Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
415892613
label
Defense, [1990]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
415892613
contentType
document
title
Defense, [1990]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
13893-012
collections
Records of the White House Office of Speechwriting (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Tony Snow Subject Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
415892613
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
37fa1e936acea452
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
S
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin:
Speechwriting, White House Office of
Series:
Snow, Tony, Files
Subseries:
Subject File, 1988-1993
OA/ID Number:
13893
Folder ID Number:
13893-012
Folder Title:
Defense, [1990]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
18
29
2
1
REVIEW OF THE PATRIOT ATM HISTORY
1965
SAM-D project office formed 1st program manager Col B. R. Luczak.
Requirement identified need for improved air defenses to replace
Nike Hercules. Provide for high altitude air defense and anti-
missile defense.
1966
Program authorized by SecDef; contract for concept definition
awarded with Raytheon, Hughes, and RCA in competition.
2nd Program manager BG E. M. Dooley
1967-71
Advanced development contract that was to run until 1971.
3rd PM Col James Miller, Jr.
First propulsion control tests in 1970.
1972-74
4th PM BG J. Fimiani.
Program conducts engineering development.
Successful DSARC and review by SecDef.
Requirement for nuclear warhead deleted as a result of cost
effectiveness analysis; anti-missile capability also deleted.
1974-76
5th PM MG C. F. Means, Jr.
Program cycle delayed to conduct proof of principle tests of the
"track-via-missile" guidance concept which is unique to the
Raytheon design.
Proof of principle test firings complete in 1976.
1977-80
6th PM MG Oliver D. Street, III.
Decision to accelerate the program made in 1977.
Engineering development re-initiated in 1977 - completed in
1978-79.
Development tests/operational tests II conducted in 1980.
DSARC III in 1980 approved continued low rate production based on
Army prototype confirmation test program; follow-on evaluation to
be conducted using production hardware.
First production buy begins in 1980.
1981-83
7th PM BG Jerry M. Bunyard.
Conducted prototype confirmation program successfully; received
Army and OSD approval to proceed to production validation and
verification follow-on test.
Developed the Patriot Pre-Planned Product Improvement (P3I)
Program, which included the software and hardware modifications
to the radar and missile to develop anti-tactical missile (ATM)
capabilities. Presented program to Army and OSD leadership and
obtained approval of concept. Briefed Congressional staffs.
USDDR&E (Wade) approved justification for major systems new start
for anti missile program with Army as lead.
First Patriot missile battalion (1/43d ARTY) activated at Fort
Bliss, TX, May 1982.
First European Battalion activated, 1983.
Army leadership, at program manager's recommendation, directed
one year development delay due to production quality problems.
New manufacturing methods initiated for production validation.
Initiated talks with Japan on procurement.
Met with NATO project office leading to bi-lateral agreements
with Germany and the Netherlands.
Follow-on evaluation revealed unsatisfactory maintenance and
support record. Army leadership directed a one-year European
deployment delay and continued follow-on evaluation.
1983-85
8th PM BG Don Infante.
Instituted new manufacturing methods and support concepts for
follow-on evaluation and production validation and verification.
Conducted readiness review for Undersecretary of Army and
successfully passed follow on evaluation (FOE) III.
Deployed first unit to U.S. forces in Germany in 1st quarter
1985.
The Netherlands, in 1984, becomes first nation to buy Patriot,
and plans for deployment of four fire units in its air defense
sector. U.S.-German talks begin on the German Patriot program.
"Patriot Self Defense Against Missile Attack" identified as a
response to a newly developed JMSNS requirement -- to meet the
threat posed by accurate SS-21/$$23 conventional missiles that
could now target key military targets and SAM sites in deep
attack scenarios.
Beyond Patriot's active defense mission, this concept of
operations, developed at Fort Leavenworth, also included passive
defenses, counterforce, and battle management.
Patriot ATM concept developed as a means to protect a 2KMx10KM
footprint centered on the Patriot fire unit itself; modification
would require (a) software changes to enhance guidance and radar
surveillance -- to enable missile acquisition and tracking; and
(b) hardware changes involving Patriot's fuze and warhead -- to
improve its lethality.
The Army's Patriot ATM improvements are funded in Army 063302A.
OSD (DDR&E) reach the following conclusions regarding the Patriot
upgrade.
- Patriot will only have enough missiles to do the air
defense mission and not the anti-missile mission.
- Anti-missile concept is technically too difficult.
- There is clearly a threat to Patriot. A $.5M $$21 can
destroy a $120M SAM fire unit, so defense is needed.
- Wouldn't the concept of anti-missile counter battery fire
from the Patriot site make time efficient sense?
- What is the Army plan and intention?
1985-86
9th PM Col Larry Capps.
Japanese select Patriot to replaced Nike Hercules; subsequently
select Mitsubishi Heavy to manufacture Patriot under licensed
production.
U.S. -German agreement approved -- a complex compensation package
providing for production of Patriot components in Germany,
provision of Patriots to Germany, German operation of U.S. owned
Patriots, and German furnished short range air defense of key air
bases in Germany.
Germany buys 14 fire units, is provided 12 additional fire units
to operate for the U.S. U.S. deployment to Germany planned
ultimately to be 54 fire units.
Army Secretariat commissions Bell Labs review of the ATM upgrades
proposed by Raytheon. Initial draft of report is unfavorable --
cites urgent need for anti-missile defense, but questions
Raytheon's analysis of the Soviet threat and possibility of
unusual warheads. Report suggests that hit-to-kill (second
antonymous seeker) technology demonstrated by SDIO/SDC Flage
experiment is more pertinent.
Bell Labs report is used by Senate Army Services Committee
Staffer Toney Battista to delete funds requested by the Army to
upgrade the program. Results in delay of a year.
3rd Quarter 1986
Patriot intercepts lance missile at White Sands Missile Range.
Test proves PAC I software MODS work and "mission kill"
capability of Patriot system under low rate attacks.
Dutch informally inform the Army that they do not want the ATM
upgrades for their Patriot systems given the politics of anti-
missile systems.
Patriot modifications divided into two packages: PAC I involves
software upgrades; PAC II involves hardware upgrades. Plan
developed to complete PAC I upgrades by 1988 and begin PAC II in
1991.
Italians begin discussions on their acquisition of Patriot to
replace Nike Herclues.
PAC II concept expanded to provide "area" defense around the
Patriot fire unit (vs self defense concept of earlier years).
1987-91
10th PM Col Bruce Garnett.
Patriot production plan and multi-year procurement of Patriot
missiles continue.
Italians decide to procure Patriot.
SDIO provides funds for Patriot Dual Mode Seeker experiment in
1989-90 and remote launch experiment in 1990-91.
Deputy Secretary of Defense appoints Director of Strategic
Defense Initiative Organization as the DoD Central Manager for
all anti missile programs -- including Patriot modifications --
beginning FY 1991.
SDIO provides FY 91 funds for Dual Mode Seeker tests and
identifies FYDP Research & Development and Procurement funds for
Patriot anti missile components.
Iraq attacks Kuwait; U.S. response in August (Desert Shield)
leads to decision by Col Garnett to accelerate PAC II missile
production. Action changes original plan of providing 3 missiles
for test in January 1991 to significant capability in November
1990.
STATE
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20301-1400
STATE
PUBLIC AFFAIRS
DATE: 26 Sept 1990
THIS PAGE PLUS
3
PAGE(S) FOLLOW
TO: NAME: Dan mc Groarty FROM: Jeff Salmon
ROOM:
LOCATION: White HOUSE
LOCATION Pentagon
DIVISION
DIVISION DES/PA
EXTENSION
EXTENSION 697-8191
IF TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES ARE NOT RECEIVED OR ARE ILLEGIBLE, PLEASE CALL
(202) 697-5007 OR 695-6993.
100 PAGE.
SEP 27 '90 11:38 FROM 2026951149
Headlener Breakfast
4
Cheney
Foy 456-6218
The President belongs to what I like to describe as the "don't screw around" school of
military strategy. That if you're going to send American forces in harm's way, you better assume
that they may well in fact become involved in conflict, and it's incumbent upon those of us who send
them to make absolutely certain that they've got all the support and all the numbers and all the
equipment and all the supplies and munitions they need to deal with any eventuality. Until we've
reached that point, until we're absolutely confident that we do indeed have that kind of capability in
the area, we have no desire whatsoever to stop the deployments, no matter what some of our expert
friends around Washington or on CNN may think the target should be.
The House yesterday finished the House Authorization Bill for fiscal year 1991. Let me say
just a word about that if I can. The most damaging part of the bill is the fact that it was a bad piece
of legislation when it came out of committee; it did not reflect at all any kind of long term concern
for where we ought to be headed with respect to military force; and they made a token gesture
yesterday when they finally approved the bill by adding $1 billion for Desert Shield for fiscal year
1991. That's less than what it would cost us to operate per month - assuming there are no
hostilities. It's a totally inadequate piece of legislation.
My friend, Les Aspin, will argue that this is the first piece of legislation that reflect the new
post-war world, I believe is the way he described it. If Les Aspin had been making those decisions 10
or 15 years ago, we wouldn't be able to do today what we're doing in the Persian Gulf.
The bottom line of the bill as it came out of committee, and as the Democrats passed it
through the House yesterday, is that it cuts upwards of 130,000 U.S. military personnel in the next
12 months. I'm being told at the same time that we have to maintain our forward deployments in
key places around the world, take care of the problem in the Middle East, set up a rotation base so
that about a six month tour becomes the norm over there, and oh by the way, get rid of 130,000
active duty military personnel. It totally fails to recognize that that kind of harsh action which
would require me to run a reduction in force, not just to handle it through attrition and through
careful management of the personnel system, it requires me to go out and RIF people, fire them.
You might remember that everybody wearing the uniform today is a volunteer. There isn't
anybody out there who wants to get out of the service. We've got thousands and thousands of
reservists trying to get in, and who are banging on the doors to be called to active duty so they can
have an opportunity to serve at a time of national need. If we have to live with that piece of
legislation, which we won't-- I'm convinced the President will veto it if it lands on his desk in that
form - but if we had to live with that kind of legislation, it would make it absolutely impossible for
us to do our job. The claim that Les made yesterday that somehow this bill reflects the new
post-war world is just garbage. It's not true, it's not valid, and I would urge everybody to take a
very careful look at it.
With respect to the strategic programs in the first part of the bill, it's easy now for
everybody to say because things have gotten better with the Soviets we don't need strategic systems
any more, we don't need SDI. That's dead wrong. The fact is that while there are significantly
improved relations with the Soviets, and while we do indeed see them pulling their troops out of
Eastern Europe, and while we do see cuts in the Soviet defense budget and a reconfiguration of their
own forces, the one thing they have not stopped is their strategic buildup. They continue to build
new, modern, strategic systems. We built one ballistic missile submarine last year, they built two.
We built 12 ballistic missiles last year, they built 140. They are deploying two new mobile missiles,
200 PAGGE
202665119 FROM 88:11 06. 22 SEP
5
we aren't deploying any. The notion that somehow because relations have improved and we no longer
have to be as concerned about the Warsaw Pact as we once were, there are now democratically elected
regimes in most of those countries, we do have to be concerned about Soviet strategic capability.
On SDI, the arguments, I think the rationale for strategic defense are more important than
they've ever been, for several reasons. One, of course, is that the Soviets do continue to improve
their overall strategic posture with new and improved systems. Secondly, because we've got no
capability today to defend against a Soviet attack. All we can do is obliterate the Soviet Union. But
if we look at the situation we're faced with in the Middle East you see another very strong rationale
of the central force strategic defenses.
Right now, today, with 150,000 plus troops in Saudi Arabia, are facing in Iraq several
hundred Scud missiles and Scud variants. The Scud is a Soviet system, about a 300 kilometer range,
not very accurate. As a military weapon armed with a conventional warhead it's not of any great
concern. It might be able to hit a city, but it's very hard for them to hit a military unit that would
have any significant military impact. But if you marry that capability up with chemical weapons,
you've got a whole different proposition. Certainly it's an instrument of terror. If you marry it up
with the biological and nuclear capabilities, then, of course, the picture begins to be radically different
than what it's been in the past.
In addition, Saddam Hussein has taken the Scud and built two variants from it, sort of
home-grown vehicles that have smaller payloads but a long range, so he can probably reach out maybe
550-600 kilometers with those systems. He's not going to hit the United States from Baghdad with
that kind of equipment, but he can certainly target U.S. forces and U.S. friends and allies in the
region. He isn't the only one who has or is developing that kind of capability. We estimate by the
end of the decade there will be at least 15 Third World nations with ballistic missile capability. Even
though most of that is likely to be short range or intermediate range stuff, the fact is today we've
got virtually no capability to defend against that kind of attack none, zero, zip. Anybody who tells
you to the contrary doesn't know what he's talking about.
That portion of the defense budget, that program under which the capability to deal with that
kind of threat is to be found, is SDI -- the Strategic Defense Initiative. That's where we deal with
that kind of ballistic missile capability. For the House of Representatives, for my friend Les Aspin,
and I won't say the House, I'll say the majority in the House yesterday to take the action they did on
SDI in my mind is absolutely incomprehensible. I don't see how at a time when you've got U.S.
forces open to that kind of threat and no capability to deal with it, we would want to cut that part
of the defense budget that would give us that kind of capability long term.
This notion that somehow the new, more peaceful world means we can dramatically alter the
defense budget I think is wrong. I think over four, five, or six years we can in fact reduce our
forces. We aren't going to need to be prepared to maintain the troop levels in Europe we have for
so many years, and that's been a major driver in terms of our defense budget. Although we do want
to stay active in Europe we can draw down some of our forces in the Pacific and we're doing that.
But we do need to be able to retain our strategic capabilities. We do need to be able to maintain our
forward deployment and be able to retain the forces here at home to reinforce overseas when we need
it.
800 PAGE
202695119 FROM 68:11 06. 22 SEP
6
While it is a time for us, I think, to talk about new strategy and the need to respond with
new thinking, if you will, about the way we deal with military capabilities, there are a couple of
absolutely crucial, what I call enduring realities, that are still going to be valid in the future just as
they have in the past.
First and foremost is that peace and stability in the world, more likely than not, will depend
upon the military capability of the United States of America. We're going to need robust military
forces and be able to deploy them when necessary. We aren't going to have a dog in every fight and
we aren't going to want to be in every fight. But when our fundamental interests are threatened, we
have to be able to respond.
Secondly, our most important military asset, the thing that counts for more than anything
else, the thing that's absolutely crucial in terms of maintaining that kind of capability and being able
to use it in the future is in fact the willingness of a great many Americans to put on the uniform and
to serve in the United States military, to go in harm's way to defend. The bill that the House
passed yesterday is totally inadequate in those respects, and I'm fairly confident that
(END)
SEP 27 '90 11:40 FROM 2026951149
02. 15. 91 04:00 PM *SDIO EXTRNL AFFAIRS P01
SEAL THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
STRATEGIC DEFENSE INITIATIVE ORGANIZATION
PRESENCE MOLICATIVE
WASHINGTON DC 2030
19:05:05
AMERICA THE
OF OR PEPENSE
FAX:
(703) 693-1706
PHONE: (703) 695-8743
DATE:
2/15
TO:
Dean McGrorty
FACSIMILIE PHONE NUMBER:
202-2156-6218
CONFIRMATION PHONE NUMBER:
456-2773
2
COPIES (INCLUDING HEADER) :
SDIO POINT OF CONTACT (POC) :
Tom Johnson
SDIO PHONE NUMBER (POC) :
703-695-8743
REMARKS:
02 15. 91 04:00 PM *SDIO EXTRNL AFFAIRS P02
TALKING POINTS ON GPALS
President Bush, State of Union Address:
-- directs SDI to provide protection against limited
ballistic missile strikes.
-- such a defense can protect the United States,
U.S. forces deployed overseas, U.S. power projection
forces, U.S. friends and allies.
This system is called GPALS
-- Global Protection Against Limited Strikes
GPALS is a layered defense concept.
-- Space- and surface-based sensors to provide global,
continuous surveillance and tracking, from launch to
intercept or impact, of ballistic missiles of all
ranges. (Studies show use of space sensors allow for
reduction in the size, cost and number of surface-based
sensors and weapons, while increasing performance.)
- Interceptors, based both in space and on the ground or
at sea, provide high-confidence protection to targets
under attack.
-- Space based interceptors could provide continuous,
global interdiction capability against missiles with
ranges in excess of 600-800 kilometers.
-- Surface based interceptors, located in the U.S.,
deployed with U.S. forces and, potentially deployed
by U.S. allies, could intercept missiles of any
range and with any type of wahead.
-- Interceptors would destroy attacking missiles simply
by colliding with them at great speeds.
Strategic Defenses will be affordable; less costly than
Phase One, even with the added Theater Missile Defense
element.
GPALS directly addresses security issues that exist today
and will become more acute in the future.
As a result of refocusing the SDI program toward GPALS, the
priority assigned to theater defense programs already under-
way has been significantly increased.
-- Iraqi use of ballistic missiles against Coalition Forces
and Israel in the Middle East highlights the requirement
for theater missile defenses as an essential element in
our military posture.
A14
SDI
3/30/89
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
Brilliant Pebbles
As public policy, strategic defense
SDI scientists were working. As origi-
has begun to resemble one of those gi-
nally conceived, SDI's space-based in-
ant beach balls that kids play with in
terceptors were going to be huge and
swimming pools. No matter how
expensive. But Brilliant Pebbles has
much the critics want to submerge it,
emerged from America's genius for
sit on it or kick it to the bottom, SDI
miniaturization and computerization.
(always has enough buoyancy to rise
Just as the size and cost of computers
back to the surface.
have fallen dramatically, the same
Secretary of Defense Richard
advances may make it possible to
Cheney himself made the TV-talk-
shrink the size and cost of "smart"-
show rounds this week saying both
that is, computerized-interceptors.
that SDI had been "oversold" and
Brilliant Pebbles would of course
that he remains a "strong advocate"
be only a partial defense-not the
of some form of space-based defense.
"perfect umbrella" that President
Perhaps he's already been briefed on
Reagan liked to talk about. But even
Brilliant Pebbles," the latest SDI
such a partial defense would have en-
Itechnology to bob up despite Estab-
ormous benefits. Since it would circle
lishment skepticism. Lieutenant Gen-
the globe, it would protect allies in
eral George Monahan, the new head
Europe and Asia as well as the main-
of the Pentagon's SDI office, said last
land U.S. It would make sure a de-
week that Brilliant Pebbles has "ex-
fense is in place if nuclear or chemi-
cellent potential" to reduce costs. And
cal missiles are developed by adven-
Vice President Dan Quayle last week
turesome small powers like Gadhafi's
extolled the concept as. "one of the
Libya. It also would make nuclear
most promising lines of research"
war much less likely by complicating
into strategic defense.
the task of a Soviet planner contem-
The current Brilliant Pebbles en-
plating a first strike. How could he be
thusiasm was kicked off by Lieutenant
sure, in a world of Brilliant Pebbles,
General James Abrahamson's fare;
that he'd hit his targets?
well memo summing up his tenure as
head of the SDI office. He focused on
General Abrahamson's price tag of
Brilliant Pebbles as the route to "both
$5 billion a year for five years is not
improved performance and dramatic
only light years less than the billions
cost reduction. With continued ef-
and trillions that the skeptics charged
forts, he wrote, a Brilliant Pebbles
any strategic defense would cost, but
concept "can be proven in two years,
also is competitive with other strate-
with deployment starting three years
gic alternatives Washington currently
later. This could be accomplished for
is debating how to spend tens of bil-
less than $10 billion. Throwing in the
lions to deploy a new "survivable"
costs of command and control and
land-based nuclear missile-the mo-
fail-safe communications, General
bile MX or Midgetman. But as Gen-
Abrahamson figures the whole thing
eral Abrahamson points out, Brilliant
could be deployed for $25 billion over
Pebbles has the potential to enhance
five years.
deterrence just as much, just as
Brilliant Pebbles would consist of
quickly, and perhaps for less money
several thousand small interceptor
than either new missile, let alone the
satellites based in space, floating sep-
cost of both.
arately in several different orbits.
Brilliant Pebbles plays to Ameri-
They would be inert until activated by
ca's competitive strengths-technol-
a command sent from earth upon
ogy in optics, small computers, guid-
warning of Soviet or other attack.
ance systems-instead of trying to
Each interceptor would have its own
match the Soviets at what they do
"eyes" to be able to track the rocket
best-rolling out missile after missile
plume of a ballistic missile, and when
without fear of lawsuits from environ-
activated would head for the nearest
mentalists or peaceniks. The emer-
missile and ram it at high speed, de-
gence of SO feasible a concept SO
stroying it with the simple force of
quickly vindicates Ronald Reagan's
impact.
judgment in launching the SDI pro-
It all sounds like sci-fi fantasy, but
gram. He understood that science ad-
of course SO did the idea of the U.S.
vances in ways we don't expect, that
putting a man on the moon or building
answers would be forthcoming if we
something called the Space Shuttle.
unleashed U.S. scientists on defense.
The striking thing about Brilliant Peb-
Mr. Reagan's contribution was
bles is how much progress already
moral-releasing those pent-up ener-
has been made. While the Luddites
gies by destroying the perverted no-
ere saying it couldn't be done, Low-
tion that defense against nuclear at-
Photocopy-Preservation
August 14, 1990
WHAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE DONE TO DISMANTLE OUR NATIONAL SECURITY:
-Throughout the last decade, the Democratic Congress has
repeatedly tried to kill the:
1. MX
2. Midgetman
3. B-2
4. SDI (25% cuts every year)
-Specifically re. FY '91, the House Armed Services Committee
recently voted to:
1. Cut over $24 billion from the Presidents Defense budget
for FY '91.
2. Kill the MX and Midgetman
3. Kill the B-2 ("stealth") bomber
4. Reduce SDI budget from President's request of $4.6
billion to $2.9 billion (a cut of $1.7 billion)
-Meanwhile, the Senate has already:
1. Voted to cut SDI to $3.6 billion, and to effectively kill
the "brilliant pebbles" program with an allotment of $129
million.
2. Approved the Bingaman/Shelby Amendment which would place
11 line items in the SDI budget, and effectively eliminate the
President's ability to ever deploy SDI.
-KEY POINTS HERE:
1. The President is committed to SDI, and his choice of
Henry Cooper to head SDI has been widely praised in the defense
community as a signal of his commitment.
2. The President is working towards an historic START treaty
with the Soviets, a treaty which assumes the future development
of MX, Midgetman, B-2, and SDI. These reckless Democratic cuts
will render a START treaty useless, and even harmful to our
security interests. For example,
- the Soviets would have two mobile missile programs (as per
the treaty) and we would have NONE.
-the Start treaty favors strategic bombers, but B-2 is our
strategic bomber.
-CONCLUSION: THE DEMOCRATS HAVEN'T CHANGED. THEY STILL WANT
RECKLESS DEFENSE CUTS, THEY STILL WANT TO SACRIFICE THE NATIONAL
SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES. WE SAID NO BEFORE, AND WE'LL SAY
NO AGAIN. PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH BROUGHT AN END TO THE COLD WAR,
AND FREEDOM TO NICARAGUA AND PANAMA. NOW IS THE TIME TO
CAPITALIZE ON HARD EARNED FREEDOM. THE ISSUE WAS NOT THE COLD
WAR; THE ISSUE WAS, AND STILL IS, OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.
JOURNAL WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 1989
Serious Talk About the Nuclear Era
By AARON WILDAVSKY
who is burying their brains?
it is no less true now than then.
Mr. Bruce-Briggs would allow those
From the paradox that defenselessness
Both a history and a lament, B. Bruce-
who think life would not be livable after a
decreases the probability of attack came
Briggs's "The Shield of Faith: The Hidden
nuclear attack to expose themselves to nu-
the corresponding wisdom that defensive
Struggle for Strategic Defense" (Simon &
clear peril. "But what was ugly-and is
measures only breed more dangerous
Schuster, 464 pages, $19.95) is a moving
ugly," he writes in his usual vigorous ver-
countermeasures to nullify them. "Don't
and enlightening history of nuclear de-
nacular, "is the agitation to prevent others
avoid dark streets at night," as Mr. Bruce-
fense, poignantly capturing the dismay of
from making the other choice, to live and
Briggs summarizes it, "because that will
those individuals whose lives became
to recover."
make the muggers operate in the day-
bound up in a largely losing effort to per-
The most serious objection to civil de-
light."
suade their fellow citizens to take defense
fense was that the greater the belief in the
There is, to be sure, an interactive rela-
seriously.
probability of limiting damage, the greater
tionship between offense and defense. Cal-
The Strategic Defense Initiative, the au-
the willingness to contemplate using nu-
culations about the "cost-exchange" ratio
thor persuades us, can be understood only
clear weapons. For many, the very thought
go on all the time. It is hopeless, however
in the context of the past efforts to reduce
of defense was pernicious because it in-
to give up defense, if for no other reason
the death and damage as well as the likeli-
creased the chances of initiating nuclear
than the need to defend the deterrent, our
hood of nuclear war.
own missiles.
Never a dry theorist or a dull geo-strat-
egist, Mr. Bruce-Briggs dwells at the inter-
Bookshelf
The -distinction of "The Shield of
Faith," whose very title bespeaks dark hu-
section of the personal and the strategic.
mor (practical people presumably want
For example, he notes that Americans
"The Shield of Faith:
something stronger), lies in its fidelity to
don't like suicide missions. When an engi-
The Hidden Struggle
the spirit of defense. Had the author ex-
neer suggested that air interceptors be
for Strategic Defense"
punged a few of his less charitable com-
used as rammers, their strong wings cut-
ments about the individuals involved, his
ting off weak bomber tails, for instance,
his technologically feasible idea was re-
By B. Bruce-Briggs
book would gain greater credence. Even
so, the people and the pathos of defense
jected because it reminded the airmen of
kamikaze attacks on our B29s. In fact, the
war behind a falsely conceived protective
come together in a kind of celebration of a
Navy became a leader in air defense be-
shield. This is how vulnerability was trans-
cause worthy enough to justify all the per-
formed into security.
sonal pain.
cause it was troubled in late 1944 by sui-
cide planes chock full of bombs, fuel and
Who can remember today, as the author
The fact that every serious strategist-
guidance systems, perhaps the first cruise
usefully reminds us, that in the 1950s lib-
such as Bernard Brodie, who argued that
missiles. Long-range bombers owe their
eral Democrats endorsed civil defense, sa-
nuclear offense rendered nuclear defense
voring especially its potential for national
obsolete-kept qualifying his argument,
rapid development to the Air Force's un-
planning, while conservative Republicans
suggests that the need for defense will al-
willingness to send its crews out on one-
way missions.
rejected a program of dispersal on the
ways be with us. Should nuclear weapons
grounds that government would be telling
be reduced to very low numbers, as is now
Mr. Bruce-Briggs also is something of a
industry where to go and individuals where
contemplated, however, interest in defense
keeper of lost causes, such as civil defense,
to live. Nor did opponents ever make clear
will grow, paradoxically, for it will become
just because they are right.
whether the difficulty was that civil de-
both more feasible (fewer weapons to de-
/ Civil defense was destroyed by ridicule.
fense was ineffective or provocative. Now-
fend against) and more necessary (cheat-
AWho the joke was on we will learn only
adays President Kennedy's somber caution
ing becomes more important) if we are to
much later.) It was said that civil defense
circa 1962-"Civil defense can readily be
rely for our lives and liberties on more
was ostrichlike: Climbing into holes would
justified-as insurance.
we trust will
than on-sight inspection and faith.
not make nuclear war go away. Yet Mr.
never be needed-but insurance which we
Bruce-Briggs reminds us that the chilling
could never forgive ourselves for forgoing
Mr. Wildavsky is professor of political
question-What happens if deterrence
in the event of catastrophe"-would ap-
science and public policy at the University
fails?-still has no answer. In that case,
pear not only ludicrous but offensive. Yet
of California, Berkeley.
Photocopy-Preservation
deputy defense secretary, hopes to
replace Alton G. Keel as U.S. am-
bassador to NATO. Former defense
secretaries Caspar W Weinberger
and Frank C. Carlucci are backing
Taft for the ambassadorship.
Paul D. Wolfowitz, former arms
control executive and ambassador. to
Indonesia, is expected to become
undersecretary for policy officials
said. Although Wolfowitz, who was
slated to fill the same post for Tow-
er already is playing the leading role
in the Pentagon's review of future
strategic forces, this nomination to
the policy post has not been made.
Pentagon spokesman Dan How-
ard who came to the post from the
white House and served ved under Car-
lucci, might have kept the position
if If T ower had been confirmed. But
Howard is now looking for an am-
3/20/89
White brow to House dates his brien Seeks to Show Progress at Pentagon
chief
generate money for the Nicaraguan
contrast Be
Cheney congressional press
secretary, Williams, has taken
over an an office in the Pentagon pub-
lic affairs enclave in janticipat of
Pentagon's
the
out
spokesman, The Bush administra-
tion has approved the selection of
Williams, officials said
Stephen E: Herbits, executive
becoming
vice presidentic of Seagram Co. Ltd
and former assis ant to former de-
fense secretary Donald H. Rums
feld will be an adviser to Cheney a
long ingtime friend
Cheney choices for deputies
eave the futures of many Reagan
administration stalwarts at the Pen-
tagon in doubt st.
William H. Taft Taft IV, who has been
at the Pen Pentagon since the start of
behind
(-598
as
David Addington, who worked
with/Cheney Republican coun-
sel to the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence and as a
White House legislative ant assistant. is
role
defense
major
new
play
the
as
to
often filled by a high-ranking mil-
Policy Committee worked closely
the Pentagon's top lawver George
Van Cleve, minority counsel when
gated the Reagan administ ation's the Reagan-administration first as bassadorship or other government
genera counsel and since 1984 as post outside the Pentagon.
retary's special assistant, a post,
David J. Gribbin, wholas executive
director of the House Republican
with Cheney when the Wyoming Re-
publican was minority whip, is slated
to become the Pentagon s new chief
to name
to
intends
expected
scenes
itar ry officer.
Lcongréssional liaison.
also
Cheney
Cheney was ranking Republican on
the House committee that investi
covert efforts to sell arms to Iran to
(the
By George C Wilson
Washington Post
President Bush plans to lead the
ceremonial swearing-in of Defense
Secretary Dick Cheney in the Pen
tagon courtyard Tyesday afternoon
in what administration officials said
yesterday is an effort to to project the
image of a Defense Department
getting up to full steam after being
leaderless for nearly two months as
the White House fought for and lost
the nomination of former senator
John G. Tower (R-Tex.) to be de-
fense secretary.
Rather than for this formal-
ity... Cheney, who was officially
sworn in Friday has moved.quickly
to fill key Pentagon posts with sev-
eral of his associates from the
House. However. administration
officials said he intends to keep
General Motors executive Donald
Atwood Jr. as top deputy
A14
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
The FSX Flap
What on earth can the Japanese be
tangled system of defense procure-
complaining about? Sure, U.S. Com-
ment and congressional micromana-
merce Secretary Robert Mosbacher is
gement, the ATF will require 15 years
trying to scuttle the FSX deal the Jap-
to develop, compared with just over
anese made with the U.S. Defense De-
three years for the F-84 of 30 years
partment. But on the other hand, EPA
ago. It is of course far more complex,
Administrator William K. Reilly
but there are other problems. U.S. in-
wants to force Americans to buy more
dustry is under more and more pres-
Japanese cars, judging from his ef-
sure from the Pentagon to risk its own
forts to persuade the Department of
money on development, with the re-
Transportation to raise U.S. fleet
sult that some contractors are walk-
mileage standards.
ing away. The waste, fraud and
Maybe what the Japanese are com-
abuse" witch hunt in Washington has
plaining about is the confusion. Maybe
brought a wave of suspensions and de-
Americans should complain too.
barments of contractors for minor
The FSX flap, which Congress will
contract violations. No wonder U.S.
be revving up again when it returns
defense contractors find it more at-
from Easter vacation this week, is il-
tractive to work for the Israelis or the
lustrative of a new U.S. inability to
Japanese than for their own govern-
make coherent policy.
ment. Maybe Secretary Mosbacher
Up until the FSX became a cause
and Senator Heinz should ask why.
celebre in Washington, it didn't seem
But back to the Japanese. Cer-
especially remarkable. Joint ventures
tainly, with all the dollars accumu-
between U.S. defense contractors and
lated through their insistence on run-
other allies in weapons development
ning big trade surpluses, they could
have become routine. When the Japa-
Photocopy-Preservation
have afforded F-16s. That would meet
nese suggested that they would like to
their defense needs and help bring
build a fighter, the Pentagon first
trade and capital flows into better bal
tried to persuade them to buy F 16s.
ance. In some sense, they brought this
Failing that, it agreed to let General
latest congressional dust-up on them-
Dynamics share F-16 technology with
selves. While Japan is a sovereign na
Mitsubishi in the joint development of
tion and entitled to serve its own
the FSX. Had it not done so, the Japa-
needs, it isn't in its own best interests
nese easily could have signed up with
to stir up political resentments in the
the British or French
U.S., a country it is heavily dependent
Moreover, the F-16 is a 20-year-old
upon for both trade and defense.
design. The U.S. currently is develop-
ing the Advanced Tactical Fighter
The Japanese could go a long way
(ATF), which is on a higher techno-
toward taking some of the heat off by
logical plateau, making more sophisti-
making a firm commitment to buy
cated use of electronic tracking, àim-
other U.S. equipment to meet U.S. re-
ing and countermeasures and compu-
quests that it make a greater effort to
terized avionics and flight control.
defend against the buildup of Soviet
Do the Japanese want to use this
military power in the Pacific and
project to develop a commercial air-
Asian coastal waters. It would be
liner? Probably. But if Boeing is going
timely, for example, to announce a
to lose its world-wide dominance, it
firm commitment for the eight or SO
will be mostly Boeing's fault, not the
AWACS and 17 or so in-flight-refueling
fault of the FSX deal. Nothing will
tankers they have discussed with the
protect the U.S. from industrial de-
U.S. for years. The FSX won't be op-
cline-something that is by no means
erational for 10 years and judging
imminent-if it throws up protective
from the trouble the French and Is-
walls and clings to obsolete technol-
raelis have had with new fighters,
ogy rather than employing its innova-
maybe not then. The AWACS-tanker
tive skills. No country in the world, in-
deal, at upward of $5 billion, would
cluding Japan, comes close to U.S. ca-
help relieve American doubts that the
pacity for innovation. The "industrial,
Japanese are interested in two-way
policy" of the Japanese is no match
trade.
for the decentralized research and dé-
But U.S. policy makers also would
velopment and entrepreneurial activ-
profit from self-examination. One
ity that thrive in the U.S.
question is whether the Secretary of
There are, however, problems in
Commerce and Congress are running
the U.S. defense industry, where this
U.S. defense policy or whether that
country comes closest to having an
job still is in the hands of the Presi-
industrial policy. Under the current
dent and Secretary of Defense.
A12 WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 1989
THE WASHINGTON POST
Cheney Believes Gorbachev Sincere
But Defense Chief Says Cutting West's Forces Would Be Premature
By George C. Wilson
partly because Gorbachev appears
Turning to key deputies who will
Washington Post Staff Writer
"serious" about spending less mon-
help him run the Defense Depart-
ey on the military.
ment, Cheney virtually confirmed
Defense Secretary Dick Cheney,
Questions that need to be an-
Tuesday's Washington Post report
declaring that he has gone from
swered before the Cold War can be
that his choices for civilian service
skeptic to believer in the idea that
declared over, Cheney added, in-
secretaries are Assistant Defense
Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev
clude what will happen to the Soviet
Secretary Richard L. Armitage for
wants to reform his country, said
forces to be withdrawn from East-
the Army, Navy Undersecretary H.
yesterday that the prospect of war
ern Europe, how much the Warsaw
Lawrence Garrett III for the Navy
between the two superpowers has
Pact military budget will be cut and
and Donald B. Rice, head of the
"receded somewhat."
how much warning the West can ex-
Rand Corp., for the Air Force. "I'm
Cheney, who had a hawkish vot-
pect if relations between the two
not allowed to make announce-
ing record in the House, said Gor-
superpowers suddenly cool.
ments of presidential appoint-
bachev appears to be genuinely.
"It's risky business for us to make
ments," Cheney said, but he added
committed to restructuring the So-
basic, fundamental changes in our
that the report was based on good
viet Union in ways that lessen the
own posture" until those and other
sources.'
threat to the West but said it is still
questions, such as "Mr. Gorba
Cheney, 48, has been criticized,
too early for the United States to
chev's tenure," are answered.
sometimes in letters on editorial
reduce military forces in Europe or
"I started out as a real skeptic,
pages, for obtaining draft defer-
elsewhere
frankly, about Mr. Gorbachey," the
ments during the Vietnam war but
Cheney said that in frequent
former Republican representative
telling the Senate Armed Services
meetings of the National Security
from Wyoming said.
Committee during his confirmation
Council the Bush administration is
"Having watched over the last
hearing that he would have been
focusing on the Gorbachev initia-
few years, having visited the Soviet
glad to serve if called Cheney said
tives and how to respond to them.
Union and [having] visited with him
that when he was between 8 and
He said the conclusions from these
on a couple of occasions and
26 there were periods when he was
sessions will shape future U.S. stra-
watched this process unfold-sit-
eligible to be drafted but had ob
tegic forces and overseas troop de-
ting in my office last week with the
tained student and marriage/defer-
ployments.
Soviet ambassador discussing the
ments from the draft for most of
"At the heart" of this administra
election returns in the Soviet
the period because "I had other pri-
tion review, he said, are: "How
Union, something I never really
orities in the '60s than military ser-
Smuch of a threat the Soviet Union
anticipated having the opportunity
vice.
presents to the West. How has it
to do-I've become a believer in
"I don't regret the decisions I
[the threat] changed? What circum-
the notion that Gorbachev wants
made. I complied fully with all the
stances could lead us to believe that
fundamentally to reform Soviet so-
requirements of the statutes, reg-
we could reduce our level of vigi-
ciety economically.
istered with the draft when I turned
lance?"
"In order to achieve economic
18. Had I been drafted, I would
Asked during an interview with
change," Cheney said, "he's also
have been happy to serve. I think
four reporters whether the Cold
going to have to push certain polit-
those who did in fact serve deserve
War is over, Cheney replied, "Clear-
ical reforms, i.e. elections. How all
to be honored for their service
"ly, the prospects of conflict between
that translates into an altered mil-
Was it a noble cause? Yes, indeed, I
the United States and Soviet Union
itary posture is still an open ques-
think it was," he said of U.S. par-
appear to have receded somewhat,"
tion."
ticipation in the conflict.
Photocopy-Preservation
Western military experts have long dei
bated whether specially trained Soviet Op
erational Maneuver Groups exist. There
has been evidence of special, large scale
training exercises in East Germany, but
analysts weren't sure what they meant
3/14/89
Mr. Karber said such groups were part
of NATO worst case nightmare
Soviets Outline
namely that tank heavy Soviet units would
have the power to quickly exploit NATO
weaknesses in northern Germany and
punch through to the Rhine River, splitting
Troop-Cut Plan
NATO forces, He believes the Soviet plan
was then to encircle and annihilate more
powerful U.S. Army units, concentrated
In East Germany
mostly in southern Germany.
He said Soviet officials have identified a
fifth Operational Maneuver Group in
Units Designed to Spearhead
Czechoslovakia, which they say they will
remove and disband
NATO Attack to Leave
Mr. Karber said that Maj Gen. G. Ba
tenin, a top military adviser to the Com-
Aides Tell: a U.S. Adviser
munist Party Central Committee, and
other Soviet officials sald the remaining
Soviet army units in Eastern Europe will
By JOHN J. FIALKA
be reconfigured into new. lighter units
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Soviet tank divisions, which have 328
WASHINGTON-The Soviet Union says
tanks, will be trimmed to 260 tanks. Motor-
it: plans to remove from East, Germany
ized rifle divisions, which have 270 tanks,
four crack army divisions that had been
will be restructured into new defensive
specially prepared to spearhead a possible
divisions with 160 tanks and an increased
attack on the West, according to one of the
number bf light anti tank weapons. Infan-
West's leading experts on conventional ar-
maments.
try units based in the Soviet Union, which
C
currently have 270 tanks, will be converted
Phillip A. Karber, a senior vice presi-
into experimental "machine gun artillery
dent of Washington-based BDM Corp., said
divisions; which will have about 40 tanks
the divisions-called. Operational Maneu-
and be trained to fight defensive battles
ver Groups-had been given special train
from fortified positions; Mr. Karber said.
ing, the best commanders, elite troops and
Because of their capacity, to project of
extra tanks. But he said they now will be
fensive power quickly OR the ground, tanks
disbanded and their modern tanks will be
have been the measure of aggressive Inten
converted to construction. cranes and log
tions in Central Europe: Mr. Karber said
removal machinery. among other uses.
that Sovlet officials have told him that the
He plans to tell the House Armed Serv
000 tanks coming out of Central Europe
Ices Committee today that, if the Soviets
are the Soviet Union's newest tanks, so
follow their pledge; and if North Atlantic
they will be converted to peaceful uses: He
Treaty Organization forces remain the
said 000 older Soviet tanks/most of them
same; the threat of a surprise attack on
based in the Soviety Union, will be de
the West has been taken away
stroyed or
Asked about Mr. Karber's comments,
Mr. Karber said the Soviet promises
State Department official said he believed
lend credibility to Moscow's campaign to
this was the first time the Soviets have
bush for military cuts from the West
acknowledged that they have Operational
What they're talking about is a whole re
Maneuver Groups, In effect, they've ack-
versal of the structure of military competi
nowledged what we've said all along the
tion that drove the Cold War Whe said
official said. They have this offensive ca
He also said the Soviet leadership S
it pability and it' far beyond what they d
longer termi goals for the year 2000 call for
need for defensive purposes
a nuclear weapons free Europe and for the
(If Mr Karber is one of the Pentagon's top
removal of -Soviet military. forces from
outside advisers on conventional arma-
Eastern Bloc countries, with the exception
ment and a well known hawk on NATO
of small command and control and logis
strategy. He said he was taken aside by
tics units that would be needed in a mili-
Soviet officials during a recent trip to Mos
tary emergency.
COW: While other members of aigroup of
The Soviet Navy, he added, is weighing
touring Western military analysts were
the possibility of removing as many as 50
taken on a trip on a Soviet Navy cruiser,
attack submarines from service, as a ges:
Mr. Karber said he was invited to a series
ture to begin bargaining with an eye to
of meetings with Soviet officials who gave
ward reducing the U.S. carrier fleet,
him detailed answers to his questions
about a pledge Soviet leader Mikhail Gor-
bachev made in December to trim the So-
viet army by 500,000 men and :10,000
tanks.
"If the Soviets had asked me to come in
and design the cuts SO that they would take
away the disproportionate. (Soviet) threat
in Central Europe, I couldn't have done it
better-and can't believe I'm, saying
that, Mr. Karber said in an interview.
The Soviet proposals, he noted, appear
to be part of a master plan that backs up
Mr. Gorbachev's propaganda campaign.
the
Already that campaign is causing a signifi-
Photocopy-Preservation
The FY 1991
Department of Defense
Budget
STATEMENT OF DEFENSE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Myths and Reality
The FY 1991
Department of Defense
Budget
STATEMENT OF DEFENSE
T
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Myths and Reality
Percent Real Growth in Defense Budget Authority
Ö
Is most of the DoD Budget allocated to
expensive hardware and sophisticated weapons?
7.5
6.5
A:
No. Almost 50 percent (47.2%) of the proposed
FY 1991 budget would go to military and
5
civilian personnel and their related costs,
including training and medical costs.
Cumulative Real Growth 1985 - 95 equals -22 percent
2.5
Another 12 percent is allocated to the
operations and maintenance accounts for the
purchase of fuel and for the maintenance and
0
repair of equipment and facilities.
-1.3
The proposed funding for investment, which
-2.5
-2.1
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.6
totals 40.7 percent of the FY 1991 budget,
-2.7
includes military contruction and family
-3.8
housing and; Research, Development, Test and
-5
-4.4
Evaluation of weapon systems, in addition
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
to the procurement of weapons already in
production.
1
14
Total Obligational Authority
($ in Billions)
Ö
Isn't the Department of Defense budget really
continuing to grow?
$36
(12.1%)
Current Year
A:
The military budget has declined each year in real
Operations
terms since FY 1985.
$120.9
(40.7%)
Based on the President's budget for FY 1991,
$140.4
defense has already been cut by 16 percent in
Current Year
(47.2%)
purchasing power since FY 1985.
Investment:
Procurement, R&D
$297.3
and MILCON
Including budget projections through FY 1995,
Pay & Related
the total decline since FY 1985 will be 22 percent.
13
2
Q: Do "big ticket" expenditures on new strategic
Reductions to FY 1991 Budget Authority
weapons account for the biggest share of defense
($ in Billions)
budget growth?
$395.5
400
A:
Strategic forces account for only 8 percent of
$364.9
the proposed FY 1991 budget compared to 9.5
percent five years ago. For example, the Peace-
keeper missile, B-2 aircraft, C-17 aircraft, SSN-21
$324.3
$320.9
$311.0
and Strategic Defense Initiative programs represent
6.5 percent of the FY 1991 budget.
$295.1
300
If the total budget authority for these programs
($19.2 billion) were cancelled in FY 1991, it
would only save $4.6 billion in outlays in FY 1991.
200
Jan 86
Jan 87
Jan 88
Jan 89
Apr 90
Jan 90
3
12
1991 DoD Major Force Programs
Q: Hasn't the Department of Defense budget been
(Total Budget = $297.3 Billion)
left virtually untouched by budget reductions taken
to reduce the deficit?
Admin
$7 BII = 2%
All Other
$3 Bil = 1%
Strategic Forces
A:
The Defense budget has been cut continuously
Training &
$23 Bil = 8%
Medical:
and drastically since January 1986.
$41 Bil = 14%
The FY 1991 budget level was first projected to
Supply &
Maintenance
the Congress in January 1986 as the last year
$26 Bil = 9%
of the Five Year Defense Plan. This plan called
for $395.5 billion to fund the FY 1991
R&D
General Purpose
defense program.
$29 BII = 10%
Forces
The FY 1991 budget (for the fiscal year that
$112 Bil = 38%
begins on October 1, 1990) is currently being
Intel &
considered by the Congress. The President has
Guard & Reserve
Comm
requested $295.1 billion for DoD. That figure
$17 Bil = 6%
$32 Bil = 11%
is $100 billion below the original projections
Air & Seallft
in the plan.
$6 Bil = 2%
11
4
Q:
Does the Department of Defense continue to increase
the number of civilian personnel even though the
Shares of the Budget - Outlays
total budget has been reduced each year since 1985?
55
A:
Total DoD civil service employees, by the end of
50
FY 1991, is projected to be the lowest since FY 1984.
45
A 20,800 reduction is proposed in the number of
T A C N G E E P E R
Payments to Individuals
40
(Increase from 20.9% to 53.2%)
35
civilian personnel in the FY 1991 budget.
Defense
30
(Decrease from 51.5% to20.6%)
A reduction of 7,800 personnel is associated with
25
the Defense Management Review and demonstrates
20
the Department's aggressive use of management
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
improvements to reduce staffing wherever possible.
FISCAL YEARS
The decreased workload at navy shipyards and
aircraft and ordnance facilities results in 13,000
personnel reductions.
5
10
1991 DoD Civilian Manpower
Q: Does the Department of Defense budget consume
(Total Manpower = 1,095,700)
the largest share of federal outlays?
A: In 1955, the Department of Defense accounted
for 52 percent of all Federal outlays. Payments
to individuals (social security, etc.) accounted for
21 percent.
Defense
Forty years later, by the end of FY 1995, DoD
Agencies
outlays are projected to decline to 21 percent of
(104,100
total outlays, while payments to individuals will
Air Force
increase to 52 percent. This is a complete reversal
(258,000)
of the situation that existed in 1955.
Army
(391,900)
Navy & Marine Corps
(341,000)
9
6
Q: Isn't it true that the Department of Defense budget
does not respond to the changes in world events,
such as those in Eastern Europe, especially in establishing
1991 DoD Military Manpower
military manpower levels where the major portion of
(Total Manpower = 2,038,800)
defense reductions must occur?
A:
FY 1991 Active force levels are projected to be
Marine Corps
91,400 below the FY 1989 level. Reductions of
(196,500)
this magnitude cut into force structure, and two
active CONUS (Continental United States) Army
Air Force
Divisions will be deleted in FY 1991.
(530,000)
The proposed total active military end strength
will be at the 1980 level. In fact, the Army and
Army
Air Force levels will be the lowest since 1950.
(727,500)
Planning is going forward to further draw-down
Navy
troop strength, equipment and weaponry in Europe
(584,800)
in anticipation of the signing of a Conventional
Forces in Europe (CFE) agreement.
7
8