Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "415892613",
    "label": "Defense, [1990]",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/415892613"
}

{
    "id": "415892613",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/415892613",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Defense, [1990]",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/415892613",
    "identifierLocal": "13893-012",
    "collections": [
        "Records of the White House Office of Speechwriting (George H. W. Bush Administration)",
        "Tony Snow Subject Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/bush/gb-spe/speechwriting_snow_313173092/41-bpr-speech-snow-subj-13893-012_415892613.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/bush/gb-spe/speechwriting_snow_313173092/41-bpr-speech-snow-subj-13893-012_415892613.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/bush/gb-spe/speechwriting_snow_313173092/41-bpr-speech-snow-subj-13893-012_415892613.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/415892613",
    "naId": 415892613,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/bush/gb-spe/speechwriting_snow_313173092/41-bpr-speech-snow-subj-13893-012_415892613.pdf",
    "mediaId": "37fa1e936acea452",
    "ocrText": "Originally Processed With FOIA(s):\nFOIA Number:\nS\nFOIA\nMARKER\nThis is not a textual record. This is used as an\nadministrative marker by the George Bush Presidential\nLibrary Staff.\nRecord Group/Collection:\nGeorge H.W. Bush Presidential Records\nCollection/Office of Origin:\nSpeechwriting, White House Office of\nSeries:\nSnow, Tony, Files\nSubseries:\nSubject File, 1988-1993\nOA/ID Number:\n13893\nFolder ID Number:\n13893-012\nFolder Title:\nDefense, [1990]\nStack:\nRow:\nSection:\nShelf:\nPosition:\nG\n18\n29\n2\n1\nREVIEW OF THE PATRIOT ATM HISTORY\n1965\nSAM-D project office formed 1st program manager Col B. R. Luczak.\nRequirement identified need for improved air defenses to replace\nNike Hercules. Provide for high altitude air defense and anti-\nmissile defense.\n1966\nProgram authorized by SecDef; contract for concept definition\nawarded with Raytheon, Hughes, and RCA in competition.\n2nd Program manager BG E. M. Dooley\n1967-71\nAdvanced development contract that was to run until 1971.\n3rd PM Col James Miller, Jr.\nFirst propulsion control tests in 1970.\n1972-74\n4th PM BG J. Fimiani.\nProgram conducts engineering development.\nSuccessful DSARC and review by SecDef.\nRequirement for nuclear warhead deleted as a result of cost\neffectiveness analysis; anti-missile capability also deleted.\n1974-76\n5th PM MG C. F. Means, Jr.\nProgram cycle delayed to conduct proof of principle tests of the\n\"track-via-missile\" guidance concept which is unique to the\nRaytheon design.\nProof of principle test firings complete in 1976.\n1977-80\n6th PM MG Oliver D. Street, III.\nDecision to accelerate the program made in 1977.\nEngineering development re-initiated in 1977 - completed in\n1978-79.\nDevelopment tests/operational tests II conducted in 1980.\nDSARC III in 1980 approved continued low rate production based on\nArmy prototype confirmation test program; follow-on evaluation to\nbe conducted using production hardware.\nFirst production buy begins in 1980.\n1981-83\n7th PM BG Jerry M. Bunyard.\nConducted prototype confirmation program successfully; received\nArmy and OSD approval to proceed to production validation and\nverification follow-on test.\nDeveloped the Patriot Pre-Planned Product Improvement (P3I)\nProgram, which included the software and hardware modifications\nto the radar and missile to develop anti-tactical missile (ATM)\ncapabilities. Presented program to Army and OSD leadership and\nobtained approval of concept. Briefed Congressional staffs.\nUSDDR&E (Wade) approved justification for major systems new start\nfor anti missile program with Army as lead.\nFirst Patriot missile battalion (1/43d ARTY) activated at Fort\nBliss, TX, May 1982.\nFirst European Battalion activated, 1983.\nArmy leadership, at program manager's recommendation, directed\none year development delay due to production quality problems.\nNew manufacturing methods initiated for production validation.\nInitiated talks with Japan on procurement.\nMet with NATO project office leading to bi-lateral agreements\nwith Germany and the Netherlands.\nFollow-on evaluation revealed unsatisfactory maintenance and\nsupport record. Army leadership directed a one-year European\ndeployment delay and continued follow-on evaluation.\n1983-85\n8th PM BG Don Infante.\nInstituted new manufacturing methods and support concepts for\nfollow-on evaluation and production validation and verification.\nConducted readiness review for Undersecretary of Army and\nsuccessfully passed follow on evaluation (FOE) III.\nDeployed first unit to U.S. forces in Germany in 1st quarter\n1985.\nThe Netherlands, in 1984, becomes first nation to buy Patriot,\nand plans for deployment of four fire units in its air defense\nsector. U.S.-German talks begin on the German Patriot program.\n\"Patriot Self Defense Against Missile Attack\" identified as a\nresponse to a newly developed JMSNS requirement -- to meet the\nthreat posed by accurate SS-21/$$23 conventional missiles that\ncould now target key military targets and SAM sites in deep\nattack scenarios.\nBeyond Patriot's active defense mission, this concept of\noperations, developed at Fort Leavenworth, also included passive\ndefenses, counterforce, and battle management.\nPatriot ATM concept developed as a means to protect a 2KMx10KM\nfootprint centered on the Patriot fire unit itself; modification\nwould require (a) software changes to enhance guidance and radar\nsurveillance -- to enable missile acquisition and tracking; and\n(b) hardware changes involving Patriot's fuze and warhead -- to\nimprove its lethality.\nThe Army's Patriot ATM improvements are funded in Army 063302A.\nOSD (DDR&E) reach the following conclusions regarding the Patriot\nupgrade.\n- Patriot will only have enough missiles to do the air\ndefense mission and not the anti-missile mission.\n- Anti-missile concept is technically too difficult.\n- There is clearly a threat to Patriot. A $.5M $$21 can\ndestroy a $120M SAM fire unit, so defense is needed.\n- Wouldn't the concept of anti-missile counter battery fire\nfrom the Patriot site make time efficient sense?\n- What is the Army plan and intention?\n1985-86\n9th PM Col Larry Capps.\nJapanese select Patriot to replaced Nike Hercules; subsequently\nselect Mitsubishi Heavy to manufacture Patriot under licensed\nproduction.\nU.S. -German agreement approved -- a complex compensation package\nproviding for production of Patriot components in Germany,\nprovision of Patriots to Germany, German operation of U.S. owned\nPatriots, and German furnished short range air defense of key air\nbases in Germany.\nGermany buys 14 fire units, is provided 12 additional fire units\nto operate for the U.S. U.S. deployment to Germany planned\nultimately to be 54 fire units.\nArmy Secretariat commissions Bell Labs review of the ATM upgrades\nproposed by Raytheon. Initial draft of report is unfavorable --\ncites urgent need for anti-missile defense, but questions\nRaytheon's analysis of the Soviet threat and possibility of\nunusual warheads. Report suggests that hit-to-kill (second\nantonymous seeker) technology demonstrated by SDIO/SDC Flage\nexperiment is more pertinent.\nBell Labs report is used by Senate Army Services Committee\nStaffer Toney Battista to delete funds requested by the Army to\nupgrade the program. Results in delay of a year.\n3rd Quarter 1986\nPatriot intercepts lance missile at White Sands Missile Range.\nTest proves PAC I software MODS work and \"mission kill\"\ncapability of Patriot system under low rate attacks.\nDutch informally inform the Army that they do not want the ATM\nupgrades for their Patriot systems given the politics of anti-\nmissile systems.\nPatriot modifications divided into two packages: PAC I involves\nsoftware upgrades; PAC II involves hardware upgrades. Plan\ndeveloped to complete PAC I upgrades by 1988 and begin PAC II in\n1991.\nItalians begin discussions on their acquisition of Patriot to\nreplace Nike Herclues.\nPAC II concept expanded to provide \"area\" defense around the\nPatriot fire unit (vs self defense concept of earlier years).\n1987-91\n10th PM Col Bruce Garnett.\nPatriot production plan and multi-year procurement of Patriot\nmissiles continue.\nItalians decide to procure Patriot.\nSDIO provides funds for Patriot Dual Mode Seeker experiment in\n1989-90 and remote launch experiment in 1990-91.\nDeputy Secretary of Defense appoints Director of Strategic\nDefense Initiative Organization as the DoD Central Manager for\nall anti missile programs -- including Patriot modifications --\nbeginning FY 1991.\nSDIO provides FY 91 funds for Dual Mode Seeker tests and\nidentifies FYDP Research & Development and Procurement funds for\nPatriot anti missile components.\nIraq attacks Kuwait; U.S. response in August (Desert Shield)\nleads to decision by Col Garnett to accelerate PAC II missile\nproduction. Action changes original plan of providing 3 missiles\nfor test in January 1991 to significant capability in November\n1990.\nSTATE\nOFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20301-1400\nSTATE\nPUBLIC AFFAIRS\nDATE: 26 Sept 1990\nTHIS PAGE PLUS\n3\nPAGE(S) FOLLOW\nTO: NAME: Dan mc Groarty FROM: Jeff Salmon\nROOM:\nLOCATION: White HOUSE\nLOCATION Pentagon\nDIVISION\nDIVISION DES/PA\nEXTENSION\nEXTENSION 697-8191\nIF TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES ARE NOT RECEIVED OR ARE ILLEGIBLE, PLEASE CALL\n(202) 697-5007 OR 695-6993.\n100 PAGE.\nSEP 27 '90 11:38 FROM 2026951149\nHeadlener Breakfast\n4\nCheney\nFoy 456-6218\nThe President belongs to what I like to describe as the \"don't screw around\" school of\nmilitary strategy. That if you're going to send American forces in harm's way, you better assume\nthat they may well in fact become involved in conflict, and it's incumbent upon those of us who send\nthem to make absolutely certain that they've got all the support and all the numbers and all the\nequipment and all the supplies and munitions they need to deal with any eventuality. Until we've\nreached that point, until we're absolutely confident that we do indeed have that kind of capability in\nthe area, we have no desire whatsoever to stop the deployments, no matter what some of our expert\nfriends around Washington or on CNN may think the target should be.\nThe House yesterday finished the House Authorization Bill for fiscal year 1991. Let me say\njust a word about that if I can. The most damaging part of the bill is the fact that it was a bad piece\nof legislation when it came out of committee; it did not reflect at all any kind of long term concern\nfor where we ought to be headed with respect to military force; and they made a token gesture\nyesterday when they finally approved the bill by adding $1 billion for Desert Shield for fiscal year\n1991. That's less than what it would cost us to operate per month - assuming there are no\nhostilities. It's a totally inadequate piece of legislation.\nMy friend, Les Aspin, will argue that this is the first piece of legislation that reflect the new\npost-war world, I believe is the way he described it. If Les Aspin had been making those decisions 10\nor 15 years ago, we wouldn't be able to do today what we're doing in the Persian Gulf.\nThe bottom line of the bill as it came out of committee, and as the Democrats passed it\nthrough the House yesterday, is that it cuts upwards of 130,000 U.S. military personnel in the next\n12 months. I'm being told at the same time that we have to maintain our forward deployments in\nkey places around the world, take care of the problem in the Middle East, set up a rotation base so\nthat about a six month tour becomes the norm over there, and oh by the way, get rid of 130,000\nactive duty military personnel. It totally fails to recognize that that kind of harsh action which\nwould require me to run a reduction in force, not just to handle it through attrition and through\ncareful management of the personnel system, it requires me to go out and RIF people, fire them.\nYou might remember that everybody wearing the uniform today is a volunteer. There isn't\nanybody out there who wants to get out of the service. We've got thousands and thousands of\nreservists trying to get in, and who are banging on the doors to be called to active duty so they can\nhave an opportunity to serve at a time of national need. If we have to live with that piece of\nlegislation, which we won't-- I'm convinced the President will veto it if it lands on his desk in that\nform - but if we had to live with that kind of legislation, it would make it absolutely impossible for\nus to do our job. The claim that Les made yesterday that somehow this bill reflects the new\npost-war world is just garbage. It's not true, it's not valid, and I would urge everybody to take a\nvery careful look at it.\nWith respect to the strategic programs in the first part of the bill, it's easy now for\neverybody to say because things have gotten better with the Soviets we don't need strategic systems\nany more, we don't need SDI. That's dead wrong. The fact is that while there are significantly\nimproved relations with the Soviets, and while we do indeed see them pulling their troops out of\nEastern Europe, and while we do see cuts in the Soviet defense budget and a reconfiguration of their\nown forces, the one thing they have not stopped is their strategic buildup. They continue to build\nnew, modern, strategic systems. We built one ballistic missile submarine last year, they built two.\nWe built 12 ballistic missiles last year, they built 140. They are deploying two new mobile missiles,\n200 PAGGE\n202665119 FROM 88:11 06. 22 SEP\n5\nwe aren't deploying any. The notion that somehow because relations have improved and we no longer\nhave to be as concerned about the Warsaw Pact as we once were, there are now democratically elected\nregimes in most of those countries, we do have to be concerned about Soviet strategic capability.\nOn SDI, the arguments, I think the rationale for strategic defense are more important than\nthey've ever been, for several reasons. One, of course, is that the Soviets do continue to improve\ntheir overall strategic posture with new and improved systems. Secondly, because we've got no\ncapability today to defend against a Soviet attack. All we can do is obliterate the Soviet Union. But\nif we look at the situation we're faced with in the Middle East you see another very strong rationale\nof the central force strategic defenses.\nRight now, today, with 150,000 plus troops in Saudi Arabia, are facing in Iraq several\nhundred Scud missiles and Scud variants. The Scud is a Soviet system, about a 300 kilometer range,\nnot very accurate. As a military weapon armed with a conventional warhead it's not of any great\nconcern. It might be able to hit a city, but it's very hard for them to hit a military unit that would\nhave any significant military impact. But if you marry that capability up with chemical weapons,\nyou've got a whole different proposition. Certainly it's an instrument of terror. If you marry it up\nwith the biological and nuclear capabilities, then, of course, the picture begins to be radically different\nthan what it's been in the past.\nIn addition, Saddam Hussein has taken the Scud and built two variants from it, sort of\nhome-grown vehicles that have smaller payloads but a long range, so he can probably reach out maybe\n550-600 kilometers with those systems. He's not going to hit the United States from Baghdad with\nthat kind of equipment, but he can certainly target U.S. forces and U.S. friends and allies in the\nregion. He isn't the only one who has or is developing that kind of capability. We estimate by the\nend of the decade there will be at least 15 Third World nations with ballistic missile capability. Even\nthough most of that is likely to be short range or intermediate range stuff, the fact is today we've\ngot virtually no capability to defend against that kind of attack none, zero, zip. Anybody who tells\nyou to the contrary doesn't know what he's talking about.\nThat portion of the defense budget, that program under which the capability to deal with that\nkind of threat is to be found, is SDI -- the Strategic Defense Initiative. That's where we deal with\nthat kind of ballistic missile capability. For the House of Representatives, for my friend Les Aspin,\nand I won't say the House, I'll say the majority in the House yesterday to take the action they did on\nSDI in my mind is absolutely incomprehensible. I don't see how at a time when you've got U.S.\nforces open to that kind of threat and no capability to deal with it, we would want to cut that part\nof the defense budget that would give us that kind of capability long term.\nThis notion that somehow the new, more peaceful world means we can dramatically alter the\ndefense budget I think is wrong. I think over four, five, or six years we can in fact reduce our\nforces. We aren't going to need to be prepared to maintain the troop levels in Europe we have for\nso many years, and that's been a major driver in terms of our defense budget. Although we do want\nto stay active in Europe we can draw down some of our forces in the Pacific and we're doing that.\nBut we do need to be able to retain our strategic capabilities. We do need to be able to maintain our\nforward deployment and be able to retain the forces here at home to reinforce overseas when we need\nit.\n800 PAGE\n202695119 FROM 68:11 06. 22 SEP\n6\nWhile it is a time for us, I think, to talk about new strategy and the need to respond with\nnew thinking, if you will, about the way we deal with military capabilities, there are a couple of\nabsolutely crucial, what I call enduring realities, that are still going to be valid in the future just as\nthey have in the past.\nFirst and foremost is that peace and stability in the world, more likely than not, will depend\nupon the military capability of the United States of America. We're going to need robust military\nforces and be able to deploy them when necessary. We aren't going to have a dog in every fight and\nwe aren't going to want to be in every fight. But when our fundamental interests are threatened, we\nhave to be able to respond.\nSecondly, our most important military asset, the thing that counts for more than anything\nelse, the thing that's absolutely crucial in terms of maintaining that kind of capability and being able\nto use it in the future is in fact the willingness of a great many Americans to put on the uniform and\nto serve in the United States military, to go in harm's way to defend. The bill that the House\npassed yesterday is totally inadequate in those respects, and I'm fairly confident that\n(END)\nSEP 27 '90 11:40 FROM 2026951149\n02. 15. 91 04:00 PM *SDIO EXTRNL AFFAIRS P01\nSEAL THE\nDEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE\nSTRATEGIC DEFENSE INITIATIVE ORGANIZATION\nPRESENCE MOLICATIVE\nWASHINGTON DC 2030\n19:05:05\nAMERICA THE\nOF OR PEPENSE\nFAX:\n(703) 693-1706\nPHONE: (703) 695-8743\nDATE:\n2/15\nTO:\nDean McGrorty\nFACSIMILIE PHONE NUMBER:\n202-2156-6218\nCONFIRMATION PHONE NUMBER:\n456-2773\n2\nCOPIES (INCLUDING HEADER) :\nSDIO POINT OF CONTACT (POC) :\nTom Johnson\nSDIO PHONE NUMBER (POC) :\n703-695-8743\nREMARKS:\n02 15. 91 04:00 PM *SDIO EXTRNL AFFAIRS P02\nTALKING POINTS ON GPALS\nPresident Bush, State of Union Address:\n-- directs SDI to provide protection against limited\nballistic missile strikes.\n-- such a defense can protect the United States,\nU.S. forces deployed overseas, U.S. power projection\nforces, U.S. friends and allies.\nThis system is called GPALS\n-- Global Protection Against Limited Strikes\nGPALS is a layered defense concept.\n-- Space- and surface-based sensors to provide global,\ncontinuous surveillance and tracking, from launch to\nintercept or impact, of ballistic missiles of all\nranges. (Studies show use of space sensors allow for\nreduction in the size, cost and number of surface-based\nsensors and weapons, while increasing performance.)\n- Interceptors, based both in space and on the ground or\nat sea, provide high-confidence protection to targets\nunder attack.\n-- Space based interceptors could provide continuous,\nglobal interdiction capability against missiles with\nranges in excess of 600-800 kilometers.\n-- Surface based interceptors, located in the U.S.,\ndeployed with U.S. forces and, potentially deployed\nby U.S. allies, could intercept missiles of any\nrange and with any type of wahead.\n-- Interceptors would destroy attacking missiles simply\nby colliding with them at great speeds.\nStrategic Defenses will be affordable; less costly than\nPhase One, even with the added Theater Missile Defense\nelement.\nGPALS directly addresses security issues that exist today\nand will become more acute in the future.\nAs a result of refocusing the SDI program toward GPALS, the\npriority assigned to theater defense programs already under-\nway has been significantly increased.\n-- Iraqi use of ballistic missiles against Coalition Forces\nand Israel in the Middle East highlights the requirement\nfor theater missile defenses as an essential element in\nour military posture.\nA14\nSDI\n3/30/89\nREVIEW & OUTLOOK\nBrilliant Pebbles\nAs public policy, strategic defense\nSDI scientists were working. As origi-\nhas begun to resemble one of those gi-\nnally conceived, SDI's space-based in-\nant beach balls that kids play with in\nterceptors were going to be huge and\nswimming pools. No matter how\nexpensive. But Brilliant Pebbles has\nmuch the critics want to submerge it,\nemerged from America's genius for\nsit on it or kick it to the bottom, SDI\nminiaturization and computerization.\n(always has enough buoyancy to rise\nJust as the size and cost of computers\nback to the surface.\nhave fallen dramatically, the same\nSecretary of Defense Richard\nadvances may make it possible to\nCheney himself made the TV-talk-\nshrink the size and cost of \"smart\"-\nshow rounds this week saying both\nthat is, computerized-interceptors.\nthat SDI had been \"oversold\" and\nBrilliant Pebbles would of course\nthat he remains a \"strong advocate\"\nbe only a partial defense-not the\nof some form of space-based defense.\n\"perfect umbrella\" that President\nPerhaps he's already been briefed on\nReagan liked to talk about. But even\nBrilliant Pebbles,\" the latest SDI\nsuch a partial defense would have en-\nItechnology to bob up despite Estab-\normous benefits. Since it would circle\nlishment skepticism. Lieutenant Gen-\nthe globe, it would protect allies in\neral George Monahan, the new head\nEurope and Asia as well as the main-\nof the Pentagon's SDI office, said last\nland U.S. It would make sure a de-\nweek that Brilliant Pebbles has \"ex-\nfense is in place if nuclear or chemi-\ncellent potential\" to reduce costs. And\ncal missiles are developed by adven-\nVice President Dan Quayle last week\nturesome small powers like Gadhafi's\nextolled the concept as. \"one of the\nLibya. It also would make nuclear\nmost promising lines of research\"\nwar much less likely by complicating\ninto strategic defense.\nthe task of a Soviet planner contem-\nThe current Brilliant Pebbles en-\nplating a first strike. How could he be\nthusiasm was kicked off by Lieutenant\nsure, in a world of Brilliant Pebbles,\nGeneral James Abrahamson's fare;\nthat he'd hit his targets?\nwell memo summing up his tenure as\nhead of the SDI office. He focused on\nGeneral Abrahamson's price tag of\nBrilliant Pebbles as the route to \"both\n$5 billion a year for five years is not\nimproved performance and dramatic\nonly light years less than the billions\ncost reduction. With continued ef-\nand trillions that the skeptics charged\nforts, he wrote, a Brilliant Pebbles\nany strategic defense would cost, but\nconcept \"can be proven in two years,\nalso is competitive with other strate-\nwith deployment starting three years\ngic alternatives Washington currently\nlater. This could be accomplished for\nis debating how to spend tens of bil-\nless than $10 billion. Throwing in the\nlions to deploy a new \"survivable\"\ncosts of command and control and\nland-based nuclear missile-the mo-\nfail-safe communications, General\nbile MX or Midgetman. But as Gen-\nAbrahamson figures the whole thing\neral Abrahamson points out, Brilliant\ncould be deployed for $25 billion over\nPebbles has the potential to enhance\nfive years.\ndeterrence just as much, just as\nBrilliant Pebbles would consist of\nquickly, and perhaps for less money\nseveral thousand small interceptor\nthan either new missile, let alone the\nsatellites based in space, floating sep-\ncost of both.\narately in several different orbits.\nBrilliant Pebbles plays to Ameri-\nThey would be inert until activated by\nca's competitive strengths-technol-\na command sent from earth upon\nogy in optics, small computers, guid-\nwarning of Soviet or other attack.\nance systems-instead of trying to\nEach interceptor would have its own\nmatch the Soviets at what they do\n\"eyes\" to be able to track the rocket\nbest-rolling out missile after missile\nplume of a ballistic missile, and when\nwithout fear of lawsuits from environ-\nactivated would head for the nearest\nmentalists or peaceniks. The emer-\nmissile and ram it at high speed, de-\ngence of SO feasible a concept SO\nstroying it with the simple force of\nquickly vindicates Ronald Reagan's\nimpact.\njudgment in launching the SDI pro-\nIt all sounds like sci-fi fantasy, but\ngram. He understood that science ad-\nof course SO did the idea of the U.S.\nvances in ways we don't expect, that\nputting a man on the moon or building\nanswers would be forthcoming if we\nsomething called the Space Shuttle.\nunleashed U.S. scientists on defense.\nThe striking thing about Brilliant Peb-\nMr. Reagan's contribution was\nbles is how much progress already\nmoral-releasing those pent-up ener-\nhas been made. While the Luddites\ngies by destroying the perverted no-\nere saying it couldn't be done, Low-\ntion that defense against nuclear at-\nPhotocopy-Preservation\nAugust 14, 1990\nWHAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE DONE TO DISMANTLE OUR NATIONAL SECURITY:\n-Throughout the last decade, the Democratic Congress has\nrepeatedly tried to kill the:\n1. MX\n2. Midgetman\n3. B-2\n4. SDI (25% cuts every year)\n-Specifically re. FY '91, the House Armed Services Committee\nrecently voted to:\n1. Cut over $24 billion from the Presidents Defense budget\nfor FY '91.\n2. Kill the MX and Midgetman\n3. Kill the B-2 (\"stealth\") bomber\n4. Reduce SDI budget from President's request of $4.6\nbillion to $2.9 billion (a cut of $1.7 billion)\n-Meanwhile, the Senate has already:\n1. Voted to cut SDI to $3.6 billion, and to effectively kill\nthe \"brilliant pebbles\" program with an allotment of $129\nmillion.\n2. Approved the Bingaman/Shelby Amendment which would place\n11 line items in the SDI budget, and effectively eliminate the\nPresident's ability to ever deploy SDI.\n-KEY POINTS HERE:\n1. The President is committed to SDI, and his choice of\nHenry Cooper to head SDI has been widely praised in the defense\ncommunity as a signal of his commitment.\n2. The President is working towards an historic START treaty\nwith the Soviets, a treaty which assumes the future development\nof MX, Midgetman, B-2, and SDI. These reckless Democratic cuts\nwill render a START treaty useless, and even harmful to our\nsecurity interests. For example,\n- the Soviets would have two mobile missile programs (as per\nthe treaty) and we would have NONE.\n-the Start treaty favors strategic bombers, but B-2 is our\nstrategic bomber.\n-CONCLUSION: THE DEMOCRATS HAVEN'T CHANGED. THEY STILL WANT\nRECKLESS DEFENSE CUTS, THEY STILL WANT TO SACRIFICE THE NATIONAL\nSECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES. WE SAID NO BEFORE, AND WE'LL SAY\nNO AGAIN. PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH BROUGHT AN END TO THE COLD WAR,\nAND FREEDOM TO NICARAGUA AND PANAMA. NOW IS THE TIME TO\nCAPITALIZE ON HARD EARNED FREEDOM. THE ISSUE WAS NOT THE COLD\nWAR; THE ISSUE WAS, AND STILL IS, OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.\nJOURNAL WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 1989\nSerious Talk About the Nuclear Era\nBy AARON WILDAVSKY\nwho is burying their brains?\nit is no less true now than then.\nMr. Bruce-Briggs would allow those\nFrom the paradox that defenselessness\nBoth a history and a lament, B. Bruce-\nwho think life would not be livable after a\ndecreases the probability of attack came\nBriggs's \"The Shield of Faith: The Hidden\nnuclear attack to expose themselves to nu-\nthe corresponding wisdom that defensive\nStruggle for Strategic Defense\" (Simon &\nclear peril. \"But what was ugly-and is\nmeasures only breed more dangerous\nSchuster, 464 pages, $19.95) is a moving\nugly,\" he writes in his usual vigorous ver-\ncountermeasures to nullify them. \"Don't\nand enlightening history of nuclear de-\nnacular, \"is the agitation to prevent others\navoid dark streets at night,\" as Mr. Bruce-\nfense, poignantly capturing the dismay of\nfrom making the other choice, to live and\nBriggs summarizes it, \"because that will\nthose individuals whose lives became\nto recover.\"\nmake the muggers operate in the day-\nbound up in a largely losing effort to per-\nThe most serious objection to civil de-\nlight.\"\nsuade their fellow citizens to take defense\nfense was that the greater the belief in the\nThere is, to be sure, an interactive rela-\nseriously.\nprobability of limiting damage, the greater\ntionship between offense and defense. Cal-\nThe Strategic Defense Initiative, the au-\nthe willingness to contemplate using nu-\nculations about the \"cost-exchange\" ratio\nthor persuades us, can be understood only\nclear weapons. For many, the very thought\ngo on all the time. It is hopeless, however\nin the context of the past efforts to reduce\nof defense was pernicious because it in-\nto give up defense, if for no other reason\nthe death and damage as well as the likeli-\ncreased the chances of initiating nuclear\nthan the need to defend the deterrent, our\nhood of nuclear war.\nown missiles.\nNever a dry theorist or a dull geo-strat-\negist, Mr. Bruce-Briggs dwells at the inter-\nBookshelf\nThe -distinction of \"The Shield of\nFaith,\" whose very title bespeaks dark hu-\nsection of the personal and the strategic.\nmor (practical people presumably want\nFor example, he notes that Americans\n\"The Shield of Faith:\nsomething stronger), lies in its fidelity to\ndon't like suicide missions. When an engi-\nThe Hidden Struggle\nthe spirit of defense. Had the author ex-\nneer suggested that air interceptors be\nfor Strategic Defense\"\npunged a few of his less charitable com-\nused as rammers, their strong wings cut-\nments about the individuals involved, his\nting off weak bomber tails, for instance,\nhis technologically feasible idea was re-\nBy B. Bruce-Briggs\nbook would gain greater credence. Even\nso, the people and the pathos of defense\njected because it reminded the airmen of\nkamikaze attacks on our B29s. In fact, the\nwar behind a falsely conceived protective\ncome together in a kind of celebration of a\nNavy became a leader in air defense be-\nshield. This is how vulnerability was trans-\ncause worthy enough to justify all the per-\nformed into security.\nsonal pain.\ncause it was troubled in late 1944 by sui-\ncide planes chock full of bombs, fuel and\nWho can remember today, as the author\nThe fact that every serious strategist-\nguidance systems, perhaps the first cruise\nusefully reminds us, that in the 1950s lib-\nsuch as Bernard Brodie, who argued that\nmissiles. Long-range bombers owe their\neral Democrats endorsed civil defense, sa-\nnuclear offense rendered nuclear defense\nvoring especially its potential for national\nobsolete-kept qualifying his argument,\nrapid development to the Air Force's un-\nplanning, while conservative Republicans\nsuggests that the need for defense will al-\nwillingness to send its crews out on one-\nway missions.\nrejected a program of dispersal on the\nways be with us. Should nuclear weapons\ngrounds that government would be telling\nbe reduced to very low numbers, as is now\nMr. Bruce-Briggs also is something of a\nindustry where to go and individuals where\ncontemplated, however, interest in defense\nkeeper of lost causes, such as civil defense,\nto live. Nor did opponents ever make clear\nwill grow, paradoxically, for it will become\njust because they are right.\nwhether the difficulty was that civil de-\nboth more feasible (fewer weapons to de-\n/ Civil defense was destroyed by ridicule.\nfense was ineffective or provocative. Now-\nfend against) and more necessary (cheat-\nAWho the joke was on we will learn only\nadays President Kennedy's somber caution\ning becomes more important) if we are to\nmuch later.) It was said that civil defense\ncirca 1962-\"Civil defense can readily be\nrely for our lives and liberties on more\nwas ostrichlike: Climbing into holes would\njustified-as insurance.\nwe trust will\nthan on-sight inspection and faith.\nnot make nuclear war go away. Yet Mr.\nnever be needed-but insurance which we\nBruce-Briggs reminds us that the chilling\ncould never forgive ourselves for forgoing\nMr. Wildavsky is professor of political\nquestion-What happens if deterrence\nin the event of catastrophe\"-would ap-\nscience and public policy at the University\nfails?-still has no answer. In that case,\npear not only ludicrous but offensive. Yet\nof California, Berkeley.\nPhotocopy-Preservation\ndeputy defense secretary, hopes to\nreplace Alton G. Keel as U.S. am-\nbassador to NATO. Former defense\nsecretaries Caspar W Weinberger\nand Frank C. Carlucci are backing\nTaft for the ambassadorship.\nPaul D. Wolfowitz, former arms\ncontrol executive and ambassador. to\nIndonesia, is expected to become\nundersecretary for policy officials\nsaid. Although Wolfowitz, who was\nslated to fill the same post for Tow-\ner already is playing the leading role\nin the Pentagon's review of future\nstrategic forces, this nomination to\nthe policy post has not been made.\nPentagon spokesman Dan How-\nard who came to the post from the\nwhite House and served ved under Car-\nlucci, might have kept the position\nif If T ower had been confirmed. But\nHoward is now looking for an am-\n3/20/89\nWhite brow to House dates his brien Seeks to Show Progress at Pentagon\nchief\ngenerate money for the Nicaraguan\ncontrast Be\nCheney congressional press\nsecretary, Williams, has taken\nover an an office in the Pentagon pub-\nlic affairs enclave in janticipat of\nPentagon's\nthe\nout\nspokesman, The Bush administra-\ntion has approved the selection of\nWilliams, officials said\nStephen E: Herbits, executive\nbecoming\nvice presidentic of Seagram Co. Ltd\nand former assis ant to former de-\nfense secretary Donald H. Rums\nfeld will be an adviser to Cheney a\nlong ingtime friend\nCheney choices for deputies\neave the futures of many Reagan\nadministration stalwarts at the Pen-\ntagon in doubt st.\nWilliam H. Taft Taft IV, who has been\nat the Pen Pentagon since the start of\nbehind\n(-598\nas\nDavid Addington, who worked\nwith/Cheney Republican coun-\nsel to the House Permanent Select\nCommittee on Intelligence and as a\nWhite House legislative ant assistant. is\nrole\ndefense\nmajor\nnew\nplay\nthe\nas\nto\noften filled by a high-ranking mil-\nPolicy Committee worked closely\nthe Pentagon's top lawver George\nVan Cleve, minority counsel when\ngated the Reagan administ ation's the Reagan-administration first as bassadorship or other government\ngenera counsel and since 1984 as post outside the Pentagon.\nretary's special assistant, a post,\nDavid J. Gribbin, wholas executive\ndirector of the House Republican\nwith Cheney when the Wyoming Re-\npublican was minority whip, is slated\nto become the Pentagon s new chief\nto name\nto\nintends\nexpected\nscenes\nitar ry officer.\nLcongréssional liaison.\nalso\nCheney\nCheney was ranking Republican on\nthe House committee that investi\ncovert efforts to sell arms to Iran to\n(the\nBy George C Wilson\nWashington Post\nPresident Bush plans to lead the\nceremonial swearing-in of Defense\nSecretary Dick Cheney in the Pen\ntagon courtyard Tyesday afternoon\nin what administration officials said\nyesterday is an effort to to project the\nimage of a Defense Department\ngetting up to full steam after being\nleaderless for nearly two months as\nthe White House fought for and lost\nthe nomination of former senator\nJohn G. Tower (R-Tex.) to be de-\nfense secretary.\nRather than for this formal-\nity... Cheney, who was officially\nsworn in Friday has moved.quickly\nto fill key Pentagon posts with sev-\neral of his associates from the\nHouse. However. administration\nofficials said he intends to keep\nGeneral Motors executive Donald\nAtwood Jr. as top deputy\nA14\nREVIEW & OUTLOOK\nThe FSX Flap\nWhat on earth can the Japanese be\ntangled system of defense procure-\ncomplaining about? Sure, U.S. Com-\nment and congressional micromana-\nmerce Secretary Robert Mosbacher is\ngement, the ATF will require 15 years\ntrying to scuttle the FSX deal the Jap-\nto develop, compared with just over\nanese made with the U.S. Defense De-\nthree years for the F-84 of 30 years\npartment. But on the other hand, EPA\nago. It is of course far more complex,\nAdministrator William K. Reilly\nbut there are other problems. U.S. in-\nwants to force Americans to buy more\ndustry is under more and more pres-\nJapanese cars, judging from his ef-\nsure from the Pentagon to risk its own\nforts to persuade the Department of\nmoney on development, with the re-\nTransportation to raise U.S. fleet\nsult that some contractors are walk-\nmileage standards.\ning away. The waste, fraud and\nMaybe what the Japanese are com-\nabuse\" witch hunt in Washington has\nplaining about is the confusion. Maybe\nbrought a wave of suspensions and de-\nAmericans should complain too.\nbarments of contractors for minor\nThe FSX flap, which Congress will\ncontract violations. No wonder U.S.\nbe revving up again when it returns\ndefense contractors find it more at-\nfrom Easter vacation this week, is il-\ntractive to work for the Israelis or the\nlustrative of a new U.S. inability to\nJapanese than for their own govern-\nmake coherent policy.\nment. Maybe Secretary Mosbacher\nUp until the FSX became a cause\nand Senator Heinz should ask why.\ncelebre in Washington, it didn't seem\nBut back to the Japanese. Cer-\nespecially remarkable. Joint ventures\ntainly, with all the dollars accumu-\nbetween U.S. defense contractors and\nlated through their insistence on run-\nother allies in weapons development\nning big trade surpluses, they could\nhave become routine. When the Japa-\nPhotocopy-Preservation\nhave afforded F-16s. That would meet\nnese suggested that they would like to\ntheir defense needs and help bring\nbuild a fighter, the Pentagon first\ntrade and capital flows into better bal\ntried to persuade them to buy F 16s.\nance. In some sense, they brought this\nFailing that, it agreed to let General\nlatest congressional dust-up on them-\nDynamics share F-16 technology with\nselves. While Japan is a sovereign na\nMitsubishi in the joint development of\ntion and entitled to serve its own\nthe FSX. Had it not done so, the Japa-\nneeds, it isn't in its own best interests\nnese easily could have signed up with\nto stir up political resentments in the\nthe British or French\nU.S., a country it is heavily dependent\nMoreover, the F-16 is a 20-year-old\nupon for both trade and defense.\ndesign. The U.S. currently is develop-\ning the Advanced Tactical Fighter\nThe Japanese could go a long way\n(ATF), which is on a higher techno-\ntoward taking some of the heat off by\nlogical plateau, making more sophisti-\nmaking a firm commitment to buy\ncated use of electronic tracking, àim-\nother U.S. equipment to meet U.S. re-\ning and countermeasures and compu-\nquests that it make a greater effort to\nterized avionics and flight control.\ndefend against the buildup of Soviet\nDo the Japanese want to use this\nmilitary power in the Pacific and\nproject to develop a commercial air-\nAsian coastal waters. It would be\nliner? Probably. But if Boeing is going\ntimely, for example, to announce a\nto lose its world-wide dominance, it\nfirm commitment for the eight or SO\nwill be mostly Boeing's fault, not the\nAWACS and 17 or so in-flight-refueling\nfault of the FSX deal. Nothing will\ntankers they have discussed with the\nprotect the U.S. from industrial de-\nU.S. for years. The FSX won't be op-\ncline-something that is by no means\nerational for 10 years and judging\nimminent-if it throws up protective\nfrom the trouble the French and Is-\nwalls and clings to obsolete technol-\nraelis have had with new fighters,\nogy rather than employing its innova-\nmaybe not then. The AWACS-tanker\ntive skills. No country in the world, in-\ndeal, at upward of $5 billion, would\ncluding Japan, comes close to U.S. ca-\nhelp relieve American doubts that the\npacity for innovation. The \"industrial,\nJapanese are interested in two-way\npolicy\" of the Japanese is no match\ntrade.\nfor the decentralized research and dé-\nBut U.S. policy makers also would\nvelopment and entrepreneurial activ-\nprofit from self-examination. One\nity that thrive in the U.S.\nquestion is whether the Secretary of\nThere are, however, problems in\nCommerce and Congress are running\nthe U.S. defense industry, where this\nU.S. defense policy or whether that\ncountry comes closest to having an\njob still is in the hands of the Presi-\nindustrial policy. Under the current\ndent and Secretary of Defense.\nA12 WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 1989\nTHE WASHINGTON POST\nCheney Believes Gorbachev Sincere\nBut Defense Chief Says Cutting West's Forces Would Be Premature\nBy George C. Wilson\npartly because Gorbachev appears\nTurning to key deputies who will\nWashington Post Staff Writer\n\"serious\" about spending less mon-\nhelp him run the Defense Depart-\ney on the military.\nment, Cheney virtually confirmed\nDefense Secretary Dick Cheney,\nQuestions that need to be an-\nTuesday's Washington Post report\ndeclaring that he has gone from\nswered before the Cold War can be\nthat his choices for civilian service\nskeptic to believer in the idea that\ndeclared over, Cheney added, in-\nsecretaries are Assistant Defense\nSoviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev\nclude what will happen to the Soviet\nSecretary Richard L. Armitage for\nwants to reform his country, said\nforces to be withdrawn from East-\nthe Army, Navy Undersecretary H.\nyesterday that the prospect of war\nern Europe, how much the Warsaw\nLawrence Garrett III for the Navy\nbetween the two superpowers has\nPact military budget will be cut and\nand Donald B. Rice, head of the\n\"receded somewhat.\"\nhow much warning the West can ex-\nRand Corp., for the Air Force. \"I'm\nCheney, who had a hawkish vot-\npect if relations between the two\nnot allowed to make announce-\ning record in the House, said Gor-\nsuperpowers suddenly cool.\nments of presidential appoint-\nbachev appears to be genuinely.\n\"It's risky business for us to make\nments,\" Cheney said, but he added\ncommitted to restructuring the So-\nbasic, fundamental changes in our\nthat the report was based on good\nviet Union in ways that lessen the\nown posture\" until those and other\nsources.'\nthreat to the West but said it is still\nquestions, such as \"Mr. Gorba\nCheney, 48, has been criticized,\ntoo early for the United States to\nchev's tenure,\" are answered.\nsometimes in letters on editorial\nreduce military forces in Europe or\n\"I started out as a real skeptic,\npages, for obtaining draft defer-\nelsewhere\nfrankly, about Mr. Gorbachey,\" the\nments during the Vietnam war but\nCheney said that in frequent\nformer Republican representative\ntelling the Senate Armed Services\nmeetings of the National Security\nfrom Wyoming said.\nCommittee during his confirmation\nCouncil the Bush administration is\n\"Having watched over the last\nhearing that he would have been\nfocusing on the Gorbachev initia-\nfew years, having visited the Soviet\nglad to serve if called Cheney said\ntives and how to respond to them.\nUnion and [having] visited with him\nthat when he was between 8 and\nHe said the conclusions from these\non a couple of occasions and\n26 there were periods when he was\nsessions will shape future U.S. stra-\nwatched this process unfold-sit-\neligible to be drafted but had ob\ntegic forces and overseas troop de-\nting in my office last week with the\ntained student and marriage/defer-\nployments.\nSoviet ambassador discussing the\nments from the draft for most of\n\"At the heart\" of this administra\nelection returns in the Soviet\nthe period because \"I had other pri-\ntion review, he said, are: \"How\nUnion, something I never really\norities in the '60s than military ser-\nSmuch of a threat the Soviet Union\nanticipated having the opportunity\nvice.\npresents to the West. How has it\nto do-I've become a believer in\n\"I don't regret the decisions I\n[the threat] changed? What circum-\nthe notion that Gorbachev wants\nmade. I complied fully with all the\nstances could lead us to believe that\nfundamentally to reform Soviet so-\nrequirements of the statutes, reg-\nwe could reduce our level of vigi-\nciety economically.\nistered with the draft when I turned\nlance?\"\n\"In order to achieve economic\n18. Had I been drafted, I would\nAsked during an interview with\nchange,\" Cheney said, \"he's also\nhave been happy to serve. I think\nfour reporters whether the Cold\ngoing to have to push certain polit-\nthose who did in fact serve deserve\nWar is over, Cheney replied, \"Clear-\nical reforms, i.e. elections. How all\nto be honored for their service\n\"ly, the prospects of conflict between\nthat translates into an altered mil-\nWas it a noble cause? Yes, indeed, I\nthe United States and Soviet Union\nitary posture is still an open ques-\nthink it was,\" he said of U.S. par-\nappear to have receded somewhat,\"\ntion.\"\nticipation in the conflict.\nPhotocopy-Preservation\nWestern military experts have long dei\nbated whether specially trained Soviet Op\nerational Maneuver Groups exist. There\nhas been evidence of special, large scale\ntraining exercises in East Germany, but\nanalysts weren't sure what they meant\n3/14/89\nMr. Karber said such groups were part\nof NATO worst case nightmare\nSoviets Outline\nnamely that tank heavy Soviet units would\nhave the power to quickly exploit NATO\nweaknesses in northern Germany and\npunch through to the Rhine River, splitting\nTroop-Cut Plan\nNATO forces, He believes the Soviet plan\nwas then to encircle and annihilate more\npowerful U.S. Army units, concentrated\nIn East Germany\nmostly in southern Germany.\nHe said Soviet officials have identified a\nfifth Operational Maneuver Group in\nUnits Designed to Spearhead\nCzechoslovakia, which they say they will\nremove and disband\nNATO Attack to Leave\nMr. Karber said that Maj Gen. G. Ba\ntenin, a top military adviser to the Com-\nAides Tell: a U.S. Adviser\nmunist Party Central Committee, and\nother Soviet officials sald the remaining\nSoviet army units in Eastern Europe will\nBy JOHN J. FIALKA\nbe reconfigured into new. lighter units\nStaff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL\nSoviet tank divisions, which have 328\nWASHINGTON-The Soviet Union says\ntanks, will be trimmed to 260 tanks. Motor-\nit: plans to remove from East, Germany\nized rifle divisions, which have 270 tanks,\nfour crack army divisions that had been\nwill be restructured into new defensive\nspecially prepared to spearhead a possible\ndivisions with 160 tanks and an increased\nattack on the West, according to one of the\nnumber bf light anti tank weapons. Infan-\nWest's leading experts on conventional ar-\nmaments.\ntry units based in the Soviet Union, which\nC\ncurrently have 270 tanks, will be converted\nPhillip A. Karber, a senior vice presi-\ninto experimental \"machine gun artillery\ndent of Washington-based BDM Corp., said\ndivisions; which will have about 40 tanks\nthe divisions-called. Operational Maneu-\nand be trained to fight defensive battles\nver Groups-had been given special train\nfrom fortified positions; Mr. Karber said.\ning, the best commanders, elite troops and\nBecause of their capacity, to project of\nextra tanks. But he said they now will be\nfensive power quickly OR the ground, tanks\ndisbanded and their modern tanks will be\nhave been the measure of aggressive Inten\nconverted to construction. cranes and log\ntions in Central Europe: Mr. Karber said\nremoval machinery. among other uses.\nthat Sovlet officials have told him that the\nHe plans to tell the House Armed Serv\n000 tanks coming out of Central Europe\nIces Committee today that, if the Soviets\nare the Soviet Union's newest tanks, so\nfollow their pledge; and if North Atlantic\nthey will be converted to peaceful uses: He\nTreaty Organization forces remain the\nsaid 000 older Soviet tanks/most of them\nsame; the threat of a surprise attack on\nbased in the Soviety Union, will be de\nthe West has been taken away\nstroyed or\nAsked about Mr. Karber's comments,\nMr. Karber said the Soviet promises\nState Department official said he believed\nlend credibility to Moscow's campaign to\nthis was the first time the Soviets have\nbush for military cuts from the West\nacknowledged that they have Operational\nWhat they're talking about is a whole re\nManeuver Groups, In effect, they've ack-\nversal of the structure of military competi\nnowledged what we've said all along the\ntion that drove the Cold War Whe said\nofficial said. They have this offensive ca\nHe also said the Soviet leadership S\nit pability and it' far beyond what they d\nlonger termi goals for the year 2000 call for\nneed for defensive purposes\na nuclear weapons free Europe and for the\n(If Mr Karber is one of the Pentagon's top\nremoval of -Soviet military. forces from\noutside advisers on conventional arma-\nEastern Bloc countries, with the exception\nment and a well known hawk on NATO\nof small command and control and logis\nstrategy. He said he was taken aside by\ntics units that would be needed in a mili-\nSoviet officials during a recent trip to Mos\ntary emergency.\nCOW: While other members of aigroup of\nThe Soviet Navy, he added, is weighing\ntouring Western military analysts were\nthe possibility of removing as many as 50\ntaken on a trip on a Soviet Navy cruiser,\nattack submarines from service, as a ges:\nMr. Karber said he was invited to a series\nture to begin bargaining with an eye to\nof meetings with Soviet officials who gave\nward reducing the U.S. carrier fleet,\nhim detailed answers to his questions\nabout a pledge Soviet leader Mikhail Gor-\nbachev made in December to trim the So-\nviet army by 500,000 men and :10,000\ntanks.\n\"If the Soviets had asked me to come in\nand design the cuts SO that they would take\naway the disproportionate. (Soviet) threat\nin Central Europe, I couldn't have done it\nbetter-and can't believe I'm, saying\nthat, Mr. Karber said in an interview.\nThe Soviet proposals, he noted, appear\nto be part of a master plan that backs up\nMr. Gorbachev's propaganda campaign.\nthe\nAlready that campaign is causing a signifi-\nPhotocopy-Preservation\nThe FY 1991\nDepartment of Defense\nBudget\nSTATEMENT OF DEFENSE\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA\nMyths and Reality\nThe FY 1991\nDepartment of Defense\nBudget\nSTATEMENT OF DEFENSE\nT\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA\nMyths and Reality\nPercent Real Growth in Defense Budget Authority\nÖ\nIs most of the DoD Budget allocated to\nexpensive hardware and sophisticated weapons?\n7.5\n6.5\nA:\nNo. Almost 50 percent (47.2%) of the proposed\nFY 1991 budget would go to military and\n5\ncivilian personnel and their related costs,\nincluding training and medical costs.\nCumulative Real Growth 1985 - 95 equals -22 percent\n2.5\nAnother 12 percent is allocated to the\noperations and maintenance accounts for the\npurchase of fuel and for the maintenance and\n0\nrepair of equipment and facilities.\n-1.3\nThe proposed funding for investment, which\n-2.5\n-2.1\n-2.0\n-2.0\n-2.0\n-2.0\n-2.6\ntotals 40.7 percent of the FY 1991 budget,\n-2.7\nincludes military contruction and family\n-3.8\nhousing and; Research, Development, Test and\n-5\n-4.4\nEvaluation of weapon systems, in addition\n1985\n1986\n1987\n1988\n1989\n1990\n1991\n1992\n1993\n1994\n1995\nto the procurement of weapons already in\nproduction.\n1\n14\nTotal Obligational Authority\n($ in Billions)\nÖ\nIsn't the Department of Defense budget really\ncontinuing to grow?\n$36\n(12.1%)\nCurrent Year\nA:\nThe military budget has declined each year in real\nOperations\nterms since FY 1985.\n$120.9\n(40.7%)\nBased on the President's budget for FY 1991,\n$140.4\ndefense has already been cut by 16 percent in\nCurrent Year\n(47.2%)\npurchasing power since FY 1985.\nInvestment:\nProcurement, R&D\n$297.3\nand MILCON\nIncluding budget projections through FY 1995,\nPay & Related\nthe total decline since FY 1985 will be 22 percent.\n13\n2\nQ: Do \"big ticket\" expenditures on new strategic\nReductions to FY 1991 Budget Authority\nweapons account for the biggest share of defense\n($ in Billions)\nbudget growth?\n$395.5\n400\nA:\nStrategic forces account for only 8 percent of\n$364.9\nthe proposed FY 1991 budget compared to 9.5\npercent five years ago. For example, the Peace-\nkeeper missile, B-2 aircraft, C-17 aircraft, SSN-21\n$324.3\n$320.9\n$311.0\nand Strategic Defense Initiative programs represent\n6.5 percent of the FY 1991 budget.\n$295.1\n300\nIf the total budget authority for these programs\n($19.2 billion) were cancelled in FY 1991, it\nwould only save $4.6 billion in outlays in FY 1991.\n200\nJan 86\nJan 87\nJan 88\nJan 89\nApr 90\nJan 90\n3\n12\n1991 DoD Major Force Programs\nQ: Hasn't the Department of Defense budget been\n(Total Budget = $297.3 Billion)\nleft virtually untouched by budget reductions taken\nto reduce the deficit?\nAdmin\n$7 BII = 2%\nAll Other\n$3 Bil = 1%\nStrategic Forces\nA:\nThe Defense budget has been cut continuously\nTraining &\n$23 Bil = 8%\nMedical:\nand drastically since January 1986.\n$41 Bil = 14%\nThe FY 1991 budget level was first projected to\nSupply &\nMaintenance\nthe Congress in January 1986 as the last year\n$26 Bil = 9%\nof the Five Year Defense Plan. This plan called\nfor $395.5 billion to fund the FY 1991\nR&D\nGeneral Purpose\ndefense program.\n$29 BII = 10%\nForces\nThe FY 1991 budget (for the fiscal year that\n$112 Bil = 38%\nbegins on October 1, 1990) is currently being\nIntel &\nconsidered by the Congress. The President has\nGuard & Reserve\nComm\nrequested $295.1 billion for DoD. That figure\n$17 Bil = 6%\n$32 Bil = 11%\nis $100 billion below the original projections\nAir & Seallft\nin the plan.\n$6 Bil = 2%\n11\n4\nQ:\nDoes the Department of Defense continue to increase\nthe number of civilian personnel even though the\nShares of the Budget - Outlays\ntotal budget has been reduced each year since 1985?\n55\nA:\nTotal DoD civil service employees, by the end of\n50\nFY 1991, is projected to be the lowest since FY 1984.\n45\nA 20,800 reduction is proposed in the number of\nT A C N G E E P E R\nPayments to Individuals\n40\n(Increase from 20.9% to 53.2%)\n35\ncivilian personnel in the FY 1991 budget.\nDefense\n30\n(Decrease from 51.5% to20.6%)\nA reduction of 7,800 personnel is associated with\n25\nthe Defense Management Review and demonstrates\n20\nthe Department's aggressive use of management\n55\n60\n65\n70\n75\n80\n85\n90\n95\nimprovements to reduce staffing wherever possible.\nFISCAL YEARS\nThe decreased workload at navy shipyards and\naircraft and ordnance facilities results in 13,000\npersonnel reductions.\n5\n10\n1991 DoD Civilian Manpower\nQ: Does the Department of Defense budget consume\n(Total Manpower = 1,095,700)\nthe largest share of federal outlays?\nA: In 1955, the Department of Defense accounted\nfor 52 percent of all Federal outlays. Payments\nto individuals (social security, etc.) accounted for\n21 percent.\nDefense\nForty years later, by the end of FY 1995, DoD\nAgencies\noutlays are projected to decline to 21 percent of\n(104,100\ntotal outlays, while payments to individuals will\nAir Force\nincrease to 52 percent. This is a complete reversal\n(258,000)\nof the situation that existed in 1955.\nArmy\n(391,900)\nNavy & Marine Corps\n(341,000)\n9\n6\nQ: Isn't it true that the Department of Defense budget\ndoes not respond to the changes in world events,\nsuch as those in Eastern Europe, especially in establishing\n1991 DoD Military Manpower\nmilitary manpower levels where the major portion of\n(Total Manpower = 2,038,800)\ndefense reductions must occur?\nA:\nFY 1991 Active force levels are projected to be\nMarine Corps\n91,400 below the FY 1989 level. Reductions of\n(196,500)\nthis magnitude cut into force structure, and two\nactive CONUS (Continental United States) Army\nAir Force\nDivisions will be deleted in FY 1991.\n(530,000)\nThe proposed total active military end strength\nwill be at the 1980 level. In fact, the Army and\nArmy\nAir Force levels will be the lowest since 1950.\n(727,500)\nPlanning is going forward to further draw-down\nNavy\ntroop strength, equipment and weaponry in Europe\n(584,800)\nin anticipation of the signing of a Conventional\nForces in Europe (CFE) agreement.\n7\n8"
}