JOINT CHIEFS CITE SOVIET ABM SCOPE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP70B00338R000300090068-2
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 9, 2006
• Sequence Number: 68
• Publication Date: February 22, 1967
• Content Type: NSPR

Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300090068-2
Joint Chiefs Cite
Soviet ABM Scope
Contend White House' HIEFS-From Al
Underestimates Size
Of Russian System
By George C. Wilson
Washington Post Staff Writer
The Joint Chiefs of Staff
contend Russia's missile de-
fense is much bigger than the
Johnson Administration has
described to the public, it was
learned yesterday.
The military chiefs, in a po-
sition paper not yet made
public and perhaps destined
to be kept secret, argue that
Russian missile defenses
cover many areas besides
Moscow.
This puts the Chiefs at odds
with both the White House
See CHIEFS, A18, Col. 2
Approved
and Defense Secretary Robert
S. McNamara. The Johnson
Administration line is that
Russia's deployed missile de-
fense is now limited to the
Moscow area.
Secretary McNamara, in the
public version of his posture
statement, said "it now ap-
pears" the Soviets are placing
Galosh anti-missiles around
Moscow. "They are also de-
ploying another type of defen-
sive system elsewhere in the changed the air defense hard-
Soviet Union," he said, "but ware to fit new U.S. strategy.
the weight of the evidence at The lag between blueprint
this time suggests that this and hardware is often about
system is not intended prima- '10 years.
rily for anti-ballistic-missile One theory is that Tallinn
defense." was built specifically to
fficials have
the B-70
f
lli
i
I
gence o
nte
been telling Congress in
closed session that McNamara
was referring to a defense
against U.S. high altitude '
bombers. Another theory is
that this Soviet defense is
against slow, air-breathing
missiles which resemble robot
airplanes.
Reject Both Theories
The military Chiefs reject
both these theories. They
maintain that this defense
across the northeastern part
of Russia, known as the Tall-,
inn system, must be for mis-
siles. They reason Russia
knows U.S. bomber strategy
is based on flying bombers in
low-not at high altitude.
Also, the Chiefs argue, the
Tallinn system is stretched
across the corridor-or "tube"';
as the military now calls it-
which U.S. missiles must
travel to hit Russia.
Yet another reason for be-,
lieving Tallinn is a missile de
fense, the Chiefs said, is that
U.S. offensive striking power
is based primarily on ICBMs
and Polaris missiles.
The U.S, bomber force con-
sists of B-52s and B-58s. Those
bombers would penetrate Rus-
sia while zooming in low to
escape radar detection. The
F-111 bomber, soon to be
added to the inventory, also
Buttress Argument
While t h e current U.S.
bomber force and its planned
tactics buttress the Chiefs' ar.
gument about Tallinn, the B-
52 and B-58 were designed as
high altitude bombers. So was
the B-70, which was conceded
by Secretary McNamara in
1961. (The B-52s and B-58s
have since been strengthened
so they can withstand the buf-
feting of low level flying.)
This raises the possibility
that the Soviets, in fact, did
build Tallinn against high alti-
tude bombers and have not
rom
a
protect Russ
-a bomber which would fly
in at about 80,000 feet-and
high - flying U - 2 type spy
planes. How well the Tallinn
system could be adapted to
defend against missiles, if it
indeed is primarily a bomber
defense, is part of the cur-
rent anti-ballistic-missile de-
bate here.
The Chiefs are inclined to
over-estimate a threat since
their job is providing maxi-
mum security.
Sen. Albert Gore (D: Tenn.)
said recently that Russia has
missile defenses in place in
Moscow and 26 other areas.
The extent and effective-
ness of Russia's ABM system
are other key questions as the
Congress ponders whether it
can safely forego putting s
similar defense around the
U.S. The Johnson Adminis?
tration is now trying to negotiate some kind of ABM
freeze with Russia as part of
an arms control agreement.
Secretary McNamara argue,
that offensive missiles will al
ways be ahead of the defense,
so spending billions to install
an ABM system would be a
waste of money. He estimates
the U.S. anti-missile system,
known as Nike X, would cost
$40 billion ultimately.
For Re "2 6104/3O,DCIAcRDP70B00338R000300090068-2
for the advanced bomber the
USA)' has in the planning
stage.