NOTE (Sanitized)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80B01554R003300180021-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 27, 2005
• Sequence Number: 21
• Publication Date: January 22, 1980
• Content Type: NOTES

25X1 Approved For Release 2005/03/01 : CIA-RDP80BO1554R003300180021-8
Approved For Release 2005/03/01 : CIA-RDP80BO1554R003300180021-8
 Approved For FeaseT0&gi1IA~~,-~b060'1.5i~~3300180021-8
,,~ ICr:E APPS: i.xl; 26 December
Y P.kG :~ ..c
By John K. Cooley
Staff correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
El:cridge, Maryland
If the United States is to move from present military and
political weakness back to strength in the 1980s, it must spend
much more for defense and fashion new long-term strategies
with allies.
So finds a distinguished panel of "hawkish" defense schol-
ars and retired military men. Meeting privately here Dec. 19-
21 in the shadow of the Iran crisis and the less-noticed, but
still severe, difficulties for the Carter administration's SALT
II arms-limitation treaty with the Soviet Union, the panel
suggested a series of "quick fixes" and longer-term ways to
restore American strength between now and 19941.
All of the 30 participants and Monroe Brown, president of
the San Francisco-based Institute for Contemporary Studies,
a private foundation that sponsored the meeting, acknowl-
edged that these remedies will cost Americans large
amounts of money and effort. The Soviet Union, as they
pointed out in detail, now is expending both on a much larger
scale than is the US.
Striking the keynote for a book on "national security in the
'80s," which the institute will publish next spring, Adm. Elmo
Zumwalt Jr. (USN, ret.) warned that in the new decade "the
shift in military power toward the Soviet Union threatens to
weaken our alliances with Western Europe and Japan."
This is especially true "in the third world, where the dan-
ger is most immediate," and where the United States and its
allies are dependent on petroleum and mineral resources,
Admiral Zumwalt adds in a draft chapter for the book.
Admiral Zumwalt and most of the other authors, including
W. Scott Thompson and Geoffrey Kemp, both professors at
the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts Univer-
sity in Massachusetts; William Van Cleave of the University
of Southern California, and Richard Burt of the New York
Times outlined how and why, in their view, US defense spend-
ing possibly exceeding $1 trillion by 1990 ought to be matched
by better strategic planning.
Allies, especially Japan and West Germany, should in-
creasingly defend their own Middle East oil supplies, but
may also prod the US into doing more to defend Pacific sea
lanes against the rising Soviet naval threat, urged defense
analyst Kenneth Adelman and several other conferees'.
Henry S. Rowen of Stanford University outlined a per-
spective of increasingly short oil supplies during the 1980s, as
multinational. companies have less control over the world
market and producing countries cut back supplies.
Leonard Sullivan Jr. of the Systems Planning Corpora-
tion, said that although US strategy for deterring conven-
tional war has not changed from the idea of the 1960s of pre-
paring for a "war and a half" - in Europe and some such
third-world area as the Indian Ocean. Besides, "consider-
ations for actually fighting" the "war and a half" are "seri-
ously incomplete," and "the strategy itself is probably no
longer appropriate or adequate" because of a lack of US will
to build war-fighting capacity.
`oj
Ei
.1.
programs, or about $11 billion per year in 1980 with or without
SALT, Mr. Sullivan proposes.
(The SALT U treaty faces an uncertain fate in the US Sen-
ate next year, after the Armed Services Committee issued an
unfavorable majority report on it.)
To modernize conventional forces, "we should be spend-
ing $19 billion annually [in fiscal 1980 dollarsi for Navy and
Air Force tactical air and Army helicopters; $3 billion for ar-
mored vehicles and air defense systems, and $7 billion for
general-purpose naval ships and submarines," with current
outlays running roughly to one-half these figures.
Instead of the old one-and-a-half war strategy, "Congress.
should be given the option of funding either a one-, two-, or
three-front [Europe, Asia, Indian Ocean] war capability."
This should include either a "short" war of 30 to 60 days or 'a
1
"long" one of well over 180 days.
Urgent needs in intelligence and industrial mobilization
and the need to halt the present drain of high military tech-
nology to the Soviets through stronger trade controls were
aired at the meeting.
Paul Nitze, a leading opponent of SALT and former secre-
tary of the Navy, and strategic analyst Charles Burton Mar-
shall outlined ideas for a new long-range strategy - less con-
cerned with reacting on a case-by-case basis to local third-
world or Soviet pressures, and. more with spreading
confidence in American purpose to friends and allies.
To upgrade US strategic arms and secure "quick fixes" to
overcome Soviet superiority, present or future, the US should
spend about twice as much, for bombers, missiles and space,
Approved For Release 2005/03/01 : CIA-RDP80BO1554R003300180021-8