per capita economic growth. We cannot wait for overall modernization and development to produce lower fertility rates naturally since this will undoubtedly take many decades in most developing countries, during which time rapid population growth will tend to slow development and widen even more the gap between rich and poor.

And why all this is relevant for good ole' humanitarian Uncle Sam:

The political consequences of current population factors in the LDCs - rapid growth, internal migration, high percentages of young people, slow improvement in living standards, urban concentrations, and pressures for foreign migration ?? are damaging to the internal stability and international relations of countries in whose advancement the U.S. is interested, thus creating political or even national security problems for the U.S. In a broader sense, there is a major risk of severe damage to world economic, political, and ecological systems and, as these systems begin to fail, to our humanitarian values.


What are the stakes? We do not know whether technological developments will make it possible to feed over 8 much less 12 billion people in the 21st century. We cannot be entirely certain that climatic changes in the coming decade will not create great difficulties in feeding a growing population, especially people in the LDCs who live under increasingly marginal and more vulnerable conditions. There exists at least the possibility that present developments point toward Malthusian conditions for many regions of the world. 


But even if survival for these much larger numbers is possible, it will in all likelihood be bare survival, with all efforts going in the good years to provide minimum nutrition and utter dependence in the bad years on emergency rescue efforts from the less populated and richer countries of the world. In the shorter run -- between now and the year 2000 -- the difference between the two courses can be some perceptible material gain in the crowded poor regions, and some improvement in the relative distribution of intra- country per capita income between rich and poor, as against permanent poverty and the widening of income gaps. A much more vigorous effort to slow population growth can also mean a very great difference between enormous tragedies of malnutrition and starvation as against only serious chronic conditions.

And it gets even better:

There is an alternative view which holds that a growing number of experts believe that the population situation is already more serious and less amenable to solution through voluntary measures than is generally accepted. It holds that, to prevent even more widespread food shortage and other demographic catastrophes than are generally anticipated, even stronger measures are required and some fundamental, very difficult moral issues need to be addressed.

Dot dot dot...

Full memorandum (link):


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
TK7936's picture

Horribly simple minded videos. We would have never left the stone age with this philosophy.

Silverballs's picture

Sadly the Rockefellers probably already have his replacement waiting in shadows

SAT 800's picture

Ah, If only I believed in Hell.

knukles's picture

Well, well, well....
Another Conspiracy Theory Bites the Dust.
You knw the one about Excess Human Beings, bhehind the scenes covert population control....

Shit, not many of the so called traditional conspircy theories left unproven, of sorts.

UGrev's picture

Yeah brother... I have my fuckit bucket of conspiracy theories... I throw shit in there that, at any given moment, just doesn't seem to "fit" or "make sense". So I say "Fuck it" and throw it in my bucket of conspiracies. I'm finding that I'm pulling out more theories from the bucket than I'm putting in. 

side note: loved Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura. Saved the re-runs on my DVR. 

trav7777's picture

Are all of you idiots unaware that Kissinger or Heinz or whomever, despite being evil, are actually CORRECT on this point?

How many people are you morons going to condemn to a future of starvation in this "collapse" you all masturbate to?

knukles's picture

Ah yes.... 
In fact I've often been vilified by folks for suggesting that an overburdensome population is the root of most global scale socio/political/economic problems; energy, food, pollution, etc.  Oft suggested that the ZPG folks used be at Speaker's Corner on Sundays some 30 years ago, were precient.  
My point had nothing to do however with what was/is right or wrong or by whose standards or from what point of view.  Frankly, I could care less. 
My observation is that of recent vintage, propelled by the Internet Reformation, that which used to be held as "Conspiracy Theories" only a few short years ago, are being ever so quickly validated as factual.

AgShaman's picture

You and Trav look to be playing the idiots quite well.

Your slave masters have you believing that "peak oil" and resource scarcity is a good reason for mass genocide and eugenics depopulation tactics.

They control your minds like they control the patents and the GMO food supply....hence low cost and free energy solutions stay shelved indefinitely.

You two gymbags should grow some nuggets and give up on your pathetic endorsement of the NWO thuggery "Syndicate"

trav7777's picture

Listen, you stupid retard, NEITHER oil supply NOR population can grow geometrically forever.

If you have studied population growth cases, you immediately see that the downside when resource scarcity imposes, is UGLY.  Brutally, motherfucking UGLY.

Unlike you, I am humane and wish to avoid that.

I still don't see what the fuck is wrong with eugenics when we PRACTICE IT on EVERY OTHER ORGANISM WE ENCOUNTER.

Do you have a fucking pet?  That's EUGENICS.  You ever eat a piece of fruit or meat or anything?  EUGENICS.  AGRICULTURE IS EUGENICS.  Ranching cattle IS EUGENICS.  Riding fucking HORSES is eugenics.

Karl von Bahnhof's picture

C mon trav...
I go...


Now, stop to be Nature's spokesperson and do us a favor please and castrate your self as an example of your philosophy. Behave like a man, dude...

Karl von Bahnhof's picture

And fucking a Horse is not a EUGENICS! That is Just a NoNo!

AgShaman's picture

What can I say....I feel I am doing a better job than you, at directing my hatred.

I'll continue to hate the Tax Free Endowments, Big Oil, GMO's like Monsanto, as well as the Banking Conglomerates that desire to maintain control on their serfdom thru "Depopulation and Sterilization" Programs around this planet....

....and you can continue to strap on yer kneepads like a nutless your support of the named above....cleverly cloaking your closet bigotry and prejudices....under the name of "It's good for the planet"

If you haven't figured out how these parasites have stymied and stunted the people of this planet by witholding progress and new technology that puts their monopolies in jeopardy....then like most of the other are in the camp that's regarded as...."Part of the Problem" 

Gully Foyle's picture


Once again

World population to peak at 9.2 billion in 2050
March 13, 2007

World population is expected to reach 9.2 billion by 2050 according to a new study by the United Nations. Virtually all growth will occur in developing countries, with their population growing from 5.4 billion today to 7.9 billion mid-century. The population of developed regions is expected to remain unchanged at 1.2 billion, and would have declined, were it not for the anticipated net migration from developing to developed countries.

The report also said that global population will age faster than ever before, with half the expected increase in world population between 2005 and 2050 to be accounted for by a rise in the population aged 60 years or over. The number of children under the age of 9 will decrease slightly over the same period.

Global life expectancy will increase from 66.0 years today to 75.4 in 2045-2050, according to the report. Japan is expected to have the highest life expectancy (87.1 years versus 81.9 years today), followed by Hong Kong, Switzerland, Iceland, and Australia. The United States is expected to see life expectancy increase by six years, from 78.5 years today to 84.5 years in 2050.

At the opposite end of the scale, life expectancy in Zambia, currently the country with the shortest life expectancy at 39.2 years, is expected to increase by 46 percent by 2050 to 57.4 years. The largest gains are expected in Zimbabwe, where life expectancy is expected to increase by more than 60 percent from 40 years today to 64.2 years in 2050.

The U.N. notes that fertility in less developed countries is expected to fall from 2.75 children per woman in 2005-2010 to 2.05 in 2045-2050, a figure that puts births below replacement levels of 2.1 children per woman. Least developed countries will likely see their fertility rate decline from 4.63 children per woman to 2.50 children per woman.

The new population figures are about 100 million than those released last year due to success in treating the HIV/AIDS epidemic. The U.N. expects most countries to have antiretroviral treatment programs by 2015. Antiretroviral extend life by an extra seven-and-a-half years on average for those infected with HIV/AIDS. Overall, the U.N. forecasts 32 million fewer deaths between 2005-2050 in the 62 most affected countries than it did in its prior population revision.

The 9.191 billion figure is "medium" estimate by the U.N., which gives a range of 7.792 to 10.756 billion for 2050.

While it appears likely that human population will level off mid-century, the human footprint on the planet is expected to grow as larger numbers of people achieve higher levels of affluence, especially in China and India. In general as quality of life improves, a population uses more resources. For example the United States appropriates more than 20 percent of the world's resources despite having less than 5 percent of global population.

This article uses quotes from an Iowa State news release.

Stuck on Zero's picture

Thank goodness we have people like George Bush who cancelled all population control programs.  Likewise, thank Congress for relieving population pressures around the world by letting tens of millions of immigrants into the United States. Also, thank you White House and Congress for putting together no plan whatsover for food or energy security.  And many thanks to Washington politicians for ensuring the survival of government in a crisis.  If our wonderful government weren't in action to solve our problems where would we be?

trav7777's picture

thank goodness we'll have billions more africans.  Lord knows they have been such a historically useful and inventive people, coming up with such things as the....hmm.  Super soaker?  Anyone?  Bueller?

Cathartes Aura's picture

Constitutionally Enforced Pregnancies Trav.

how's that gonna work?

flattrader's picture

Ron Paul "libertarianism" at it's finest.

trav7777's picture

nah, just encouraged.

You know, we don't permit reproductive freedom of dogs and's because the natural reality is that given the environment, they would soon overrun us.  We practice population management of every other animal in existence.

Once we went fucking with natural balances because we didn't like their outcomes, we opened this pandora's box.  We are NOT IMMUNE to nature simply because we believe in shit like "freedom."  That's nice to believe in but when nature decides we're not free, we ARE NOT FREE.

If nature visits us with H5N1 (which will happen eventually), all this Constitution shit ain't gonna mean dick.  Your "god given" right to LIFE means NOTHING to nature.  Go jump off a cliff proclaiming your RIGHT to pursue happiness by jumping off of cliffs!

I REFUSE to ignore reality; that is one of the things that MOST separates me from ordinary people.

What's coming is coming; listen to Bartlett if you can't stand my avatar.  He's way less threatening than I but I say the same things.  The center CANNOT hold forever.

If you deny what I say, then you deny Bartlett as well, you deny MATH.

And math is God's language; He is on my side, not yours.

Cathartes Aura's picture

I wrote "constitutionally enforced pregnancies" based on the desire to enact the "Sanctity of Life" constitutional amendments being repeatedly put forth.

so I'm unclear as to your "nah, just encouraged" reply?

if we're "just encouraging" females to bear children, not enforcing them - is this not what is currently being utilised, and no need to create a constitutional amendment? 

spaying & neutering pets is something I agree with - doing the same to humans is definitely controversial, but I agree with making it available to both males & females, and encouraging their considering the option, particularly if being sexually active is important, and having children less so.

I would draw the line at forcible sterilisations - HOWEVER, if laws are to be passed enforcing births, then I'd advocate testing to ascertain the sperm donor, and should he be culpable for numerous impregnations, he might be held accountable for their livelihoods to maturity - should he not be capable of providing for his babies, he might be encouraged to stop creating them.

I'd leave how strong the encouragement might be to those who love making laws over people's bodies.  and I won't hold my breath to see these ideas arise from a Christian base. . .

Hondo's picture

Only you, you have been has been decided

Snake Plissken's picture

It will be a great day for the world.

gangland's picture

put your tin foil hats on benjamin fullford linked a zh article on one of his sites



gangland's picture

Jewish professor of economics originally from nyc columbia phd endorses ron paul

gangland's picture

us soldier blows up dog in iraq?


Earlier this month, a video appeared to show US soldiers in Iraq beating a sheep to death with a baseball bat emerged.

i've also seen video of us troops thrwoing a whipering dog off of a bridge in iraq while laughing. this is what obama said to troops dec 14 at fort bragg " “The most important lesson that we can take from you is not about military strategy –- it’s a lesson about our national character."


Uncle Sugar's picture

Soros cashing in his chips will be a sunny day too.

Karl von Bahnhof's picture

All of us cashing Soros' chips will be much better.

unclebill's picture

That day we can celebrate in ZH with couple pinatas and candy

Fred123's picture

Do the world a favor, off yourself.

RMolineaux's picture

This report was obviously carefully drafted - perhaps not by Kissinger himself.  IMO, most of the observations are factual, and the subsequent experience has confirmed them.  It is difficult to see how an effective population control program can be carried out in a LDC in a democratic and constitutional manner.  All sorts of carryovers from the past, especially religious, will block voluntary cooperation.  Arbitrary government is inevitable, and, IMO, contrary arguments are hypocrital and geared towards foreign exploitation.  China has demonstrated that an arbitrary approach can work, avoiding greater suffering, but inevitably wth coercive methods.

MassDecep's picture

Big Event right around the corner Bitchez.

"Al-Qaeda" or some "home grown Domestic redneck", will be responsible...

I got some swampland in louisiana to sell ya also.


d_senti's picture

Speaking of food shortages and TSHTF events, I'm looking to stock up on some supplies (food mostly). I've had and have rotating reserves of canned goods but I'd like to get some of the long-term preserved stuff. I think they're called MREs? Or something similar.

Anyways, does anyone here know a good site to hit up for stuff, with good deals, reliable, decent products, all that? Figured ZH is the best place to ask. :) Thanks anyone!

AC_Doctor's picture

MRE's shelf life can vary depending on the storage temps. Stick with Mountain House #10 can or do your own long term storage with 5 gallon food grade buckets, Gamma Seal lids, Mylar bags & oxygen absorbers and get beans,rice from Costco,SAMs club.

lincolnsteffens's picture

Did you ever read the ingredients in MRE's? They may keep you alive but the cheap and chemical ingredients are not the best thing

for optimal health. If you are starving and they are your only source go for it. If you had the time to order MRE's and store them you had enough time to buy wholesome ingredients. A high percentage of prepared canned meals have cotton seed oil, corn syrup, artificial flavors and coloring. Olive oil stores well in a cool environment. Cane sugar, honey, molasses and sorghum syrup keep well and dried or freeze dried herbs, spices, fruits, vegetables, salt, flour, etc.

steve from virginia's picture


Nothing beats beans and rice. Both are cheap and store for long periods provided they are kept dry.

Use metal cans or tins, not plastic bags or buckets as the plastic itself contains flame retardants and plasticizers that are absorbed by the food. The chemicals are highly toxic. Same with stored water, use glass bottles and rotate.

Cathartes Aura's picture

good posts, including lincoln above - just wanted to share that food grade plastic buckets don't have the toxicity of other plastic, and you can often source them free if you have a local bakery, or even burger joint - their pickle buckets are food grade, baking soda soaks get rid of the odor. . .

beware storing canned foods as the cans are usually coated with Bisphenol-A:

Urban Redneck's picture

Storage temperature is key to the shelf life of ANY food- MRE, canned good, butchered meat, or fine wine.  I wouldn't trust any MRE that done a 12-month tour in the sandbox.  I have five year old venison wrapped in plain butcher paper that I am still eating through stored in a -20 walk-in, it is perfectly edible, it just takes an extra day to thaw out. A root cellar is a worthy investment for anyone who has a sizeable pantry, or sizeable investment in their pantry.

Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

They are called MREs and they do taste like dog food.

SAT 800's picture

Dog food tastes fine; and so do dogs. And sheeps eyeballs, for that matter. you gotta get serious.

Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

The preservatives in MREs do some work on the gut though.  You know what I like?  Tripe.  Tripe's good.

bob_dabolina's picture

When I was in Iraq I enjoyed the Chicken Tetrazzini MRE. You crush up the crackers and add in that tabasco and it's quite tasty.

The pork chop MRE is pure shit. It tastes like stale turd.

UP Forester's picture

The only way to eat MREs are to get the Tabasco bottles from everyone else who doesn't eat them.

If you add 6 or so bottles, you can drown out the shit taste and concentrate on the "Chopped, Chunked and Formed" texture.

Then eat a poundcake and not shit for a week.

bob_dabolina's picture

Did you ever eat at the Al Asad chow hall? That was good eating.

JohnG's picture



Worse.  Can't take more than three days of MRE's.  Lock your guts up.

Make your own. 

Dadburnitpa's picture

Believe me, if you're burning a lot of energy and you only get two MREs a day for a couple of weeks, they taste just fine. Just drink lots of water.