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
415892721
label
[Snow-Miscellaneous, 1989-1992]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
415892721
contentType
document
title
[Snow-Miscellaneous, 1989-1992]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
13899-006
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
415892721
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
925d934f521afe11
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:
13899
Folder ID Number:
13899-006
Folder Title:
[Snow-Miscellaneous, 1989-1992]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
18
29
2
7
<ORIG> UPI
<TOR> 910126145610
<TEXT>D A BC-GULF-NEWCITIZEN:255PES
1-26 0343
NEW CITIZEN ACTIVATED WITH NAVY RESERVE UNIT@
AKRON, OHIO (UPI) PRAVIN SINGH BHAKUNI BECAME A U.S. CITIZEN FRIDAY
AND ON SUNDAY HE'LL BE ACTIVATED WITH HIS NAVY RESERVE UNIT TO HELP IN
`OPERATION DESERT STORM.
BHAKUNI, 21, A NATIVE OF INDIA WHO HAS LIVED IN THE UNITED STATES FOR
17 YEARS, WAS NOT SCHEDULED TO OFFICIALLY BECOME A U.S. CITIZEN UNTIL
FEB. 5. BUT WHEN WORD CAME THAT HIS NAVY RESERVE UNIT WAS BEING
ACTIVATED, GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS SPEEDED UP HIS CITIZENSHIP PROCESS.
HE WAS SWORN IN AS A CITIZEN FRIDAY IN SUMMIT COUNTY COMMON PLEAS
COURT. COURT OFFICIALS SAID THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
RUSHED THROUGH THE PAPER WORK TO ALLOW HIM TO BE SWORN IN EARLY.
'`IT DOESN'T FEEL ANY DIFFERENT BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE I'VE BEEN MORE OF
AN AMERICAN THAN AN INDIAN FOR THE LAST 17 YEARS, SAID BHAKUNI, A
UNIVERSITY OF AKRON JUNIOR MAJORING IN COMPUTER SCIENCE.
HIS PARENTS SENT HIM TO THE UNITED STATES AT THE AGE OF 4 TO LIVE
WITH HIS AUNT AND UNCLE, WHO HAVE SINCE ADOPTED HIM.
BHAKUNI SAID HIS NATURAL PARENTS WANTED HIM TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITIES
AMERICA COULD OFFER. HE SAID HE JOINED THE NAVY RESERVE TO GIVE
SOMETHING BACK TO THE COUNTRY WHILE ALSO TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE
EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS THE MILITARY HAD TO OFFER.
''I ALSO FELT THE UNITED STATES HAS GIVEN ME EVERY OPPORTUNITY,
BHAKUNI SAID. "I FELT I SHOULD RECIPROCATE.
BHAKUNI SAID HE IS A CORPSMAN, NOTING THAT SINCE HE WAS A RESIDENT
ALIEN WHEN HE SIGNED UP HE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO HOLD ANY POSITION IN THE
MILITARY THAT REQUIRED A SECURITY CLEARANCE.
IN BECOMING A CITIZEN HE PROMISED `THAT I WILL BEAR ARMS ON BEHALF
OF THE UNITED STATES.
''IT'S MY OWN WAY OF SHOWING THAT I HAVE FAITH AND LOYALTY TO MY
COUNTRY, BHAKUNI SAID.
BHAKUNI'S UNIT, THE 3RD MARINES, 25TH BATTALION, IS TO HEAD TO CAMP
LEJEUNE, N.C., ON SUNDAY. THE NEXT STOP COULD BE IN SAUDI ARABIA, BUT HE
IS NOT SURE.
"I MAY BE ON THE FRONT LINES. I MAY BE AT A BATTALION HOSPITAL, HE
SAID. "I THINK I CAN DO A JOB WHEREVER THEY SEND ME.
UPI 01-26-91 02:55 PES
<ORIG> REUTER
<TOR> 910128103935
<TEXT>
281539 MIS :BC-GULF-QUOTES
U.S. SERVICEMEN TELL OF GULF WAR EXPERIENCE
DHAHRAN, SAUDI ARABIA, JAN 28, REUTER - HERE ARE SOME
QUOTES FROM U.S. SERVICEMEN IN OPERATION DESERT STORM IN THE
GULF:
-- "I'VE BEEN BOMBED BY OUR OWN AIR FORCE. I DON'T THINK
THEY DID IT INTENTIONALLY." - GENERAL NORMAN SCHWARZKOPF, U.S.
COMMANDER OF ALLIED FORCES IN THE GULF.
-- "WE'RE ALL TIRED, WE ALL STINK, BUT THAT'S LIFE IN THE
MAGIC KINGDOM." - U.S. MARINE STAFF SERGEANT ALLEN BRUCE IN A
PEPTALK TO HIS MEN.
-- "I WENT FROM BOMBS TO BOMBAST." - U.S. ARMY CHAPLAIN
LIEUTENANT-COLONEL DON ALLYN, WHO ONCE SERVED AS AN ARTILLERY
OFFICER.
-- "THE LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL IS BAGHDAD. " - U.S.
ARMY STAFF SERGEANT JEFFREY WHELER.
-- "I HATE THE NEW ARMY. NOBODY SMOKES. " -- A VETERAN ARMY
SERGEANT.
-- "WE PUT ON OUR PANTS THE SAME WAY AS EVERBODY ELSE. IT'S
JUST THAT OURS HAVE SHIRTS ATTACHED." - A U.S. NAVY FIGHTER
ILOT ON THE MYSTIQUE OF HIS JOB.
-- "WE GOT ALL THESE CULTURE CLASSES BEFORE WE GOT OVER HERE
AND I'M STILL WONDERING WHEN WE'LL SEE A SAUDI." CAPTAIN
SALVADOR RODAS, ON DEPLOYMENT IN REMOTE DESERT REGIONS.
-- "HE HAS LOOSED THE FATEFUL LIGHTNING OF HIS TERRIBLE
SWIFT SWORD. - COMMANDER JEFF TURNER, QUOTING THE BIBLE, ON
LAUNCHING A CRUISE MISSILE INTO IRAQ.
-- "YOU CAN'T GET A HOSTAGE OUT OF A MISSILE. A MISSILE
CAN'T BE AFRAID. - U.S. NAVY LIEUTENANT GUY ZANTI, ON THE
ADVANTAGES OF CRUISE MISSILES.
-- "WHAT WAS HE (THE GENERAL) GOING TO DO, SEND ME TO SAUDI
ARABIA?" - MAJOR FRANK TIMMONS, ON HIS UNCONVENTIONAL METHODS OF
ASKING SENIOR OFFICERS TO SIGN SUPPLY DOCUMENTS.
-- "WE VALIDATED THE PHYSICAL PRINCIPLE THAT WATER RUNS
DOWNHILL." - MARINE LIEUTENANT-COLONEL JAY VESELY, ON DIGGING A
FOXHOLE IN THE RAIN.
INTERRUPTED
NNNN
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
2
1ST STORY of Level 1 printed in FULL format.
Washington Monthly Copyright (c) 1989 Information Access Company;
Copyright (c) Washington Monthly Co. 1989
March, 1989
SECTION: Vol. 21; No. 2; Pg. 10
LENGTH: 4528 words
HEADLINE: The Navy we need and the one we got
BYLINE: Shuger, Scott
BODY:
Scott Shuger is writing a book on the Navy.
The current political and economic climate dictates that something like $ 300
billion worth of
militaryprogramswillhavetobecanceledduri=>;ngthenewadminis
tration.Andofallthe
services, the Navy is the most likely to be deeply cut. Over the past
eight years, it is the only service that has actually grown. While the number
of Army divisions has remained the same and the number of planes in the Air
Force's tactical wings has actually shrunk, the Navy's fleet has swelled by
more than 100 ships to 587, and its senior enlisted ranks have almost doubled
since
1981.Moreover,theNavy'sproposalsfornewprograms-thosenotalre
adyunderway-t=>;otalaround
$ 80 billion.
Among the items the Navy is plumping for:
* Two more Mmitz-class nuclear supercarriers, for a total of eight vessels of
that class, bringing fleet strength to 15 flattops, up from 12 in 1981.
* Smaller ships. The Navy wants 26 Burke-class guided-missile destroyers to
go with the three already under construction and the 27 larger,
Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruisers already funded.
*Subsanyone?TheNavywantsupto3DSeawolfclassattacksubmari
nes-subsdesigned=>;tosink
other subs-producing a fleet of 100 nuclear-powered attack subs. The Navy
also wants money to complete the Ohio-class nuclear-powered submarines with
their long-range Trident D5 missiles, for a total of 16-20 boats of that class.
* Don't forget the planes. The Navy wants to continue purchasing the
carrier-based F/A-18 strike fighter, for a total of more than 1,000. It also
wants to buy a new version of the
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® NEXIS ®
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
3
Washington Monthly (c) 1989 IAC
carrier-basedF-14fighter,andtofundimprovementsfortheoldermo
delsalreadyinthe=>;
inventory, for a total of nearly 600.
To understand which weapons belong on the Navy's shopping list and which ones
don't, you have to understand the scenarios the Navy is likely to encounter.
While it's impossible to know just what our military needs will be next year,
let alone 5, 10, 15 years from now, we can be certain that we'll need
conventional weapons and nuclear weapons to keep the peace with the Soviets;
we'll need
tobereadytofightinlimited, "tactical' "engagements; andweshoul
dhaveth=>;ecapacityto
fight "strategic" battles on a global scale.
Many of the items on the Navy's budget request aren't what we need for any of
these scenarios. And many of the weapons that we do need are either inadequately
funded or missing from the budget entirely.
A one-shot deal
Consider that first item: two more big nuclear aircraft carriers. So powerful
is the mystique of carriers that senior Navy officials admit that in wartime
they'd r eally want not the 15 carriers
theirrequestisbasedonbu=>;t20to24.Yetthecarriermystique beliesconsiderable
historical shortcomings. World War II's largest aircraft carrier, Japan's
Shinano, had been in service for only ten days when it was sunk by four torpedo
hits from a single American submarine. [See "The Sinking of a Supercarrier,
Joseph Enright and James Ryan, May 1987.] In Vietnam, despite operating in an
environment free of submarines and, for the most part, free of fighter
aircraft,
U.S.carrierairwingshardlyalteredthewar'soutcome-butdi=>;dp
roducescoresofPOWs.
Limited uses of U.S. carriers in Grenada and Lebanon, and the use of an
Argentine carrier in the Falklands, were likewise ineffectual.
These instances of vulnerability and inefficiency suggest that the Mmitz-class
big-deck carriers the Navy wants won't be useful in many of the scenarios it
must plan for. As far as the strategic nuclear environment goes, it is hard to
see their advantage. The Sov iets' development of a
worldwidereconnaissancesystem, cruisemissiles, andasu=>; bstanti
alocean-going, blue-water
navy has largely negated any pre-existing American edge.
During my own service as a naval officer in the late seventies and early
eighties I participated in some exercises where, in theory at least, my carrier
battle group arrived undetected at a point in the ocean from which it could
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® ® NEXIS®
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
4
Washington Monthly (c) 1989 IAC
launch raids against Soviet targets. But we probably never did get close enough
to pull off an airstrike that would truly work. ("P robably" because, happily,
our
workremainedinthereal=>;mofsimulation,asallsuchexercisesd
o.Nooneknowsforsurewhat
would really happen.) Invariably, the flying distance required complicated
refueling plans, and, in order to conserve fuel, these bomber routes would be at
very high and hence very detectable altitudes. When we practiced long-range
strikes against non-Soviet targets, we ran into the same kinds of problems. In
addition, no naval aircraft has electronics immune to the debilitating
electromagnetic pulse produced by nuclear explosions.
=>;Sincestationingtankerairplanesalongflightrouteswouldbe
enormouslydifficultduring
battle, many of these sorties would wind up being one-way missions-recovering
on land or ditching in the sea after bomb delivery. Even supposing round-trip
missions could be pulled off, the carrier may well be located and sunk any time
after the raid launches, because, while carriers have a hard time hiding from
the Soviets under the best of circumstances, they become much more
detectableonceplanesstartoperating.=>;Soevenifinlandtarget
sgethit, youmightstill
lose the subsequent use of an entire airwing. So in all-out and anti-Soviet
scenarios, supercarriers look to be a one-shot deal. It seems that the Navy
quietly admitted as much when some years ago it pretty much dropped carriers
from our first-line nu clear war plans.
The old joke is that the reason you build aircraft carriers is so you can put
planes on them to
keepthemfromgettingsunk.Becauseofthedifficultiesfacingthem
to resemble this punch line. Naval aviators proudly think of the 86-plane
airwing as the carrier's "main battery," but much of that air strength has gone
over to defending the carrier. It used to be that a carrier's fighter
complement-the Hellcats, the Corsairs, the Panthers, the Phantoms-could sling
bombs and rockets underneath, But the 20 F-14 fighters onboard today's carriers
carry no air-to-surface weapons (save for an extremely short-range gun). Inst
ead, they carry air-to-air
weaponsdesignedto=>;staveofffightersandbombersthatmightatt
ackthecarrier.Thefive
aircraft that jam enemy radar and the five planes we use to provide our own
radar are likewise impotent. Ditto for the ten antisubmarine planes and the
eight antisubmarine/search-and-rescue helicopters. That leaves only 38
planes-A-6, A-7, and F/A-18 bombers-for enemy ships and installations to worry
about. In other words, as an offensive threat, a navy supercarrier is only
about 44 percent efficient.
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® NEXIS®
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
5
Washington Monthly (c) 1989 IAC
Gas money
Despitethesed=>; rawbacks, thereremainssomeevidencethatcarr
ierscanbeusefulinlimited,
tactical fighting, Indeed, the Soviets seem to recognize this. At a shipyard
on the Black Sea, they are now completing their second medium-sized, U.
S.-style aircraft carrier. (The first was finished in 1985, but it's still not
deployed.) These new vessels have catapults for launching heavy aircraft,
arresting-gear for landing them, and angled decks tha t allow carriers to launch
and
landaircraftatthesametime-featuresl.S.=>;carriershavehadf
orageneration.TheSoviets
evidently believe that in a crisis, where only a limited bit of hell is
breaking loose, one piece at a time-and where the theater of operations is
bereft of hostile submarines-carriers can provide military power and a visually
striking symbol of national presence, without depending on foreign basing
arrangements.
But there are factors that impugn the need for bigdeck, nuclear-po wered
carriers like the
Mmitz-class.MuchofthehugeexpenseofaMmitz-clas=>;scarriers
temsfromthecostofits
nuclear power plants. The argument in favor of this kind of propulsion is
that it can go 13 years between refuelings. But since most of a carrier battle
group's clements aren't nuclearpowered, what good is this? All the escorts-the
battleships, the cruisers, the destroyers, the frigates-must refuel every week
or SO. And the planes on board a carrier guzzle fu el at about the same rate.
Withitsairplanes,aMmitz-classcarriercostsatleast$ 5billio
n. .Thisdrains=>;capital
from training, testing, parts, and maintenance. Amazingly, it's not uncommon
for navy squadrons to cut back their flight hours drastically or even to be
grounded due to the scarcity of aviation fuel near the end of a fiscal quarter.
This even happens to squadrons already at sea. Several times during my carrier
service we had to drop anchor and wait for more fuel money. I'd much rather
have "less capable" carriers with more readiness. A gassed-up VW beats a
bone-dry Corvette off the line
every=>; time.
One reason for the calamities aboard the Stark (hit by an Iraqi plane) and the
Vincennes (which accidentally downed an Iranian 747) was that they found
themselves operating in the Persian Gulf without any air support from a carrier.
[See "Why Did the Navy Shoot Down 290 Civilians?" Scott Shuger, October 1988]
That's because the Navy is loath to deploy carriers to bodies of water it
considers too small-where it fears they can become trapped. Thus the se two
most recent U.S. naval
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® NEXIS
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
6
Washington Monthly (c) 1989 IAC
disastersclgarly=>;illustratewhatwemightcalltheparadoxofth
e"highvalueunit":ifa
weapon is considered too valuable to lose, it is often considered too
valuable to use. This is like having a couch so expensive, everyone is afraid
to sit on it.
A prominent proposal to make naval airpower more practical and cost-effective
has been the midsize or "Gary Hart" carrier-a conventionally powered smaller
carri er. While this might work in
aworldwithhonestcontractorsandnointerservicerivalries,it'sl
ikelythat, i=>;nthisworld,
any such ship will end up being a high value unit anyway.
The real solution was showcased in the Falklands war-the only comprehensive
naval action since World War II. At the center of the British naval force were
two small, straight-deck carriers supporting Harrier
vertical/short-take-off-and-landing (VSTDL) jets, which don't require a catapult
because they take off almost as vertically as helicopters. Such a si mplified
airwing-far simpler
thanthatwhichwouldoperatefroma"GaryHart"=>;carrier--cansti
llperformawidevarietyof
operations. In the Falklands, the British had these planes flying airdefense
and ground-support missions, as well as helicopters providing antisubmarine
protection a nd search-and-rescue missions.
The results were impressive: Harriers destroyed 26 Argentine aircraft in
exchange for only two losses due to enemy action, and their cluster-bombs and
rockets helpe d crumble opposing army units.
(Thissuccesswasdue, atleastinpart, totheabsenceofacredibl
eArg=>; entinesubmarine
threat.)
The U.S. Navy already has 12 similar VSTOL/helo carriers (and is hoping to
build two more), but because naval planners are 50 enthralled/paralyzed by big
carriers and the kind of aircraft that needs a big flight deck, it limits them
to the very ancillary role of supporting marine amphibious assaults, Amazingly,
it could probably build eight or ten more of them for the price of the two
proposed nuclear big-decks. (Since it's politically infeasible nowad ays to
call any ships
"Gar=>;yHart"carriers,perhapswecanthinkoftheas"DonnaRice"
carriers-capableofcausing
some trouble and unimportant enough to be used.) The resultant force of 20
small carriers would give the U.S. Navy plenty of usable Falklands-style
power for limited battles using conventional weapons without wasting assets on
big, strategic nuclear scenarios against the Soviets in which naval air power no
longer makes much sense.
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® NEXIS®
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
7
Washington Monthly (c) 1989 IAC
Phoenix and Midway
WhatabouttheplanesthattheNavyisrequesting,thoseF/A-18=>
;sandF-14s?WeretheNavyto
switch over to a VSTOL/helo small carrier force, it wouldn't need more
F/A-18s and F-145. But even if big-deck carriers are retained, there are
grounds for concern about the particular aircraft the Navy wants.
It's true, the F/A-18 is faster and more maneuverable than the A-7 bomber it is
replacing. It has an advanced "heads-up" cockpit design, where the gauges are
displ ayed as part of the
windshield.Ithasabetterradar.AndunliketheA-7,itistwin-e
ngined-makingi=>;tmore
survivable and thus better for long operations over open oceans. These are
the fighter-sty le features that make it fun to fly, but the shortcomings of the
F/A-18 have been clear for some time.
[See "Dress Blues and Bleeding Mohawks," Scott Shuger, October 1983.] As a
bomber, it's a big step backwards because it carries fewer bombs than the A-7
and can only carry them about half as far The Navy has tried to solve the
problem, but there's no quick fix. Outfi tting the F/A-18 with external
fueltanks=>;hampersitsbombcapacityandhindersitsmuch-vaunted
maneuverability.Shortening
all scheduled carrier flights to accommodate the F/A-18's poorer endurance
restricts the range of the entire airwing. Here is another instance where the
Navy "moderni zed" and lost punch.
The manufacturer of the A-7, LTV, has put forward several programs to upgrade
its engine, electronics, maneuverability, and survivability at about one-third
th e cost of an F/A-18. This
sn'tnearlyasexcitingasbuyinganewplane,but=>;itmakesmore sense.
The F-14 that the Navy wants more of is a formidable aircraft. It has the
best fighter radar there is (because of its long-range detection, Iranians
successfully used it as an early warning plane). It has the longest-range
fighter weapon-the Phoenix missile. Its variable geometry wing gives it an
unrivaled combination of performance and "station time," the ability to stay
aloft for long periods. But there are still big problems.
Despitethefactthatone-on-onetheF-14canp=>;robablybeatan
yfighterintheworld(with
the possible exception of the U.S. Air Force F-15 and F-16), it's hard to
see how that's relevant to combat against the Soviets, whose fighter planes
outnumber ours somewhere between six and seven to one. (This includes the
obsolescent and obsolete planes they keep operational.) Unlike the Libyans, the
Soviets won't settle for even odds.
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® ® NEXIS®
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
8
Washington Monthly (c) 1989 IAC
Furthermore, the plane is advertised as being preeminent in air-to -air combat
against other
planesandindefendingaship=>;againstcruisemissilesorbombers
-butit'sverydifficultto
carry out both missions simultaneously. If the F-14 carries all or mostly
Phoenix missiles for its mission of shooting down bombers or the antiship cruise
missiles they carry-it can carry up to six of these huge things-it must
sacrifice all or some of its short- and mediumrange missiles, and also lose a
good deal of its maneuverability.
But suppose we are in the Pacific, where Soviet missiles pose an e normous
threat to our
carriers.Andsupp=>;osethatwehavethreecarriersdeployedthere
.Furthersupposethatal160
of the F-14s are "mission capable" and each is fully loaded with six Phoenix
missiles. On the best estimates available, the Soviets have at least 350-400
antiship cruise missiles launchable from the bombers of their Pacific fleet
alone. That means it's not unlikely that a few air-launched cruise missiles
will score nuclear hits on carriers in such an all-out scenario even if every
navy F-14 pilot has a perfect day.
Thereares=>;omefeaturesofthesituationthatmakeithardto
accepteventhisoptimistican
outcome. First, I have never witnessed or heard of an F-14 squadron with all
its planes "up" at once. Second, one of those carriers deployed in the Pacific
Fleet is likely to be the Midway, which, due to its smaller flight-deck and
hangar, doesn't have any F-145. Third, it's more than a little reasonable to
expect that in any such scenario the Soviets wil 1 also be shooting at our
carrierswithsub-launchedandsurface-launc=>;hedantishipmissiles
,notjustthosefrombombers.
And fourth, and perhaps most relevant to any discussion of the budget, the
Phoenix missile is 50 expensive-costing $ 1 million apiece-that carrier airwings
don't carry enough of them to outfit each of their F-14s with six.
If we are going to spend more money for fighters based on carriers, we should go
to something with the air-to-air capability of the F-14, which is due largely to
t he superb heat-seeking
Sidewinder.ButweshouldprobablycanceltheS=>;parrowmissile,w
hichimposesmaneuvering
restrictions on the aircraft launching it and which is vulnerable to
countermaneuvers and electronic countermeasures. And we would be better off
without the impractical weight and expense of the Phoenix missile.
Money well spent
Let's turn now to submarines. This is probably an area where the Navy
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® NEXIS®
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
9
Washington Monthly (c) 1989 IAC
should spend heavily, although in a somewhat different fashion than is currently
being sugg ested. The simple fact, of
course, isthatsubmarinesaremuch, muchha=>; rdertodetectthans
urfaceships"There-aretwo
kinds of ships," say the sub guys, "submarines and targets." I've seen enough
photos of American carriers through periscope crosshairs-most sub crew offices
feature one-to become a believer. Despite all the antisubmarine warfare (ASW)
equipment that carrier groups take with them to sea, in my own experience most
exercises against subs ended up with my carrie r getting a green flare at
closequarters,thestandardsimulationforasuccessfultorpedoorc
ruisem=>; issileattack.
There are two important corollaries of the submarine's stealth. First, it
follows that no matter how sophisticated and expensive, submarines are quite
generally not high value units-we can afford to use them because we aren't as
likely to lose them. In other words, firepower put on a submarine is more
efficient than that put on anything else. That's one reason why the Navy's
recent trend of putting Harpoon and Tomahawk cruise missiles on attac k
submarines is a good move.
Iftheseweapo=>;nsareworthwhile-andtheevidenceisthattheRuss iansrespectthem
tremendously-then they should be put where they'll do the most good.
The second consequence is of particular importance for strategic scenarios.
Let's say that any feature of a weapon system that tends to discourage potential
adversaries from starting a war or escalating one already in progress is
"stabilizing" and that any feature that would encourage them to do so is
"destabilizing." Having most of our strategic warheads 0 n
virtually=>;impossible-to-findsubmarinesisquitestabilizing-since
theSovietsdon' tknowwhere
they are, they're less likely to launch against them. Putting a weapon on a
submarine enhances its stabilizing features more than putting it on anything
else.
Money spent on submarines is as well spent as money gets at the Pentagon. But
this doesn't mean that all of the proposed sub programs should be sacrosanct.
For inst ance, although nuclear power
makesmuchmoresenseforsubsthansurfaceships-sincetheyoperat=
>;eprettyindependently,they
aren't hampered by a conventionally powered entourage-and although
nuke-powered subs are getting quieter all the time, they still aren't the
quietest subs. No, that accolade goes to diesel/electric boats running on
batteries. Now these conventional designs don't have the operating range that
nukes have and hence would be suited only for roles where range doesn't
matter-say, a patrol off Norfolk or a minelaying operation in the Dar danelles
Straits near the
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® NEXIS®
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE 10
Washington Monthly (c) 1989 IAC
BlackSea.Butthei=>;mportanceofthosemissionsisagoodreason tobuildnon-nukesubs.
Right now, the U.S. Navy has only four diesel subs, none of them
state-of-the-art combat vessels. We currently depend on the diesel subs of our
allies to perform the missions diesels do best. It's foolish to rely on the
British, German, and Italian navies for our security. There are crucial
scenarios in which having friends with diesels won't do us mu ch good. The
Soviets maintain
missilesubpatrolsoffbothourcoasts,andwecan's>;texpectBrit
aintohelpuspatrolthem.
The closeness of Russian "boomers" to our shores positions them to fire
first-strike salvos with only a fraction of the warning time we'd get on their
ICBMs. This is dangerously destabilizing.
The best response to this would be to fill the waters close to our shores with
super-quiet diesel/electric boats, watching for the slightest indication of
launc h by those Russian subs.
Also,conventionallypoweredsubsrequirefewermen,andtheircrews
don'thavetounde=>;rgoas
much timeconsuming and expensive physics and engineering training. And if a
submarine is simpler to operate, crew members can concentrate more on tactics.
It's long been suspected that the Navy's nearly all-nuke sub force is very
strong on running submarines but not as strong as it should be on fighting with
them. (As a response to this problem, we should consider the British navy's
approach-maintaining two different classes of submarine officer, a ge neral
officer specializing in
tacticsandopera=>; tions,andanengineeringofficerspecializing npowerplants.)
Spit and shoestring
Although the Seawolf does represent some advances over the current U.S.
front-line nuclear attack sub, the Los Angeles-class-it has upgraded sonar, more
torpedo tubes, and is equipped for under-ice operations-if we eliminated the
Seawolf or cut back on it, we could build many more diesel/electrics, since they
cost only about one-fourth as much. Giv en the resultant gains in
strategicstability, independencefromoura=>;llies, andtacticalc
rewtalent, thisseemslikea
good trade.
Because the chief strategic value of submarines is that they enhance whatever
stabilizing features a weapon has, we need to think more carefully about
strategic subs. The present development of the Ohio-class sub and its D5
ballistic missile incorporates several principal changes over earlier systems:
increased missile range (from 4,500 to 6,000 nautical miles),
increasedmissileaccuracy(frombeingabletohitacitytobeingab
letohita=>;missilesilo),
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® NEXIS®
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE 11
Washington Monthly (c) 1989 IAC
increased missiles per sub (up from 16 on the Poseidon missile boats to 24 on
the Ohio-class), and increased warheads per missile (from eight to ten, with the
built-in possibility of going up to 14).
Of these features, only the first-increased missile range-is stabilizing. If
your subs can hit the enemy's targets from farther away, there is more ocean for
the subs to hide in. The upshot is that the enemy is that much less encouraged
to try a first strike, si nce retaliation is ensured.
=>;Butincreasingtheaccuracyofamissileactuallyharmsstability
Ifyoumakesub-launched
missiles accurate enough to hit nuclear weapons sites, rather than accurate
enough just to hit sprawling population centers, the enemy becomes jittery. If
he knows you have lots of virtually impossible-to-find weapons targeted at the
bulk of his nuclear arsenal, then (especially in a crisis) his fear of losing it
altogether tempts him to launch his nuc lear weapons first. And
increasingthenumberofwarheadspers=>;ubisalsoproblematic.S
ubmarinecommandersknowthat
no matter how stealthy their boats are in general, once they launch at least
one missile they will be much easier to find. So they are inclined to fire all
their missiles if they are inclined to fire any. Subjecting more warheads to
this logic heightens the rate at which a nuclear war would accelerate.
Attention should also be drawn to a curious feature of the Navy's current
attempts to improve
thewartimesurvivabilityofitsballisticmissilesu=>;bmarinecom and, control, and
communications (C3). While it is quite generally true that in the U.S.
military, combat C3 has been horribly neglected and stands in need of great
repair, here is a case where the neglect is stabilizing. As long as C3 with our
missile subs remains at the spit-and-shoestring level, the Soviets know that if
they were to decapitate the U.S. civilian and military authorities preemptively
they would suffer the response of a basically unlocatabl e fleet of autonomous
sub
commander=>;swhowouldattacktheirtargetsassoonastheystopped
hearingfromhome.Thisfact
makes such preemptive strikes less attractive to them.
Guerrillas and redcoats
In effect then, the Ohio-class submarine and supporting programs aren't adding
to stability. Here is a sobering example where technological changes have been
adopted not because they further military goals but simply because the
technology exists.
Wecouldgetbacktopurestrategicstrengthifweoptedforasub marineforcewiththe=>;
following features: long-range missiles, the longer the better, but with
decreased accuracy, fewer warheads per submarine, but more missile-bearing
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® NEXIS®
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE 12
Washington Monthly (c) 1989 IAC
submarines.
As for new surface ships, while there's still room in a modern navy for them,
I don't think there's much for the likes of the Ticonderoga-class and
Burke-class Aegis radar ships. For all their gee-whiz equipment, they won't
really be capable of acting inde pendently without air cover.
TheVincennes,aTiconderoga-classship,andtheStarkalread=>;ysh
owedthat.Andasurfaceship
is not the best antisubmarine platform-another submarine is. Nor is it the
best device for shooting down planes-another plane is. In most scenarios, these
fancy ships will fall prey to all the (far cheaper) cruise missiles and
torpedoes out there. Once again the Falklands war is instructive-of the 29
surface ships in the British task force, five were sunk and seven others were
damaged-a casualty rate of 41 percent. On the other hand, it is poss ible to
build surface
shi=>;psthataremorelikeguerrillasandlesslikeredcoats-wellar
med, high-speed, highly
maneuverable, small craft. Strap on a small gun, some cruise and antiair
missites and you have something that in reasonable numbers can cause some real
trouble. Just ask the U.S. carrier pilots who tried, without much luck, to
sink Vietnamese and Cambodian gunboats. Or the navy investigators who found
that the Vincennes's troubles with Iranian gu nboats contributed to its
miscalculationsabouttheAirbus.Mostofthen=>;aviesoftheworl
dhavegoodstocksofthese
craft. The Soviets have more than 500 of them. We have seven. There is no
reason why the U.S. Nactsy has a crappier small-boat fleet than your average
Colombian dr ug dealer.
In his just-published book on his years as Reagan's secretary of the Navy,
John Lehman defends his opposition to what he describes as the "whole trendy
school of mi litary reform.
[built]
aroundtheideasthatcomplexityandtechnologywerebadandthatsim
plicityandcheapnessw=>;ere
good." He argues: "The tremendous American edge in technology is an inherent
advantage provided by our culture and our economic system. We must build to
this advantage, not trade it away for cheaper, smaller, less capable ships and
aircraft and weapons built in greater numbers, which is the forte of a
totalitarian, centralized, Gosplan economy." This reference to the Soviets is
the worst kind of fallacy-like saying that because the Nazis introduced j ets
and rockets, we shouldn't
havethem.Inlightof=>;theraftoftechnotroublesbedevilingthe
NavythatLehmanboughtus,
we need to think much more carefully about the Navy his successors want to
buy us next.
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® NEXIS®
03/19/92
11:57
202 898 4255
BRITISH EMB WA
19-MAR-1992 15:12
NAD FCJ
Dan me Groaty:
19-MAR-1992 15:24
CCO PRESS 0712228578
NURI
-
V.K. 100
MIIN.
PYI. heat openh.
CONSERVATIVE
NEW
J.
1230 hrs
NEWS DEPARTMENT. CONSERVATIVE R
92 SMITH SQUARE. WISTMINSTOR, LOND
TAL: 071-222 9000 T
RELEASE TIME:
FAX: 071-222 1135 20d
Saturds
Rt Hon John Major MP
382/92
CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
Extract of a speech by the Rt Hon John Major MP, (Huntingdon). Prime Minister and Leader
of the Conservative Party, at the Conservative Central Council Meeting. Torquay today.
"The phoney war is over. The Barde of Britain has begun.
"That battle is a battle we're going to win.
"Win on our record.
Fai Pol
"Win on our policies.
"Win on our values.
"Win on merit - because we have the vision, the ideas, and the team to build Britain in the
90s. To make the future of our country as great as its past
"I'm not interested in standing still. I want to lead this country forward. To build on what
we've achieved. To continue to change the face of Britain. And enhance still further its
reputation and influence abroad.
/Be proud of
03/19/92
11:57
202 898 4255
BRITISH EMB WASH
003/015
19-MAR-1592 15:13
NAD FCO
071 930 2367
P.03
19-MAR-1992 13:24
CCO PRESS 0712228579
P.002/014
MAJOR 382/92
-2-
"Bc proud of what we achieved in the '80s. The work, the growth, and the success of those
years is the foundation of an even better future. So that when, in generations to come, people
look hack, they will say: This was when the battle was won. This was when the British
people came truly into their OWN. This was when secialism crumbled away and was seen off
forever.'
"After 16 months as Prime Minister, the immediate tasks I set myself and my colleagues have
been completed - winning the Gulf War, bringing inflation down. putting the council tax
safely in place. giving a new face to public service with the Citizen's Charter, safeguarding
the interests of Britain at Maastricht. and setting out in Tuesday's Budget our strategy for
recovery and growth
"That is now done. Britain is poised to come OUT of recession. All that is needed now is the
confidence that will come from a clear Conservative victory.
"And SO now is the time to seek 2 new mondate from the British people. I believe they will
share my vision. my ambitions for our future.
"Let me tell you how I see that future.
"I want to bring into being a different kind of country. Bury for ever old divisions in Britain
- between North and South. blue collar and white collar. polytechnic and university. They're
old style. Old hat. And we need to be rid of these prejudices. We want 2 country in which
people get on because of what they are, not who they are. If you are good enough, you can't
be too young and you can't be too old.
"For most of my lifetime, before I came into Parliament, before Margaret Thatcher changed
Britain infinitely for the better, people were expected to be dependent . never. however hard
they worked. never independent, never in control of their own lives or their family's future.
was a
03/19/92
11:58
202 898 4255
BRITISH EMB WASH
004/015
19-MAR-1992 15:41
NAD FCO
071 930 2367
P.01
19-MAR-1992 15:24
CCO PRESS 0712228578
Γ.003/014
MAJOR 382/92
-3-
"It was a world in which we were told that Governments knew best. They knew best how
to spend our moncy. How to make our choices. They knew best who should own homes,
and run businesses. They always knew better than us.
"And what happened? Town centres were bulldozed Homes ripped down. Good schools
closed. Taxes soared. Trade union barons carved out huge fiefdoms and marshalled their
militants at the factory gute. Our very history was rewritten; our traditions despised.
Through all that time, the time we were told that the man in Whitehall knew best, the people
of Britain knew better.
"And now. all over Europe, one after the other, the Socialist dominoes have gone down. Who
believes that the answer to Britain's problems is to go back to what everyone else has cast
into oblivion? Socialism was the crowning folly of our time, which at this coming Election
we Conservatives will finish for good.
"A century ago Lord Randolph Churchill said "Trust the people' It is one of the oldest truths
of Conservatism. That people know better than governments.
"We trusted the people We gave them the chance. And the British people led the world .
in a movement that has swept every continent
"Would they be privatising in Latin America today. if we hadn't first done it here?
"Would they be cutting high tax rates in India today, if we hadn't first done it here?
"Would they be planning to bring Eastern Europe into the Community today if we hadn't first
suggested it hero?
"How astounding that now in Latin America. in India, in Bulgaria, and Moscow they
understand more about free markets than they do in Walworth Road.
The Labour Party
03/19/92
11:58
202 898 4255
BRITISH EMB WASH
005/015
19-MAR-1992 15:15
NAD FC3
071 930 2367
P.05
CCO PRESS 0712222578
P.004/014
19-MAR-1992 15:25
MAJOR 382/92
4
"The Labour Party see the British people as pawns. We see them as partners. Partners in the
building ot Britain. With their values, through their values. commonsense everyday
Conservative values. Britain's future will be assured.
"That is why our programme for the '90s will be a partnership with the people. With a
Government that trusts the people. A decade of trust given and trust returned.
"I promise you this.
"Wherever freedom can be extended, there we will be.
"Wherever choice can be widened, there we will be.
"Wherever wealth can be created, there we will be
"Wherever care must be given. there we will be.
"That's the Conservative philosophy: wealth and welfare. hand in hand.
"Our partnership with the people is already touching every aspect of our daily lives. And it
is those lives that will be touched by the result of this Election - whether in city tower blocks.
in ionely villages. or along quict suburban roads.
"This crucial election is not 8 faraway battle fought between warring factions at Westminster.
It is a battle of ideas, of ideals - about our future. It is a battle about how we live - all of us.
It's about our schools. Our workplace. Our standard of living. Our security. It's sbout
who controls how we live us or the State.
"Our partnership with the people has come 3 long way. And we're going to take it further.
/In education we
03/19/92
11:59
C202 898 4255
BRITISH EMB WASH
19-MAR-1992 15:15
006/015
NAD FCO
071 930 2367
P.06
19-MAR-1992 15:25
CCO PRESS 0712226378
P.005/014
MAJOR 382/92
-5-
"In education we will go back to basics and make sure they're properly taught. Where
parents want them we'll open the way to grant-maintained schools, free of Council control.
We'll extend parental influence and choice, everywhere - because we must the people.
"In health we'll extend the reforms which have led R more patients being treated than ever
before. Don't be misled by Labour's shoddy. shabby propaganda about our National Health
Service. There will be more of those successful trust hospitals. More GP fundholders with
power for doctors to decide on their patients' needs. We're giving more weight to local
decisions, everywhere because we trust the people.
"In local government we'll open up to the public how their councils are doing, allow tenants
new rights and shake up arrogant bureaucracy. And, something else. there's a lasting
affection throughout the land for many of our historic and familiar counties and cities. That's
why we're asking the public's views on how local government should be structured.
everywhere.
"All these policies have something in common . that choices will be there wherever people
want them. We're giving power to the people, because we trust them. We're pushing choice
back to the people, because we want all of them . every single person in Britain - to have
greater control over their lives and their families' future. To be the masters. not the servants.
of their personal world. That's my Conservatism.
"To our fellow citizens I give this pledge: when the next Conservative Government has
completed its work, you will feel. more than you've ever felt before, that Britain belongs to
you. and that you have a secure place within it.
"But there is one area above all in which we trust the people. To do what they wish with the
money they earn. to have and to hold - for themselves and their children . a growing piece
of their country which they can call their own.
/Last Tuesday's Budger
03/19/92
11:59
T202 898 4255
BRITISH EMB WASH
007/015
19-MAR-1992 15:15
MAD FCO
871 930 2367
P.07
CAU FRESH 0712228578
Γ.006/014
19-MAR-1992 15:26
MAJOR 382/92
6
"Last Tuesday's Budget underlined the giant gulf between the Conservatives on the one hand
and Labour or Liboral on the other
"We want low tax and personal choice: they want high tax and State choice.
"What the country decides on that great divide will affect the future of every family in
Britain.
"When I became Prime Minister 1 said I wanted a nation at ease with itself. That means a
Government that people believe is fair. To be fair, isn't it right that those most in need
should be helped most? That's the Dritish instinct That's what 1 believe in And that's
what the Budget does. It has cus tax in a novel way - to help most those who earn least.
"The new 20p tax band does three things. It cuts tax for everybody. It confirms our intention.
as soon as we can, to lower the basic rate to 20 per cent. But. it also gives that benefit HOW
to four million taxpayers with the lowest incomes. In future. they'll only pay 20 per cent.
not 25 per cent.
"These are people on modest incomes. Mcn receiving low pay. Many married women, who
perhaps work part-time. Disabled workers who are often low paid. Pensioners with modest
savings. Young people starting out on their career. We've given them a helping hand. by
cutting their tax by a fifth. Lahour have voted to put it right back up to 25 per cent They're
no longer content with taxing the rich: now they're even after the poor.
"We knew Labour wanted massive taxes on the better-off. We know they ploned new
burdens or middle incomes. Now we know they want high tax on low pay. Unbelievable.
But that's Labour policy for you.
"John Smith said it himself. There would be no tax cuts under Labour - ever. However hard
you worked, however well the country performed, the fruits of your labour would be
Labour's. not yours.
/So how would
03/19/92
12:00
202 898 4255
BRITISH EMB WASH
1
008/015
NAD FCO
071 930 2367
P.03
19-MAR-1992 15:16
MAJOR 382/92
7 -
"So how would Labour support schools? By taxing teachers. Help hospitals? Ry taking
nurses. Beat crime? By an assault on the pay packets of the police. It's a lunatic strategy
by prejudice out of ignorance. All founded on the bogus claim that in order to build
tomorrow you need to rob today. Just remember yesterday - when Labour taxed and taxed
and cut and cut - cut, let me remind you, hospital building and nurses' pay. Labour out the
National Health Service.
"Does anyone want to go hack to those days? When every Budget was a day to dread.
When tax took 35p in the £ from the wages of every worker. When you even had to ask
permission to take £50 abroad. But that's the philosophy of the people who now want to be
brought back to run this country. The nerve of it.
"Labour's higher tax commitment is a mean-spirited manoeuvre. It would break the backs
of businesses, hit every family and drive people out of their jobs. You will never create the
permanent jobs we need by punitive taxes. High taxes mean high unemployment -
permanently.
"The British people can now SCC clearly what we have wamed them of for ages - Labour have
a fatal addiction. Tax They are high on tax. We must make sure that it's Labour, not
Britain, that this high tax habit drags down and destroys.
"Even after all this some commentators still ask does it really matter who wins this election?
Let me say this to them. The result of this Election matters as much as any we're known.
Labour talk of time for a change. There would bc change, all right. Short change.
"Short change for workers as pay packets shrank.
"Short change for pensioners as inflation surged.
"Short change for savers as taxes rose.
/Short change for
03/19/92 12:00
202 898 4255
BRITISH EMB WASH
009/015
19-MAR-1992 15:17
NAD FCO
071 930 2367
P.09
FRESS
P.008/014
MAJOR 382/92
. 8 -
"Short change for homeowners as interest rates soared.
"Yes, Labour would change Britain. Short-change Britain. They would stop the revival of
Britain dead in its tracks. It's not going to happen. We're going to stop them dced in their
tracks.
"Somersault Socialism, Labour's game of look at us. no hands. we're different now' won't
fool anyone. Whatever mask they put on we'll take it off and show the people it's the same
old face underneath.
"Next week we will publish the programme for the next Conservative Government. It will
be a full, modern, positive programme for an independent people in an independent Britain.
"But of all the issues in this Election there are three that I want to share with you at the
outser of the campaign.
"The place of Britain in the world.
"The cohesion of our country.
"And the future of the battle against inflation.
"Let me take inflation first.
"I don't want a little bit of inflation. 1 don't want a modicum of inflation. I want an end to
inflation I want to take this country back to stable prices. What a prize that would be We
all know what it means to walk into the supermarket and see that the price of a pint of milk
or a loaf of bread has gone up. I want to see prices stay down. Nothing would give greater
security to those on fixed incomes.
....Л know the
03/19/92
12:01
202 898 4255
BRITISH EMB WASH
5
010/015
19-MAR-1992 15:17
NAD FCD
071 930 2367
P.10
LOW PRESS
F.005/014
ave
MAJOR 382/92
9-
"I know the fear, the despair that inflation brings to everyday lives - the raw misery when the
bills at the end of the week are bigger than the pay packet, or when the value of savings
melts like snow in spring.
"Inflation is 3 curse. We've got to beat it We've got to get prices stable - and do everything
we can to keep them there.
"No other Party will do that but us. No other Party would even try. And that's one giant
reason why Britain needs Conservative Government.
"Next, the cohesion of Britain. That, too, is something I feel passionately about. I said in
Scotland that the unity of the United Kingdom transcends the Election - and I meant It. I
admire the pride of Wales. I understand the national aspirations of Scotland. I've been there.
I've felt it.
"But I know this. It would be hugely damaging to go down a route that, in short term or
long. could load to the break-up of our country. I hope that everyone throughout the United
Kingdom approciates the scale of this issue.
"This is more than a Scottish concern. It matters in Gloucester as it matters in Glasgow.
"Whatever they intended, the devolution proposals put forward by Liberals and Labour alike
could put us on the road to 4 Disunited Kingdom. They haven't faced up to the truth - that,
if devolution for Scotland came, it must inevitably call into question the whole relationship
between the different parts of our Kingdom
./Devolution is not
03/19/92
12:01
202 898 4255
BRITISH EMB WASH
011/015
19-MAR-1992 15:18
NAD FCO
071 930 2367
P.11
LLU PRESS 0712226578
P.010/014
MAJOR 382/92
10
"Devolution is not . as some may fondly imagine . 2 safe option that wouldn't, or couldn't.
lead on to separation. It would raise tax levels in Scotland and freeze out investment. It
could also lead to calls in England for a fresh look at levels of finance, and demands for
reduced Scottish representation at Westminster, leaving Scotland's members with a second-ticr
status in the Union Parliament. If that were to happen. bitterness and conflict would be the
certain result.
"And where would that bitterness and conflict end? What began as a dalliance with
devolution could end as the disaster of separation. Three hundred years of achievement
together. The most influential voice for good in the dangerous world of today. Undone in
a single careless moment. The Conservative Party must point out the dangers of that
disastrous road. We have a responsibility to history. We must stand for the union. Hight for
the union. And win for the union. For if we don't the whole of the United Kingdom - every
part of it . would be the loser, and our future the poorer.
"And let me be crystal clear about another constitutional matter. Our voting system has
served us well over the years. It has given us strong Government, capable of difficult
decisions at difficult times. I have no intention of changing it. There is no need. Those who
call for such changes should examine their motives. There will be no deals with those
opportunists who stand for nothing except their OWN political self-interest. Who would sign
up for anything, if it meant a seat at the Cabinet table. The flavour-of-the-minute politicians
who'd be for night if it suited them and day if is didn't.
"We're not playing their game. We're going to show up their PR campaign for the sham that
it is. The Government of smoke-filled rooms. No longer the MP of your choice, but a Party
appointee. Not proportional representation. but permanent representation - for a minority party
in control of our affairs. 'PR' is no principle. 'PR'? What does it stand for? It's Paddy's
Roundabout Well, we won't be joining him for the ride.
"We stand on the threshold of a new era. Years which will be decisive not only for Britsin,
but the world. We have seen momentous changes in our continent.
/It is nearly
03/19/92
12:02
202 898 4255
BRITISH EMB WASH
X
012/015
NAD FCO
071 932 2367
P.12
19-MAR-1992 15:19
P.011/014
MAJOR 382/92
. 11
"It is nearly 80 years since Sir Edward Grey said the lamps were going out all over Europe.
That they would not be lit again in his lifetime. Well, over the last two astonishing years
we've seen those lamps coming on once again.
"Historie nations reborn. Historic freedoms regained. Poland. Hungary, Crechoslovakia,
Hulgaria, the Baltics. All free again. It is the end of the age of empires. The last imperial
power is gone. We have a chance in our lifetime that no previous generation has had. To
unite our continent. To spread ever wider the free market principles on which the prosperity
of the West is based. It is a time for vision. To lift our eyes beyond our domestic concerns.
A time to open Europe up, not shut its other half out
"That's what we were arguing for at Maastricht. For a wider Europe. not a United States of
Europe. a Europe looking outwards, not in on itself. We wail progress in the European
Community: but we want progress outside it as well- We were told that the Summit at
Maastricht would be high noon for Britain in Europe, a big shoot out, certain defeat. They
said we couldn't do it, #t wouldn't do it. We did it. We won the right deal for Britain. And
the right deal for Europe. All of Europe. Does anyone seriously believe that would have
happened if Messrs Kinnock and Kaufman had been speaking for Britain? Not on your
Douglas Hurd. it wouldn't
"The greatest virtue of the European Community is not economic. Twice in the lifetime of
our most venerable fellow citizens, conflict in Western Europe has brought the whole world
to war. Now the peoples of Western Europe are bound together by the mutual self-interest
of their economies and trade.
"Those bonds make iz inconceivable that war between them should ever again bring the world
to ruin. That is a prize more valuable even than the greater prosperity those trade links have
brought.
/But we need
03/19/92
12:02
T202 898 4255
BRITISH EMB WASH
0.
013/015
NAD FCO
071 930 2367
P.13
19-MAR-1992 15:19
P.012/014
10:20
SRRHA
MAJOR 382/92
- 12 -
"But we need to extend that security further. We must open the borders of the community
to bring the new democratic states in the East To extend the community until it reaches
Russia itself. It may not happen in our political lifetime but it will happen. And when it
does we will have created a more secure future for our continent than it's ever known before.
"Wo in Britain are in a special position in make it 2 reality. We have a special place in the
world. We're leaders in Europe; members of the Commonwealth: allies and friends of the
United States. And, as Boris Yeitsin has said, especially trusted by the government of Russia.
And with good reason. We stood by them in their hour of need during the coup last summer.
And we'll stand by them still. as they take their place once more in the family of nations.
"Does anyone think that a free Russia that has just ditched socialism would turn to a socialist
Britain? The thought's absurd. Socialism is what Eastern Europe has fought for generations
9 get rid of.
"In the great decisions on the future of our continent, only a Conservative Government can
carry the weight that is Britain's due.
"But-there is 2 another reason why the security of our country depends upon a Conservative
Government. And that is defence.
"Whatever is needed to defend our country the next Conservative Government will do. There
will be no escape clauses. No fudges. No its. And no buts. Just a cool-headed judgment
of the resources that Britzin will need There are still great dangers. We would be naive to
imagine that we could for a moment lower our guard- Keeping the peace is a full-time
challenge. And it means 2 full-time commitment. The first duty of Government is the
defence of the realm. This Conservative Government, which I am privileged to lead, will
discharge that duty, whatever the pressures may prove to be.
....A give you
03/19/92
12:03
202 898 4255
BRITISH EMB WASH
014/015
19-MAR-1992 15:50
NAD FCC
071 930 2367 P.14
APPLICATION 10.00
CCO PRESS 0712223578
P.013/014
MAJOR 382/92
. 13 -
"I give you this promise. We will stick to our principles. There will be no chopping and
changing to catch the prevailing political tide. While others retain nuclear weapons, we will
do so. And while the man who currently rules Iraq and his kind are plotting new capabilities,
WC will modernise our own. That includes building the fourth Trident submarine. We will
order it_ We will build it. We will arm It. And we will deplny it. Let the British people
have no doubt where we stand.
"What of Labour? What is their stance? What are their plans? Mr Gerald Kaufman tells us
that Labour have nothing to do with CND. Nothing? Really? That's odd. Late last year
100 Labour Members of Parliament were still members of CND. Have they all followed their
leader, and let their membership what was the word? - "lapse"? Their attitude to our
nuclear deterrent can be summed up in four words "can't say. won't say'. But they must
say.
"So let them will the British public just where do they stand on the fourth Trident that
Britain's security needs? They've said they would order it: they've said they wouldn't order
it; they've even said they would order it and send it to sea without any weapons. A toothless
Trident A ghost ship. A sort of underwater Flying Dutchman. Going round and round in
circles for ever and never getting back to base. You never know where you are with Labour
will defence.
"It's time for them to stop the ducking and the weaving. So let's hear it from Labour. Will
you, won't you, will you. won't you. will you build the boar?
"The defence of Britain takes commitment. Caution Coherence. Conviction And none of
those words begins with a K.
"These last 16 months have been an immense privilege, Much has been done.
"Reversing the invasion of Kuwait along with our allies. Throwing the barbarous dicrator out.
Leading the world in the safe havens initiative for the Kurds.
/We in Britain
03/19/92
12:03
202 898 4255
BRITISH EMB WASH
015/015
19-MAR-1992 15:51
NAD FCO
071 930 2367
P.15
19-MAR-1992 15:28
CCD PRESS 0712229578
0.014/014
MAJOR 382/92
- 14 -
"We in Britain were the first to denounce the coup in Moscow. the first to recognise Russia,
and the first to call for her to be admitted to the IMF.
"We were the first with a Commonwealth declaration on human rights. The first to propose
a debt write-off for the poorest countries. And the first to propose the register of
conventional arms sales that has now been adopted by the United Nations.
"Why does this Election matter so much? Yes, it matters because of health. education,
Europe, inflation, tax, and defence. All these things.
"But more than anything it matters because it will determine the kind of country we will build
for our children.
"I want ours to be a country that is confident. A country in which we can look people in the
eye and know we've treated them fairly. A country that others will look to with renewed
respect.
"I want our nation to stand proud in the world - quiet in voice, firm in action. united in
resolve.
"I want Britain to be a byword in every language - for decency. for leadership, for trust, and
for hope.
"I want Britain to be seen as the best - not only in our eyes, but in the eyes of others.
"First and first again A a world leader that's where I want us to be, and to stay. And that's
where Britain will stay . under the next Conservative Government."
ENDS
TOTAL 0.15
10:45 -12:00
son
A guy named
NATIONAL TAXPAYERS UNION
Pete should be
calling back w/
A NONPARTISAN, NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST
d confirmed time
pref. - Saturapy
325 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, SOUTHEAST
WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 20003
TELEPHONE: AREA CODE (202) 543-1300
July 8, 1991
Saturday
Mr. Tony Snow
Deputy Assistant to the President
for Communications and
Director of Speech Writing
pete
Room 122 Old Executive Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. Snow:
On September 21 and 22 the National Taxpayers Union and five
other national taxpayers organizations will sponsor the second
National Taxpayers Conference, where attendees will exchange
information and strategies on the growing citizens movement against
higher taxes and increased spending.
We invite you to speak to the group on working with the media,
especially editorial page editors.
The two-day conference will be packed with workshops aimed at
making state and local taxpayers' groups more effective. We expect
that every major grassroots state taxpayers' group will be
represented. Leaders who will conduct workshops include:
James Davidson, Chairman, National Taxpayers Union;
Lewis K. Uhler, President, National Tax Limitation Committee;
Alan Keyes, President, Citizens Against Government Waste.
State leaders who will conduct workshops include:
*
Joel Fox, director of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
in California. This organization helped start the tax revolt
with Proposition 13 and is the largest state taxpayers
organization in the country;
*
David Stanley and the staff of Iowans For Tax Relief, a 45,000
member organization that is the most effective state
legislative lobby and has the largest state taxpayers PAC in
the country;
*
Barbara Anderson and Chip Faulkner of the Citizens For Limited
Taxation. Their organization completely changed Massachusetts
politics by sponsoring the landmark Proposition 2-1/2 property
tax cut initiative.
*
Richard Headlee, author of Michigan's Headlee Tax Limitation
Amendment.
THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER ACTS THROUGH NTU
- 2 -
The conference will run from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday
and from 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Sunday. If you can speak to the
group, please let me know what times you would be available.
I've enclosed a copy of a portion of the brochure that describes
additional details about the conference.
I look forward to your favorable reply.
OKS David Keating
Sincerely
Executive Vice President
Encl.
dk31:24
NATIONAL TAXPAYERS UNION
COUNCIL FOR CITIZENS AGAINST
GOVERNMENT WASTE
Dear Friend:
NATIONAL TAX LIMITATION COMMITTEE
Join us this fall for the National Taxpayers Conference and Taxpayers'
AMERICAN TAX REDUCTION MOVEMENT
Lobby Day. You won't want to miss it!
AMERICANS FOR A BALANCED BUDGET
Every major national and state taxpayers' organization leader will be
CITIZENS FOR A SOUND ECONOMY
there. This is your chance to meet the nation's most successful taxpayer
group leaders and learn from their successes.
INVITE YOU TO ATTEND
You will also learn more about important tax and spending issues and
how to make taxpayers more effective in your state and community. And
THE
2 ND ANNUAL
during Taxpayers' Lobby Day, you will also have the opportunity to meet
directly with legislators on Capitol Hill.
I hope to see you this September for this exciting conference and
Taxpayers' Lobby Day!
NATIONAL
Sincerely,
TAXPAYERS
James Chairman
James Davidson,
National Taxpayers Union
CONFERENCE
P.S. Hurry! Registration for the National Taxpayers Conference is limited,
so reserve your space today!
AND
National Taxpayers Conference
If you play an important role in a state or
TAXPAYERS'
September 21-22
local taxpayers' association, or wish to start a
group, don't miss this chance to learn from
You are invited to take part in the second
the experts and successful group leaders.
Lobby
National Taxpayers Conference for grassroots
You'll get new ideas, new contacts and feel a
state and local taxpayers' organizations and
part of the nation's most important political
citizens who want to become involved.
movement.
DAY
The conference is sponsored by the
National Taxpayers Union, Council for Citizens
Taxpayers' Lobby Day
Against Government Waste, National Tax
SEPTEMBER 21-23, 1991
September 22-23
Limitation Committee, American Tax Reduction
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Movement, Americans for A Balanced Budget
During Taxpayers' Lobby Day, you'll learn about
and Citizens for A Sound Economy. You will
the key taxpayers' issues currently being dis-
learn about important taxpayer issues and
cussed on Capitol Hill, attend a workshop
how to win legislative campaigns. The
(Sunday afternoon, Sept. 22) on how to lobby a
conference will be packed with "nuts and
member of Congress and then spend all day
bolts" workshops on how to effectively
Monday, September 23, visiting representatives
participate in the legislative process, featuring
and senators from your state to discuss important
nationally famous taxpayer leaders.
taxpayer issues. Participants in Taxpayers' Lobby
Every major state taxpayers' organization
Day are strongly encouraged to stay until
will be there. This is your chance to meet the
Tuesday, September 24.
nation's most successful taxpayer group leaders
Participants in Taxpayers' Lobby Day will
and share new methods and strategies for
attend a dinner banquet Sunday, September
fighting high taxes and government waste
22 with Vice President Dan Quayle."
Sample Workshop Topics:
Public relations tactics
Tax limitation proposals-What's working
Publishing a newsletter
and what's not
Research sources
The Balanced Budget Amendment
How to run an effective state Political Action
How privatization can cut local taxes
Committee
Finding and fighting government waste
Qualifying initiatives for the ballot
The link between low taxes and high growth
Winning a tax cut referendum
Effective grass roots lobbying tactics
Beating a tax hike referendum
Networking on national issues
State and local candidate surveys
Building winning coalitions
Rating your legislators
Lobbying the legislature
Stopping wasteful local projects (convention
Choosing legislative projects and priorities
centers, stadiums, etc.)
Drafting legislation
Recalling public officials
Fundraising strategies
(Not all topics will be available. Topics will be
How to raise money with direct mail
selected based on participants' interest.)
Issue Campaigns
Potential issues for Taxpayers' Lobby Day include
The Balanced Budget and Tax Limitation Amendments
Legislation to limit taxes and reduce government waste
Controlling the cost of bank bailouts
Fighting higher taxes and spending
How to Get There
Northwest Airlines, the official airline of the conference, provides convenient service to
Washington's National Airport from 173 cities. Northwest offers a 50% discount to all
conference attendees for unrestricted coach class fares and a 5% discount off any
advance purchase fare. Reservations and tickets can be obtained from your travel agent
or by calling Northwest Meeting Services at 1 (800) 328-1111 from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00
midnight, Central Time. When making reservations, refer to our special code:
16399. Fares apply to travel during Sept. 17-27. State or local organizations that may
have 10 or more people flying together to the conference should contact Pete Sepp, the
National Taxpayers Conference Coordinator, at (202) 543-1300 for additional discounts.
Hotel Accommodations
Our convention site will be at the Stouffer Concourse Hotel in Crystal City, VA, just
minutes from Capitol Hill. Free shuttle bus service is available to Washington National
Airport and Washington's Metrorail subway system.
We have negotiated a flat room rate of $74 for a single or double room, for the nights
of Sept. 20-22. Complete hotel information will be sent to all conference registrants as
soon as we receive your conference registration form.
Budget hotels are also located in the area.
211 Travis Ln.
Gibsonville, N.C.
27249 (919)449-502
Dear President Bush,
My name is Gray Currin.
l am ten years old. a friend
and l would like to help out
with the mid-East Crisis. my
friend is seth Jucker. He lives
at 20) Forestview Dr. Elon
(719) College it.e. 7244 Phone-
3.
by keeping the tents clean and
We could help out
tidied up. We could also wash
clothes or something like that
We know alot about the military
Please take us. We just to
to serve our country! Wire
proud to be americans!
Sincerely,
Gray Currin
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Dear Gray:
Thank you for writing and for your kind
offer and that of your friend, Seth Tucker,
to help out in the Persian Gulf. You and Seth
certainly have a strong sense of patriotism.
However, you already have an important job
to do right now, and that is to do your best
in school. America is counting on you to learn
all that you can and to prepare yourselves to
become the future leaders of our Nation.
Mrs. Bush joins me in sending our warmest
wishes to you for a bright and happy future.
God bless you both.
Sincerely,
Gray Currin
211 Travis Lane
Gibsonville, North Carolina 27249
216-694-6360 P.D. CHAIRMAN
332 P01
DEC 05 '91 15:43
FACSIMILE COVER PAGE
FROM
PLAIN DEALER PUBLISHING CO.
1801 SUPERIOR AVENUE>
CLEVELAND, OHIO 44114
FAX: 216-694-6360
PHONE: 216-344-4220
FAX COVER PAGE:
The President
TO:
The White House
FROM:
Mr. Thomas Vail, Chairman
The Plain Dealer
DATE:
Dec. 5, 1991
TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER PAGE): 2
Mr. Dan McGroarty:
Dear Mr. McGroarty:
Thank you so much for handling this for us.
Carl Carl Bankovich
Secretary to Mr. Vail
216-694-6360 P.D. CHAIRMAN
332 P02
DEC 05 '91 15:43
THE PLAIN DEALER
1801 SUPERIOR AVENUE
CLEVELAND, OHIO 44114
OFFICE OF THE
CHAIRMAN
216-344-4220
December 5, 1991
The President
The White House
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President:
Thank you SQ much for making such a fabulous
video for the 150th anniversary of The Plain Dealer.
Your personal comments on our long-time
relationship added a special touch, all typical of
your sensitive understanding of people.
The video will be shown on a large screen in the
Music Hall Theater in Cleveland before a special
concert the Cleveland Orchestra is playing for the
anniversary. There will be 700 major figures from
Cleveland and Ohio on hand, including Governor
Voinovich. When the concert is concluded the back
of the stage disappears and everyone is invited to
cross the stage and have dinner in a spectacular
setting decorated by Cleveland's Don Vanderbrook who
has done a lot for evenings in the White House.
I have no way of knowing it but my guess is our
audience is composed mostly of people who have been
long-time supporters of yours.
deal to a remarkable evening for The Plain Dealer
Your special personal regards will add a great
December 6th.
and for this area in general Friday evening,
best to you and Barbara.
Thank you so much. Iris joins me in our very
Your As ever,
Thomas Vail
TRANSFER SHEET
BUSH PRESIDENTIAL MATERIALS PROJECT
COLLECTION Bush Presidential Records
ACC. NO:
Office of Speechwriting - Snow
The following material was withdrawn from this segment of the
collection and trasferred to the XXX AUDIOVISUAL COLLECTION
BOOK COLLECTION
MUSEUM COLLECTION
OTHER (SPECIFY:
)
DESCRIPTION:
One Audio Cassette
"Michael Dalby & George Wilson Soundbites"
Side A - 9/4/91
Side B - 9/12/91
NOT FOR BROADCAST
SERIES
Office of Speechwriting - Snow
BOX NO.
Subject File
8
FILE FOLDER TITLE:
[Snow - Miscellaneous]
[OA 8678]
TRANSFERRED BY:
DATE OF TRANSFER:
RFH
06/26/96
RECEIVED
DATE RECEIVED
06/26/96
soundbites
September 11, 1991
Tony Snow
Old Executive Office Building
The White House
Room 122
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Tony,
Robin Fribbley (that D.C. sophisticate struggling to
maintain her sanity out in the backwoods of Cincinnati) suggested
we send the enclosed sampling of Soundbites for your amusement.
Soundbites is our short satire service sent via satellite to
all public radio stations. Each week we feed four 3-minute
pieces: two lampoon world or national news; one has fun with a
U.S. regional story; and the last takes a lighthearted look at a
"This Week In History" event. The program grew from making
regular satire contributions to NPR's Weekend Edition/Sunday
where we are still heard every other weekend. We've thrown some
of them on the tape too.
Robin's an old pal from her New York salad days. She swears
you're "cool", despite where you work. She also claims you used
to be a hippie, based entirely on some apocryphal story about
your once having worn dirty bell-bottomed jeans. Right. We'll
believe that when we see the pictures. By the way, does your
boss know about this?
Anyway, hope you can "dig" this entirely random selection of
the most incisive, witty and entertaining topical commentary in
the whole world. Really.
Your new friends,
George Wilson
&
Michael Dalby
P.S. Congratulate the Big Guy for us on the collapse of
Communism!
P.O. Box 103
Rockefeller Center Station
New York, N.Y. 10185
(212) 586-4786
soundbites
For More Information Contact:
Carol Banker, V.M. Frantz & Company
212-697-4288
WHAT THEY'RE SAYING ABOUT SOUNDBITES:
"It was really nice to step back and see a lighter side... we all had a great time laughing at
ourselves. your work is great."
William Reanier, Special Agent, U.S. Forest Service
"Thank you for your radio piece...it's good to be able to laugh at yourself (but not too much)."
John Frohnmayer, Chairman, National Endowment for the Arts
"Burned a hole in my radio!"
Rex Reed
Everyone is talking about Soundbites, the topical satire radio project created by
George Wilson and Michael Dalby! Soundbites are short, smart, and irreverent.
Soundbites are news headlines reflected off a funhouse mirror. Wilson & Dalby call
them, "editorial cartoons for the ear."
Each week Soundbites sends four 3-minute radio satire pieces by satellite to
public radio stations across the country two lampoon world and national events, one
has fun with a U.S. regional issue, and the last gets silly about something that happened
"This Week In History." Sometimes wicked song parodies, sometimes compressed radio
dramas, Soundbites are always smart and shameless commentary on social issues,
politics, world events and lifestyle trends.
So who are Wilson and Dalby, and where did they come from?
George Wilson is a New York actor who has worked extensively on stage, screen
and television. His voice-over credits include numerous radio and television
commercials. As a journalist, Wilson was a News Director for the Armed Forces Radio
& Televison Service, a radio reporter and newscaster in San Diego and Los Angeles,
and a writer for nationally syndicated radio. His articles have appeared in The Daily
News and the national AFTRA magazine. Wilson's children's stories have been
published by HBJ, and he is currently at work on a novel.
Michael Dalby is a New York actor with first-rate stage, television and film
credits including All My Children, Working Girl and Wall Street. He has spent 12 years
producing for public radio programs such as Crossroads, Morning Edition, National
Native News, and Performance Today. Dalby also developed First Person Radio, a
nationally syndicated news program for Native Americans. Currently he is producing
Coming From America, hosted by Richie Havens, to air in 1991.
Wilson & Dalby combine their clever skills with guest performing talent from
commercials and the Broadway stage for their unique Soundbites.
That's why everybody is talking about George Wilson & Michael Dalby.
and Soundbites!
P.O. Box 103
Rockefeller Center Station
New York, N.Y. 10185
(212) 586-4786
'91-09-16 12:54 DOUG GAMBLE
P.1
DOUG GAMBLE
424-36th Place
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Sept. 16/91
(213) 546-6409
TO: CHRISTINA MARTIN
2 Pages
COUNTRY MUSIC AWARDS (Joe Duggan)
I WANT YOU TO KNOW I'M IN THE RIGHT SPIRIT TONIGHT. I WAS DRIVEN OVER FROM
THE AIRPORT ON "PICKUP TRUCK ONE."
THERE MAY BE SOME WATCHING TONIGHT WHO AREN'T COUNTRY FANS ALL YEAR AROUND,
BUT I AM. I KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RANDY TRAVIS AND TRAVIS TRITT.
ONE OF THE REASONS IT GIVES ME so MUCH PLEASURE TO STAND ON THIS HISTORIC STAGE
IS BECAUSE, JUST LIKE BARBARA MANDRELL, I WAS COUNTRY WHEN COUNTRY WASN'T COOL.
I DON'T KNOW HOW OTHER PRESIDENTS TOLD THEIR WIVES THAT A STATE DINNER AT THE
WHITE HOUSE WAS COMING UP, BUT I TELL BARBARA "ALL MY ROWDY FRIENDS ARE COMING
OVER TONIGHT."
IT LOOKS LIKE THIS IS MY YEAR TO MINGLE WITH ROYALTY. FIRST, QUEEN ELIZABETH,
AND NOW, ROY ACUFF.
MORE
'91-09-16 12:55 DOUG GAMBLE
P.2
- 2 -
DOUG. GAMBLE
TO: CHRISTINA MARTIN - COUNTRY MUSIC (CONT'D)
COUNTRY MUSIC ENCOMPASSES SUCH HUMAN EMOTIONS AS GREED, LUST, ANGER, SADNESS,
HARD TIMES AND HEARTBREAK. BUT ENOUGH ABOUT LIFE IN WASHINGTON.
THE NATION IS so MUCH RICHER FOR THE MUSIC WE CELEBRATE TONIGHT. AMERICA
WITHOUT COUNTRY MUSIC WOULD BE LIKE MINNIE PEARL WITHOUT A HAT.