HOW MUCH HAS SOVIET SPENT ON ARMS? U.S. AGENCIES SPLIT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP92B00478R000800130007-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 23, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 16, 2014
• Sequence Number: 7
• Publication Date: March 4, 1983
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/01/16: CIA-RDP92B00478R000800130007-3e TAT
F
FRIDAY MORNING, 4 MARCH 1983
INIMPOTIMMOMIlliMPIMOVV1+4 012t4"2.4.111934111:01102.41.1121111111MIMMICSI
?
BALTIMORE SUN 4 March 1983
Pg. 2
How much has Soviet spent
on arms? U.S. agencies split
New York Times News Service
Washington ? A dispute over So-
viet military spending has erupted
among U.S. intelligence analysts, ac-
cording to government officials, with
specialists in the CIA saying the
growth rate has been overstated for
the last six years.
The CIA specialists responsible for
annual reviews of Soviet military
spending now say their previous esti-
mates of increases of 3 percent to 4
percent each year, after inflation,
may be wrong, and that the rate of
growth may have been no more than
2 percent. Their judgment is based on
evidence that the Soviet Union has
been producing less military materiel
than expected.
The difference in growth rates of
Soviet military outlays would mean
the Russians are spending the equiva-
lent of several billions of dollars less
each year than had been surmised.
While the new evidence is gener
ally accepted within the CIA and the
State Department and among some
military analysts, it is disputed by the
Pentagon's Defense Intelligence
Agency (DIA). Senior officials of the
CIA and DIA are also said to give the
evidence a different interpretation.
To them, Moscow has been spending
as much as predicted but has been
getting less for it, in part because of
the higher price of more advanced
arms, in part because of Soviet indus-
trial inefficiency.
Government officials said the de-
bate could be politically explosive
since the Reagan administration has
been talking about growing Soviet ex-
penditures to help justify increases in
U.S. arms outlays. The military bud-
get is already under criticism from
both parties in Congress, business
groups and prominent former offi-
cials.
Government officials acknowl-
edged that estimating Soviet military
spending is an inexact art, based on
sketchy information, assumptions and
difficulties in translating Soviet ruble
costs into dollar values.
Total Soviet military spending
must be estimated because the single
published Soviet budget figure la-
beled "defense" is believed to cover
only some kinds of outlays. This fig-
ure has been holding fairly steady at
about 17 billion rubles in recent
years, or $24 billion at the current ex-
change rate.
The DIA has reported to Defense
Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger that
the Soviet Union spent the equivalent
of $222 billion, 44 percent more than
the United States, in 1981, the most
recent year reviewed.
No CIA estimate for 1981 has been
published, but officials said it was
much lower and thus closer to the
United States' $154 billion.
Whatever the outcome of the de-
bate, any gap in spending is being
closed by President Reagan's large
military outlays. While the Soviet
Union has been increasing its spend-
ing, according to U.S. estimates, at a
rate of 3 percent to 4 percent, the
United States is scheduled to spend
9.5 percent more this year than last.
To estimate Soviet spending, U.S.
analysts try to obtain information
about weapons, equipment, construc-
tion, testing, training and operations,
largely from satellite photographs.
Then they undertake a laborious
count and allow for other costs such
as storage space for things unseen.
The specialists assign a dollar
value to what it would cost to produce
a similar tank, ship or plane in the
United States, bring to bear judg-
ments from Soviet statements and
other intelligence, and run the infor-
mation through computers to arrive
at a spending estimate.
Some U.S. specialists on the Soviet
economy have questioned the validity
of this approach. In view of higher
American labor costs, they say, weap-
ons may be more expensive in the
United States than in the Soviet Un-
ion, and attaching the U.S. dollar cost
to Soviet-made weapons may exag-
gerate their cost to the Soviet econo-
my.
Government officials now say CIA
analysts were surprised late last year
when their count of Soviet arms
turned out to be less than might have
been expected with a growth rate of 3
percent or 4 percent. They looked
back over the last six years and found
that arms-production rates had been
more consistent with a growth rate of
2 percent.
The analysts offered two explana-
tions: The Soviets either were spend-
ing less than estimated or were less
efficient than presumed. Opinion was
said to be leaning toward the lower
expenditure theory.
The analysts speculated that the
slowdown in Soviet economic growth
that has been observed since 1977
might have affected the military sec-
tor: When economic growth slowed
from about 4 percent a year to 2 per-
cent, military spending also slowed.
This reasoning brought protests
from the senior officials at the CIA
and the DIA, who placed greater
weight on industrial inefficiency.
They also said modern weapons were
costlier, so that a given amount of
money would buy fewer but more ca-
pable weapons.
Also, according to Pentagon offi-
cials, the DIA questioned the CIA ana-
lysts' count of Soviet weapons. A new
count is said to be under way.
TROOPS.. .Continued
National Volunteer Week. At least
during that week, America's heroic
private-sector initiative efforts
should be given the attention they
deserve. Then if the ratings go down,
they can go back to bad news."
The text that was distributed be-
fore Reagan's speech contained a
gibe at some television anchormen
that the president did not deliver.
The text said " . . . I only wish Dan
Rather, Tom Brokaw, Ted Koppel
and others in the media would focus
a bit more on some of the truly ad-
mirable things being done by the
American people." Assistant press
secretary Anson Franklin said that
these words were written by speech-
writer Dana Rohrabacher and de-
leted by Reagan when he returned
the speech draft with his revision
Wednesday afternoon.
Broadcasters responded critically,
nevertheless.
"Politicians are always trying to
sell the idea that the only coverage
4
that is fair is coverage that is favor-
able," Rather said. And Paul Green-
berg, executive vice president of
NBC Nightly News, said: "We get
this from every \administration. We
led last night with Barney Clark.
That's bad news? We had a story
about the upturn in the economy.
That's bad news? The pope was bad
news? What is he talking about?" -
Franklin said that Reagan deleted
the reference because he considered
it inappropriate.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/01/16: CIA-RDP92B00478R000800130007-3
1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/01/16: CIA-RDP92B00478R000800130007-3
0
'1* FRIDAY MORNING 4 MARCH 1983
WASHINGTON POSIL?,..Mar ch 1983 Pg .2l
21
White House Rules Out Use of U.S. Combat Troops in El Salvador I
....:
.
By Lou Cannon
Washington Post Staff Writer
LOS ANGELES, March 3?The
White House today ruled out the use
of U.S. combat troops in El Sal-
vador, but confirmed that a proposal
that would permit U.S. military ad-
visers to accompany Salvadoran
;roops into war zones is under re-
view. "There is no plan- whatsoever
to use U.S. troops in A combat role,"
said White House spokesman Larry
Speakes.
As to plans to increase the num-
ber of U.S. advisers in El Salvador,
Speakes said there were 45 there as
of Tuesday. "Our initial plan is to
make it to 55 and then see how that
works," he said. Speakes also de-
scribed as "unfortunate" A remark
attributed to an unidentified admin-
istration official in ? Wednesday's
Washington Post, to the effect that
President Reagan had received a
negative assessment of the develop-
ing Salvadoran situation and would
take "all necessary measures" to pre-
vent the country from \falling to left-
ist rebels. ?
Speakes said that instead the ad-
ministration would do "whatever it
can" to help the Salvadoran govern-
ment. " ?
The White Houk is trying to
steer a fine line between arousing
Congress about what the president
considers a critical situation in El
Salvador and avoiding any sugges-
tion that the United States is be-
coming involved in a Vietnam-type
situation.
Earlier this week the administra-
tion asked Congress to approve a
request for $60 million in additional
military aid for the Salvadoran re-
gime.
Yesterday two Republicans, Sen.
Mark 0. Hatfield (Ore.) and Rep.
Jim. Leach (Iowa), introduced legis-
lation that would require a cutoff of
all military 'aid to El .Salvador and
the withdrawal of U.S. military ad-
sisers unless the Salvadoran govern-
ment actively participates "in good
i
faith" n negotiatiOns to achieve a
political solution to the civil war.
Their bill would make further se-
curity assistance dependent on
whether the Salvadoran authorities
are willing to open talks "with all
major parties to the conflict which
are willing to participate uncondi-
tionally . . for the purpose of
WASHINGTON POST 4 March 1983 Pg 21
U.S. Official Clarifies Staius
Of Salvadoran Ammunition
Associated Press
The Reagan administration's
prediction that the Salvadoran
army could run out of ammuni-
tion in 30 days is based on the
assumption of far heavier com-
bat than is now occurring, an un-
dersecretary of state said yester-
day.
"For example, if Nicaragua de-
cided to invade with a 40,000-
man army that's at their dispos-
al," said William Schneider Jr.,
undersecretary for security as-
sistance, at a hearing of the
House Foreign Affairs subcom-
mittee on international security.
He was interrupted by Rep.
Gerry E. Studds (D-Mass.):
"Is that the assumption on
which you're telling us they're
going to run out in 30 days?"
"No, I'm giving you a hypo-
thetical characterization,"
Schneider began to reply.
Studds interrupted again:
"I'm not asking you for an hy-
pothesis. I want to know why we
say they're in a critical situation
and they say they are not."
Schneider replied that it was
because the way the administra-
tion calculates Salvadoran stocks
is based not on intentions, but
on the potential threat that
could use up the ammunition .
fast.
"I'm sure we could run. out
ourselves if we made certain as-
sumptions," Studds remarked at
one point.
Administration officials have
said they do not think. Nicaragua
will invade El Salvador.
Thomas 0. Enders, assistant
secretary of state for inter-Amer-
ican affairs, told another sub-
committee Tuesday that Salva-
doran soldiers would run out of
ammunition in 30 days without
$60 million in additional military
aid.
Schneider is Enders' boss.
achieving a cease-fire and an equi-
table political solution . . .
And a third Republican, Sen.
David F. Durenberger (Minn.), sent
a letter to Reagan saying he will not
support additional military aid ei-
ther unless there is progress toward
a negotiated settlement of the Sal-
vadoran conflict.
Durenberger, who said he had
been "a consistent and faithful sup-
porter" of Reagan's Central America
policy, .also strongly criticized recent.
statements by Secretary of State
George P. Shultz and Vice President
Bush about the role of the Roman
Catholic clergy in El Salvador as "as-
tonishing" and betraying "little un-
derstanding" of the church's role in
the region..
Both have complained and voiced
puzzlement about the fact that
Catholic priests are supporting
'Marxist rebels.
At the Pentagon, meanwhile, an
official who briefed reporters on the
condition that he not be identified
said that under the policy under
study U.S. trainers would go only to
"safe areas," and he stressed that
there would he no change in their
role and that they would not go into
combat.
He also said it might he necessary
to exceed the present self-imposed
limit of 55 advisers if the Pentagon
is required to train more troops in-
side El Salvador.
The official, under questioning,
said he wasn't sure why the 55-man
limit was imposed. "I suppose it was
just to pacify those critics who say
we're getting involved in another
Vietnam."
On another subject, Reagan in a
speech here today urged television to
cover "good stories" rather than bad
news, giving as an example an ac-
count of how a barber in Monroe,
Ohio, raised $50,000 to build an ath-
letic training center that the local
school board couldn't afford.
"I offer this challenge," Reagan
said. "April 17 through April 23 is
TROOPS . 0.Pg.4
3
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/01/16: CIA-RDP92B00478R000800130007-3