WHY US IS SPLIT ON SOVIET DEFENSE BUDGET

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90-00965R000403530001-9
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 12, 2012
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: February 27, 1985
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/01/12 : CIA-RDP90-00965R000403530001-9
cPP.ISTIAN SCIENCE T'nNITOR
27 February 1985
Why US is split on Soviet defense budget
By Brad Knickerbocker
Staff writer of The Chnstian Science Monitor
Washington
There is an air of perennial theater about it.
One US government intelligence expert says the Soviet Union
spends so much on its armed forces. A Soviet analyst from an-
other agency comes up with a different figure. Politically moti-
vated officials run with the figures that most fit their preconcep-
tions - cut defense spending; no, increase it. And the public is
gene Agency (CIA) and the Defense Intelligence AgenciTUM.
The CIA says the Soviet military spending rate in recent Years
has been relatively flat, increasing ' at about 2 Per-cent annuall
.
DIA says the annual rate of increase is more like 5 to 8 percent.
Why the disparity, and what difference does it make?
Both agencies use the same raw intelligence data, -obtained
from satellites, spies, and published documents. But there is
much room for interpretation. For example, how relevant are fig-
ures on Soviet military spending when converted from rubles to
dollars? There is no generally accepted conversion rate for the
ruble as there is, say, for the British pound or French franc.
What is a logical figure for Soviet labor costs, and how can this
be compared with what a relatively high-paid US defense worker
earns?
"Dollars are a poor substitute for capability in evaluating the
threat," cautions Richard Stubbings of Duke University, a
White House defense spending analyst for 20 years.
On evaluating military capability, CIA and DIA officials are
more nearly in agreement. Even though there was an apparent
SQWdown in r itarv investment from the mid-1970s through
the early 1980s. the Soviet Union continued to produce large
quantities of military equipment: 1,800 strategic missiles, 5,300
combat aircrak and 15.500 s. ?
Harold Brown, US secretary of defense under President Car-
ter, once put it this way: "When we build, they build. When we
stop, they build."
Even though the rate of increase in Soviet military spending
Ct-appears to have ned, CIA deputy director Robert Gates
told Congress in recently released testimony that "spending lev-
els were so high that the defe-n-se establishment was able to con-
tinue to mernize its forces and enhance substantially military capabilities."
Toes this mean that the Soviet-arsenal is better than that of
the US?
According to the Pentagon, the United States is ahead of the
Soviet Union in 15 of the 20 "most important basic technology
areas" and behind in none.
The technological gap in weapons that are actually deployed
is narrower: US ahead in 17 weapons categories, equal in 10, be-
hind in 5. But the Soviet Union apparently is having trouble
catching up.
"The figures signify serious Soviet shortcomings relative to
the United States in the area of basic military technology,"
writes congressional analyst Richard Kaufman in the quarterly
journal Soviet Economy. "Soviet weaknesses in initiating and
adopting new technology could become more pronounced as the
trend toward increased sophistication of weaponry continues."
The US emphasizes its technological edge most controver-
sially in the Reagan administration's push for space-based sys-
tems to defeat a Soviet nuclear missile attack. But the adminis-
tration's military buildup also reflects what military officers,
who might have to use the new gear in combat, frequently are
beard to say about more conventional weapons: "Quality
is better than quantity .:. especially when deployed in
large numbers."
Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger stresses the
size of the Soviet arsenal in defending his record-break-
ing budget requests.
"The Soviets have maintained an overall numerical
advantage in most - categories of conventional forces
throughout the postwar. period," he states in his report to
Congress for fiscal 1986. '"Sin-:e the mid-1970s they have
widened their advantage in nearly every force category
by producing major- weapons at rates exceeding those-of
the United States and ourNATO allies combined"
Critics acknowledge that the ? Warsaw ' Pact arsenal is
larger tl pan NATO's. ,But they -say this ignores several
thugs
While the US is warming up militarily with'China,
large numbers of Soviet forces must concentrate on the
threat from that direction. . -
French forces remain 'independent of NATO com-
mand but presumably would not stand idle in the face of
a westward push by East Bloc armored and infantry di-
visions. The NATO-Warsaw Pact balance also ignore
close US military allies in other parts of the world, espe- i
"When allies are added in, the US and its allies ex-
ceeded the Soviets and their allies in defense spending
for-each of the last 15 years," said Richard Stabbings,
It is'also generally accepted that the Western alliance
- for tills squabbles -- is a genuine grouping of friends
who can be counted onsn.,time?of crisis. it is less clear
whether, . say, Pohsh'troops would.enthusiastically. take
part in an invasion of Western Europe.
It; is within this context that intelligence- estimates of
Soviet military spending - imperfect as they are - must
%.be seen,-these experts say
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/01/12 : CIA-RDP90-00965R000403530001-9