A TOOTHLESS NUCLEAR WATCHDOG

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP86T00303R000500700012-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: January 4, 2017
• Document Release Date: April 10, 2008
• Sequence Number: 12
• Publication Date: March 28, 1982
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Approved For Release 2008/04/10: CIA-RDP86T00303R000500700012-9
PART I: ?- MAIN EDITION -- 29 MARCE..982 , til.
CHICAGO TRIBUNE 29 March 1982 Pg. 1
Hawks find flaws
in Reagan strategy
By John Maclean
and Storer Rowley
Chicago Tribune Press Service
WASHINGTON - Staunchly pro-
defense congressman and other hawks
are warning the White House that "stag-
gering" defense spending and inattention
to antinuclear sentiment threaten the
domestic consensus to rearm America.
These conservative voices say the
White House must present a more con-
vincing defense strategy, trim waste
from the Pentagon budget, re-examine
the more expensive new weapons pro-
grams and offer a more aggressive nuc-
lear arms control program.
The critics make. no threat to abandon
the gospel of a strengthened defense, but
they are concerned about what they see
as potentially damaging defects in
Reagan's efforts.
"Thus far the American public has
supported increased (defense) spending,"
a report from the Heritage Foundation,
the conservative think-tank most closely
identified with _Reagan's policies, said
last week. 'Yet, this robust pro-defense
consensus could be threatened by the
exorbitant cost of armaments.
"(The) figures are staggering. Making
matters worse is the widespread suspi-
cion that the Defense Department, by not
carefully monitoring weapons cost, is
risking high cost overruns. Weapons cost
must be lowered."
The Heritage Foundation report recom-
mended a series of reform measures to
save an estimated $8.5 billion in the come
ing year, a cut in Pentagon spending that
comes close to the $10 billion figure
talked about my many congressional crit-
ics of Reagan's defense budget.
WHAT SEEMS to worry true believers
most is the lack of rationale for the
record $1.6 trillion military budget pro-
posed for the next five years. The
Reagan administration argues it must
correct "years of neglect" that allowed
the Soviets to build up their nuclear and
conventional forces while_ the. United
States fell behind.
But critics complain the administration
has proposed the spending without a
clear strategy for using the money.
"The American people continue to want
a substantial increase in our overall de-
fense capabilities, consistent with our
economic health," said Sen. Sam Nunn
(D.,Ga.), a leading advocate of a
stronger defense. "That brings up the
question as to whether we should re-
examine our strategy.
"Perhaps we're defining our national
U.S. defense
budget forecasts
356.0
324.0 `l
1982 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87
Note: 1982 figure is estimated
expenditure, 1983 is requested amount
and 1984-87 figures are estimated
amounts of requests
Chicago Tribune Chart:
Source: U.S. Department of Defense
interests too broadly. I'm going to be
asking a lot of questions because I think
the American people, when they're sac-
rificing on domestic programs and
they're seeing the economy deteriorate,
have every right to expect increased
military capabilities," he added.
MANY OTHERS have spoken out on
the lack of a coherent strategy.
"There is a lingering, and for the ad-
ministration a potentially dangerous,
sense that the rationale offered so far has
not measured up to the scale and scope of
the Reagan defense program," said Al-
bert Pierce, a defense analyst, writing
for the conservative American Enter-
prise Institute.
A prominent conservative analyst, Wal-
ter Laquer of the Center for Strategic
and International ,Studies here, s id__re-
cently that "a strategy is not yet in sight,
only occasional comments, gestures and
reactions-sometimes conflicting, often
inconsistent."
Specifically, the critics complain that
the Pentagon is preparing to fight the
Soviets everywhere under every circum-
stance, rather than picking specific geog.
raphy and tactics.
FREEZE ... ''Coxltinued
dent submarines ar4 expensive, but subma-
rines are the -most r~Zvable and therefore
the least destabilizinweapons and should be
among the last to be frozen.
Several undertakings planned by the ad-
ministration would not necessarily be banned
by a strategic weapons freeze, although they
could be considered for budget-cutting pur-
poses: air defenses, an expanded civil de-
fense program, and improved command-and-
control systems (which, for everyone's peace
of mind, should. not be significantly cut).
All of these items together might not fully
meet the target for cutbacks in defense out-
lays called for by Senator Domenici, not to
speak of Senator Hollings, especially in fiscal
'83. But they would make a big dent. Every
billion dollars cut from unnecessary and dan-
gerous nuclear spending would be a billion
that would not have to be cut from the muscle
oY conventional preparedness. And the grow-
ing ranks of Americans who feel threatened
by the spiralling growth of nuclear weapons
would breathe a little easier.
Mark Garrison, a former US diplomat
with experience in Moscow, is director of
the Center for Foreign Policy Develop-
ment at Brown University.
THE REAGAN administration has
given priority to increasing the Navy by
30 percent, to a' total of 600 ships. It also
wants to increase tactical air power from
36 to 40 major Air Force units and to
revitalize nuclear weaponry.
Last week, Congress issued a sharp
warning that massive growth on all
fronts will have to pass new scrutiny. The
normally hard-line Senate Armed Serv-
ices Subcommittee on Strategic and The-
ater Nuclear Forces voted 9-0 to cancel
funding for the controversial MX missile
basing plan. Reagan wants to put the MX
missiles in existing Minuteman silos.
The subcommittee could have approved
the basing plan on grounds it gave the
White House a bargaining chip with the
Soviets. Their refusal to do so shows they
want a more plausible alternative than
sticking the new missiles in old sites,
presumably already targeted by the
Soviets. MX missiles are supposed to be
less vulnerable than the old Minutemen.
CONGRESS TOOK even stronger ac-
tion signalling the President on the arms
control front. A group of Senate hawks
sponsored their own'resolution calling for
a freeze on nuclear arms to compete with
resolutions by more dovish members.
In a letter circulated by the hawks,
they indirectly criticized Reagan for fail-
ing to head off the growing anti-nuclear
sentiment in this country by putting for-
ward a serious, detailed arms control
plan.
"Right or wrong, many of our citizens
and many of our friends and allies
abroad believe that this nation is unwil-
STRATEGY ... Pg. 4-F
Approved For Release 2008/04/10: CIA-RDP86T00303R000500700012-9