SERVICE SECRETARIES BACK JOINT CHIEFS ON

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP70B00338R000300090015-0
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 9, 2006
• Sequence Number: 15
• Publication Date: May 4, 1967
• Content Type: NSPR

4`sw iC) (
:>ii
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300090015-0
10 Thursday, May 4, 1967 THE WASHINGTON POST
Service Secretaries Back Joint chiefs on
By George C. Wilson
Washington Post Staff Writer
All three service secretaries,
?or the first time, have come
)ut publicly for building a
'thin" missile defense around
the United States if talks with
Russia fail.
This moves the civilian
leads of the Army, Navy and
kir Force toward the military
Point Chiefs of Staff on the
inti-ballistic-missile (ABM) is-
ue and away from their civil-
an boss, Defense Secretary
i,obert S. McNamara.
McNamara contends the
Jnited States should match
tussia's missile defense with
letter offensive ICBMs. He
relieves the United States
hould not automatically build
missile defense if Russian
annot be talked out of full
eployment of such a system.
These and otil.er politically
regnant views of Pentagon
leaders are contained in
House Defense Appropriations
subcommittee hearings re-
leased yesterday.
To get on record the differ-
ing views within the Pentagon
on the ABM question, the sub-
committee questioned McNa-
mara and Gen. E a r 1 e G.
Wheeler, chairman o f t h e
Joint Chiefs, together at
length.
Asked whether Russia keeps
deploying an ABM despite dis-
cussions designed to achieve a
freeze on missile defenses,
McNamara Said: "The ques-
ion of whether we should or
should not deploy an ABM is
not really directly related to
their ABM deployment."
"Our response to their
ABM," McNamara said, "is
not a U.S. ABM but an in-
ment, or changes in their of-
fensive forces, make it desira-
ble."
President Johnson's fiscal
1968 budget contains $377 mil-
lion which could be spent to
start putting a missile defense
around the United States,
rather than just continuing
the research on it, if the ABM
talks with the Russians fail.
McNamara believes a mis-
sile defense would not buy ei-
ther the United States or Rus-
sia any more military security,
even if as much as $40 billion
were spent on it by this coun-
try. But he stopped short of
telling the subcommittee he
favored sitting out the ABM
race even if Russia spent
ahead full speed.
The Joint Chiefs unanimous-
ly have recommended a mi~cs--
ue defence around IC$M
crease in the U.S. offensive
forces. We have that under-
way. We will continue that as
long as their defensive deploy-
s
sites and 50 cities. They;,'sti- an anti ballistic -missile de-
billion. this would cost about $20
billion. McNamara argues'that~fense subject to the results of
uncovered cities would '- de-TPed negotiations with
mand missile protection, p'is1i- the -Soviet Union ... We
ing the total ABM cost up to otIght to know what a first
$40 billion. generation system can do."
While agreeing that the U.,_ - Force Secretary Harold
should first try to negotiate ancosn, formerly McNamara's
ABM freeze with Russia, re;igrch boss, said: If these
Army Secretary Stanley It. t4ks, (with Russia) do not sue-
i Resor told the subcomlxlittee eeeit might be well worth-
that if those efforts failed, the ?wh11 to put up a $5 billion
U.S. should build a defense System to defend the popula-
for 'missile sites and a few ttou against a small attack by
cities. The Army estimates the the Chinese and to do such
cost at $4 billion. things as defend our missiles
Such a defense, Resor said, so that they could be surviva-
would have three objectives: ble. I
1. "To deny damage from "It is a lot easier to defend'
the early Chinese Communist missiles than to defend
ICBM threat and to limit fatal-people," Brown said. "In my
ities from increased Chineseopinion, that, plus a thin popu-
Communist ICBM threats." lation defense is the mpxi-
2. "To provide increase mum which is really worth
protection for Minutemail doing:"
(ICBM) squadrons against Sc
viet attacks."
3. "To safeguard the United
States against accidental
launches of missiles by other
countries."
The Army Secretary agreed
with McNamara that such an
antimissile system "would not
provide a strategically mean-
ingful defense" against an
all-out Soviet attack. Resor
added: "It need not, therefore,
provoke any drastic modifica-
tion or responses in Soviet of-
fensive programs."
This last point rebuts McNa-
mara's argument that a U.S.
ABM system would prompt
Russia to upgrade its offense,
leaving this country worse off
than before.
Navy Secretary Paul H.
Nitze told the subcommittee,
"We might be well: advised to
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300090015-0