WHY US IS SPLIT ON SOVIET DEFENSE BUDGET

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP99-01448R000301210021-9
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 21, 2013
• Sequence Number: 21
• Publication Date: February 27, 1985
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

/?)
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/05/21 : CIA-RDP99-01448R000301210021-9
-
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE I\40NITOR
27 February 1985
Why US is split on Soviet defense budget
By Brad Knickerbocker
Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
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,
One US government intelligence expert says the Soviet Union who might have to use the new gear in combat, frequently are
spends so much on its armed forces. A Soviet analyst from an- heard to say about more conventional weapons: "Quality
other agency comes up with a different figure. Politically moti- is better than quantity . -. . especially when deployed in
vated officials run with the figures that most fit their preconcep- lar-fe, numbers." .. ,
I tions ? cut defense spending; no, increase it. And the public is Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger stresses the
left wondering who is right. size of the Soviet arsenal in defending his record-break-
'at is happening now with reports from the Central Intelli;- ing budget requests. ? _ ' -
gence Agency (CIA) and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).
- "The Soviets have maintained an overall numerical
The CIA says the Soviet military spending rate in recent years
advantage in most ?-categories of conventional forces
bas been relatively flat. increasing at about 2 percent annually.
like 5 to 8 percent.
DIA says the annual rate of increase is more . throughout the postwar period," he states in his report to
Why the disparity, and what difference does it make? , Congress for fiscal 1986. '-'`Sia-...e the naid-1970s they have
Both agencies use the same raw intelligence data,-obtained widened their advantage in nearly every force category
from satellites,- spies, and published documents. But there is - by the pUnited States and our_NATO allies-combined."
roducing major:weapons at. ratis e.xc.eeding thoseof
much room for interpretation. For example, how relevant are fig- ; -... ?
tires on Soviet military spending when converted from rubles to 1 - Critics acknowledge that the 'Warsaw' Pact arsenal is
dollars? There is no generally accepted conversion rate for the 1 than NATO's. :But they Say this ignores several
_
th-nag _ - , ----:-_-- _
:-:.?---.-:-..7,-;.?:.1-:,?_-_.-..-
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 While the US is wani,aing. up -militarily with ' China,.
I be compared with what a relatively high-paid US defense worker large numbers of Soviet forces must concentrate on the
_
I earns? threat from that direction. - - - ?
"Dollars are a poor substitute for capability in evaluating the French forces remain 'independent of NATO com-
threat," cautions Richard Stubbings of Duke University, a mend but presumably would not stand idle in the face of
White House defense spending analyst for 20 years. a westward push by East Bloc armored and infantry di-
On evaluating military capability, CIA and DIA officials are visions. The NATO-Warsaw Pact balance also ignore
more nearly in agreement. Even though there was an apparent close US military allies in other parts of the world, espe-
slowdown m military investment from the mid-1Q70s through cially Japan. . -,. _ -
the early 1980s, the Soviet Union continued to produce large "When allies are added in, the US and its allies ex-
, -
ceeded the Soviets and their allies in defense spending
quantities of military equipment 1,800 strategic missiles, 5,300
for_each of the -last -15 years:: said Richard Stubbings,
combat aircraft. and 15.500 tanks.
the former White House budget analyst. : .::?4.7-.,-'",,::-.-.: :
Harold Brown, US secretary of defense under President Car-
It is also generally accepted that the Wesfern alliance
ter, once put it this way: When we build, they build. When we
? for allits squabbles ?'- is a genuine grouping of friends
stop, they build."
,-/Even though the rate of increase in Soviet military-spending?who can'hO counted Dn'5,n--thile-ijf crisis-la is less clear_
7\1--aiapears to have flattened. CIA deputy director Robert Gates Whether, - saY Pol-i-sh-troPPOY041d,- enthuListir-Rily take
6 .
-- part in an invasion of :Western Europe
7 )-told Congress in recently released testirriony that'spending lev;-
'---- els were so high that the defense establishment was able to con:. ' Itis within this Othitext that intelliieOoe'estimatP 0-f 1
Soviet military spending ? imperfect as they are ? must
tinue to moderniz,e its forces and to enhance substantially its
military capabilities." -be seen,-these.experts say.-:,--- - - _:---: -
_.-
Does 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
1 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."
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/05/21 : CIA-RDP99-01448R000301210021-9