This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
The Soviet Union appears to have started construction of a second aircraft carrier and is reportedly taking additional steps that convince American military analysts it intends to build a fleet of such vessels.
High-ranking military sources have disclosed that the first carrier, expected to be called the Kiev, was recently taken out of drydock at the Black Sea naval shipyard at Nikolayev and that construction had begun there on what is believed to be a sister ship.
jf"
/
III*'
/
Among other indications that the Russians have decided to build a number of the ships that they long derided 2s vulnerable "floating coffins” are the following:
Iff’
*
,()'
,<*
J.
-;•
d
/
ir
><
I
The Soviet Navy has reportedly begun testing a vertical and short takeoff jet aircraft from the 300-foot halfdeck of the helicopter carrier Moskva. It is believed that such planes will operate from the deck of the Kiev, said to be almost 600 feet long, and from other ships of her class.
For the first time, the Soviet Union has promoted the head of its naval air forces to the rank of marshal of aviation, suggesting a sizable force to be com- manded.
The commander in chief of the Soviet Navy, Admiral Sergei G. Gorshkov, has written that any country seriously interred in extending its political influence ‘n areas distant from its homeland must
have a sea-based tactical air capability.
Senior American analysts say the Russians appear to be disappointed in the limited utility of their two helicopter carriers, and seem interested in full- size carriers that can accommodate a variety of aircraft and helicopters for a wide range of missions.
One high-ranking military strategist said: "No one in the West can predict with certainty, but I would expect the Russians to have a force of about three aircraft carriers in five years and about 12 in ten years. But it will take some time until they have technologically advanced carriers and aircraft to match our own.”
The United States has 14 attack carriers and plans to scale down to a force of about 12 over the next few years.
Military sources say the first true Soviet aircraft carrier, the Kiev, is about 900 feet long, with an angled flight deck of nearly 600 feet. It is in the 45,000-ton class, they say, and appears to have sufficient space to accommodate 30 to 40 jet planes and 30 to 40 large helicopters at one time.
The vessel reportedly does not have steam catapults, as do American carriers, leading to the conclusion that it will operate with short take-off jets, at least initially.
Older American aircraft carriers of this size, in the Hancock class, normally carry 60 to 70 aircraft. To conserve fuel on take-off, the United States employs steam catapults to get jets airborne.
The Russians appear at this stage to be following a different course. For several years, they have been developing
jet-powered vertical and short take-off aircraft. The first prototype, a Yakovlev jet, code-named Freehand by Western analysts, was demonstrated at an air show in the summer of 1967.
Recently, what is believed to be an advanced version of this plane has been test-flown off the deck of the Moskva, in the Black Sea, as well as from a dock-size area at the Ramenskoye airfield southeast of Moscow, military sources say.
They describe the plane as a short, stubby jet with diamond-shaped wings. It is believed to have a maximum speed of about 600 miles an hour and a maximum operating radius of roughly 350 miles.
The range of the aircraft is considerably diminished, analysts say, when it has to use a lot of its fuel to take off straight up, especially against winds streaming across a carrier’s deck. If it can use much of the new carrier’s 600- foot flight deck for a short take-off, the analysts point out, its range more nearly approaches the maximum limit.
Military sources say the first carrier was taken out of drydock in December, with completion of the vessel and her armament presumably proceeding offshore. At about the same time, the Soviet Union promoted Colonel General Ivan I. Berzov, commander of naval aviation, to the rank of air marshal.
More recently, construction of a second large vessel has reportedly begun in the drydock where the first carrier was built.
Until recent years the Soviet Union concentrated on a large surface navy to
protect its coastal waters and on long- range submarines that can pose a threat to cargo vessels and warships of enemies in the event of war. But in recent years, it has been building a variety of large,
modern surface missile ships and has deployed them in increasing numbers in such distant waters as the Mediterranean, the Indian Ocean, and even the Caribbean.
In a series of articles in the Soviet naval digest, Admiral Gorshkov has suggested a shift in naval strategy, declaring that while the aircraft carrier would be vulnerable in an all-out nuclear war, it had demonstrable political and military utility in vying for influence in underdeveloped regions.
American planners believe the Soviet Union intends to assign the numbers and types of aircraft on carriers according to the situation. They say that in situations where the primary concern is the threat posed by an enemy’s submarines, the carrier could carry mostly large helicopters to search for undersea craft far from the fleet and destroy them. Both the Moskva and another carrier, the Leningrad, with room for 20 to 30 helicopters, are able to do this now. But,
Missile-armed Hydrofoil—This is an artist’s conception of the Navy's 150-ton missile-armed patrol boat, hydrofoil (PHM) prototype, currently under development. The initial contract calls for two such prototypes, with 30 follow-ons. Tentative plans call for the craft to carry four Harpoon surface-to-surface missiles, the Oto Melara 76-mm. rapid-fire, multi-purpose gun, and two 20-mm. multi-purpose cannon. The PHMs will be 120 feet long, have a beam of 25 feet, displace 150 tons, and have a crew of about 15.
the American planners say, should the Soviet Union prefer to pose a threat to put troops ashore in helicopters and support them with jets, then the larger carriers could carry a lot more jets and troop-carrying helicopters.
Iran Tightens Its Watch On Persian Gulf Oil Trade
(Dana Adams Schmidt in The Christie Science Monitor, 27 March 1973)
Iran has been quietly pushing a plan to exert control over shipping into and out of the Persian Gulf by establishing a checkpoint in the 26-mile-wide Strait of Hormuz.
While the controls would be exercised jointly with the Sultanate of Oman, which controls one shore of the Strait, Iran, now possessing a considerable Air Force and Navy, would, in fact, be the controlling party.
Iran seeks this control because ever)' 12-to-l6 minutes an oil tanker sails through the Strait on its way to the Western Europe or Japan. Western Europe derives 50 to 65% of its oil front the Gulf and Japan 80 to 90%. Two- thirds of the world’s oil imports origi' nate from the ports around these waters and 75% of the globe’s oil reserves are believed to lie beneath the Gulf’s waters or the soil of the surrounding countries
For these reasons, oil experts have called the Gulf "the most important area in the world.” Yet no great power has exerted direct control of the Gulf since Britain withdrew at the end of 1971-
At that time, the Iranians seized three small islands claimed by Arab Gud sheikhdoms close to the Strait of Hof' muz on the grounds that the sheikh' doms were vulnerable to subversion and the islands might fall into subversi'c hands. It is from these three islands. Abu Musa and the Greater and Lesser Tonb, that Shah Reza Pahlavi would probably exert his control over the Strait.
While the main purpose would he security, the plan also calls for a pollu' tion check. Oil tankers would be re- quired to flush their tanks before enter ing the shallow Gulf.
Extensive Book Catalogs Now Available
World War II #1—$1.00
American Civil War #4—$1.00
Maritime Catalog # I—$1.00 Alaska & Arctic #13—$1.00 Western Americana #24—$1.00
Cost of catalog will be deducted from first $10.00 order.
Write for free Directory describing our services.
SHOREY BOOKSTORE
815 Third Ave. • Seattle. Wa. 98104
The Iranian plan in a sense would revive the glory of the city of Hormu2- which in the 14th and 15th centutie*
Notebook 115
the
it t®
an1
an"
grew rich by levying tolls upon the ships passing through. It was said in those days that "Were all the world a ring, Hormuz would be the jewel in it.”
0*
jlf
an^
ling
rail
<ef;
of
cl*
si*
ifi
cd
ai^
tK
rf"
/
fO-
f
arf
«t*
f*-
vc
f>
,»*
0"
Iran considers itself the natural successor to the British in the Gulf. The Shah, who used to fear the subversive ambitions of President Nasser of Egypt low fears leftist subversives who work from Iraq in the north and South Wien to the south. He cannot do much to control the Baathist revolu- lionaries from Iraq who attempt to set up their party cells in the various Gulf sheikhdoms. But he could by controlling the Strait prevent revolutionaries from shipping in weapons from Aden as they have often done in the past. The 'evolutionary movement in South Yemen is already conducting a guerrilla War against the Sultan of Oman and has declared its intention to "liberate” the entire Gulf.
Shah Pahlavi would like to keep all she big powers as well as leftist sub- versives out of the Gulf. He advised the H. S. to close down the small base it still maintains at Bahrain when the British svithdrew in 1971, but the U. S. has clung to this facility where two elderly destroyers and a seaplane tender under 'he command of an admiral are based.
During a recent visit to Moscow the Shah is reported to have also told Premier Alexei N. Kosygin that it would he wise for the Soviet Union to halt the series of visits by Soviet naval ships in 'he gulf.
The U. S., which has had no clear policy in the Gulf since the withdrawal °f the British, is believed to condone 'he Shah’s aim without actively encour- aging it. Unable to devise any alternative, the U. S. appears to be glad to allow the Shah to dominate these highly
iC strategic waters.
5. The Soviet Union, which is believed ■I to have covert ambitions in this oil-rich i area, can be expected to oppose the
c Shah’s in entions. But the most vocal
opposition would come from the Arabs. C King Faisal and the other traditional
r rulers of the Gulf share the Shah’s inter- Kt in keeping subversives out of the area. But their traditional hostility toward the Iranians (Persians) would I probably oblige them to go along with i S ‘n opposing the Iranians.
The Sultanate of Oman alone may be
expected to cooperate with the Iranians because it is so directly threatened by a revolutionary guerrilla movement and stands to gain both direct military assistance from Iran and a steady income from inspection fees levied upon passing ships.
Whatever the Omanis do will be checked beforehand with the British advisers who still exert a vast influence with the sultanate and who run the Sultan’s Army and Air Force.
It seems likely that the Iranian plan has been discussed at length with the British and the United States, and that it has been brought to the surface at this time as a trial balloon before it is formally launched by the Shah and Sultan Qabus bin Timur of Oman.
Washington State Is Location Of Trident Submarine Base
(NavNews, 23 March 1973)
The Navy has announced that the Pacific Ocean is to be the initial area of operation for the new Trident submarine. This decision will broaden the ocean area of operations of deterrent submarines.
This vessel, larger than Polaris submarines and with longer range missiles, will operate from the Bangor Annex, Naval Torpedo Station at Keyport, Washington. Plans are underway to expand facilities at this base.
Located on the Hood Canal, the site allows easy deep-water access to the Pacific Ocean. Operational timetables call for the base to be ready by 1978 to accommodate the first Trident subs.
Two years of intensive study preceded the announcement. Taken into consideration were the presence of a suitable harbor and channel for the submarine, adequate government-owned land, available work force, climate, environmental impact, and operational aspects characteristic to Trident. Cost of the base is estimated at $550 million.
Polaris submarines, most of which are equipped with Poseidon missiles, will continue to use Charleston, South Carolina, as their primary East Coast base of operations. The Trident base, one element in the new fleet ballistic missile system, was approved by Congress in the 1973 fiscal budget.
Thirty-four Ships Scheduled For Removal From Active Fleet
(New York News, 5 February 1973)
A decision by the Defense Department to lay up 34 Navy ships to save money during the 1974 fiscal year, will affect 26 vessels in the Atlantic Fleet. The eight others will come from the Pacific Fleet.
The spokesman said that present indications were that of the 26 Atlantic Fleet ships affected by the order, four will be transferred to the Military Sealift Command, four will be mothballed, seven will be placed under reserve command, and 11 will be decommissioned.
Coast Guard Decommissioning Several Ships And Stations
(U. S. Coast Guard News Releases,
March 1973)
The U. S. Coast Guard has announced the closing of 13 low-activity rescue stations and the decommissioning of two patrol boats, four weather stations, 13 cutters, five buoy tenders, and two lighthouses. A spokesman said the phase out will take place over a 15- month period.
Six stations will be closed in Michigan, two each in Wisconsin and New York, and one each in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Minnesota.
The 95-foot patrol boats being decommissioned are the Cape Upright (WLB-95303) and the Cape Gull (WPB- 95304). They will be replaced by newer patrol boats.
Three mid-Atlantic and one mid- Pacific ocean stations will be shut down. They are: Delta, 1,000 miles south of Greenland; Charlie, halfway between Labrador and Ireland; Bravo, halfway between Labrador and Greenland; and November, midway between San Francisco and Honolulu. The only active U. S. ocean weather station will be Hotel, located 200 miles off the Delaware coast. This station has the unusual mission of tracking sneak storms that hit the northeast area without warning.
The 13 cutters are: Androscoggin (WHEC-68), Chautauqua (WHEC-41), Es- canaba (whec-64), Gresham (WHEC-387), Klamath (WHEC-66), Mendota (WHEC- 69), Minnetonka (WHEC-67), Owasco
(WHEC-39), Pontchartrain (WHEC-70), Spencer (WHF.C-36), Wachusett (WHEC-44), Winnebago (WHEC-4o), and Winona (WHEC-65). All of the cutters, except the Spencer, were constructed near the end of World War II. The Spencer was built in 1936.
The five buoy tenders set for decommissioning are: Cowslip (WLB-277), Golden rod (WLB-213), Maple (WLB-234), Mariposa (WLB-397), and Poplar (WI.B-241).
Changes in Ships’ Status
The lighthouses are located at Eldred Rock, 48 miles northwest of Juneau, Alaska, and Point Retreat, 18 miles from Juneau. They will be converted to unmanned aids to navigation.
Companies Bid On British Side Of New English Channel Tunnel
(Graham Booker in the Journal of Commerce, 28 March 1973)
Eight civil engineering companies and consortia, including U. S. and European firms, are expected to bid in April for the £10 million ($25-million) "British” side of the contract for initial work on the proposed English Channel tunnel.
The National Space Club announces the opening of the Robert H. Goddard Historical Essay Award competition for 1973. This annual nationwide competition, with a $500 prize, is open to any U. S. citizen. Entries and inquiries should be addressed to the Goddard Historical Essay Contest, c/o National Space Club, 1629 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006.
Marine Corps Oral History Collection Catalog—An annotated listing of transcribed and accessioned interviews with retired distinguished Marines for the Marine Corps Oral History Program has just been published by the Historical Division at Headquarters Marine Corps. This 25-page pamphlet provides abstracts of these interviews with individuals who, for the most part, held high- level command and staff billets during the course of their careers. Represented in this catalog are over 3,000 collective years of Marine Corps experience and lessons learned in peacetime as well as in four major wars. These memoirs provide a reservoir of material to be used profitably by both military and civilian researchers. A copy of this catalog may be obtained by writing to the Commandant of the Marine Corps (Code HD), Headquarters, U. S. Marine Corps, Washington, D.C. 20380.
The contract, for trial borings and 1 start on the service tunnel, will be sub ject to the British and French governments giving an official go-ahead to tht channel tunnel project in July. The tunnel is expected to cost at least £500 million ($1,250-million).
The company or group involved in the initial work would almost certainly be one of the favorites for winning the main construction contract in 1975.
As with all the tunnel’s planning, the contracts are being awarded to an equal division between Britain and France, i.c-> one on the United Kingdom side and then one on the French side. There art ten groups bidding for the French stagt of the initial work, with up to eigh[1][2] individual members in the combines.
A major research effort is underway to gather historical data and person^ information on black American sea' farers. Three authors are currently researching a book which will cover all aspects of the American black maritin^ experience. Any individual having material, photographs, notes, remin|S' cences, memoirs, family material, 0< interesting anecdotes which deal will* any aspect of black seafaring (both military and civilian) or related fid1!-' (such as shipbuilding), please conta<! Jerome M. Kirschenbaum, 347 Madiso" Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10017 °[ phone collect, 212-685-4556.
A conference on "The Oceans National Economic Development-
sponsored by the Commerce Depa(t' ment’s National Oceanic and Atm05’ pheric Administration, will be held |fl Seattle, Washington, from July 17 to $ The conference will be built around si' sessions dealing with specific ocea”' related topics, plus keynote and banqud speeches on broad policy aspects 0 ocean development. For more infor^’, tion and applications, contact Capra'[3] Scott E. Drummond, U. S. Navy, 0$^ of the Associate Administrator, N* tional Oceanic and Atmospheric “ ministration, Rockville, Maryland 20$ or call 301-496-8181.
ind 1 subvert 3 tHt
tun-
£500
In Others’ Words
Acted excerpts from foreign hfessional journals.
■i i»
ainl)
r tb« >
5-
A
$
, i.«-’
: Ji* it^
i*>‘
»s-
The Military Doctrine Of American Imperialism
Editor's Note; The following is a transition of an article, written by Professor Rear Admiral V. Andreyev, Doctor of Naval fences, which appeared in the No. 4, 1972 'Hue 0/Morskoy Sbornik, the Soviet Naval digest. Because, as will be noted, the article sports to have been written in response to Quests from the naval officer readership of •^orskoy Sbornik, it offers a useful, interring counterpart to the many U. S. evaluations of Soviet intentions and capabilities.
W'e reply to readers’ questions:
v^f
>n*
A
A
. j)l
i<*'
in#
A
o<
A
A
A
A
A
o<
Captain 2nd Rank 1. Tokmakov and othcrs requested a discussion of the essence °f American "strategy of realistic deter- fence.” The editorial board publishes an irticle below on this subject.
In the 1960s, the military-political doctrine of a "strategy of the flexible rKponse” was officially adopted in the United States. Reduced to its essence, 4is meant that the country’s armed forces had to be ready to wage any type °f war, large or small, in any part of ^e world by any means, including con- Vcntional and nuclear arms.
The emergence of this doctrine had 'is origins in the aggressive policy of American imperialism directed at suppressing the national-freedom movement throughout the world, and at the s*me time, posing a threat of unleashing a nuclear war against the Socialist countries.
The doctrine of a "strategy of flexible response” envisioned the waging of local wars, as a consequence of which there ttras an increase in the so-called conventional military forces of the United States and her allies.
With the coming to power of President Nixon’s administration, a new doctrine was adopted, the so-called strategy of realistic deterrence,” (Sometimes, as a disguise, the Ameri- c*ns term it "containment by deterrence” °r "strategy of realistic containment”) °r, to better correspond to its aim and content, "a strategy of deterrence.” Just 'that has changed?
Resorting to military force remains,
117
Notebook
as before, the basis of U. S. policy. As before, the spearhead of the new doctrine is directed at the Soviet Union and other Socialist countries. The doctrine’s goal is to ensure military superiority over the U.S.S.R. by means of a more effective use of the military potential of the U.S.A., and that of the states allied with her while maintaining the leading role of the United States, and also by building up a preponderance of force in the "hot spots” of the world.
The basic postulates of the doctrine are "force,” "partnership,” and "negotiations.”
As Defense Secretary Laird has stressed, the "strategic forces are the cornerstone of the deterrence potential.”
The preservation and maintenance of a "sufficient” nuclear strategic power as the basis of a "nuclear deterrent” will remain the main task in the development of the U. S. armed might in the next decade (1971-1980). The concept of "sufficiency,” in view of American strategists, means the "guaranteed destruction” of the human resources and the economic potential of the enemy, even under conditions of a retaliatory nuclear strike, which would be disadvantageous to the U.S.A., and also the maintenance of a military capability under any circumstances.
At the same time, it provides for the development and support, at a high level, of the military power of the capitalist world, permitting the effective execution of strategic missions in various types of wars, even without strategic nuclear forces and means. The task of creating a scientific-technical superiority over the U.S.S.R. and on the basis of it of building higher quality means of warfare is being given special emphasis.
The armed forces of the nations allied with the United States are scheduled to be developed in coordination with the American armed forces. The main attention is being devoted to the development of the Navy, which, in the assessment of the American leadership, is the most all-around type of armed force, able to successfully accomplish diverse military missions in all kinds of wars— global and local, nuclear and conventional. According to a statement by Laird, ". . . in accordance with the Nixon doctrine, we are maintaining, and we will maintain and use as needs
require, naval forces to support military actions and the armed forces of our friends and allies in maintaining and strengthening supremacy at sea.”
The basic aim of "partnership” lies in the maximum use of the military, economic, and financial resources of allied and dependent nations in the interests of U. S. monopoly capital. The new doctrine provides for the strengthening of the North Atlantic bloc and a substantial increase in the military budgets of those nations making up the bloc; that is, the doctrine extends Nixon’s "Guam Doctrine” to the European countries of NATO readying them for a role as suppliers of "cannon fodder.” In addition, "partnership” includes the rendering of "military assistance” to allies. The goal of "partnership” is the mobilization of the domestic resources of allied countries; and, by so doing, to reduce the direct participation of American troops in local wars. According to Pentagon studies, the cost of sustaining an Allied soldier is several times less than that of an American serviceman.
U. S. "military aid” is subdivided into that given gratuitously, funds offered under favorable repayment conditions, and the cash sale of arms and military equipment (usually obsolescent equipment is sold, i.e., arms no longer in service). Huge sums (in 1971: $3.9 billion) are appropriated annually for the so-called "assistance program to other governments.” The puppets of Saigon, Seoul, Taiwan, Greece, and Israel receive the lion’s share of the "military aid.”
In accordance with the concept of "partnership,” such regional blocs as NATO, SEATO, CENTO, OAS, ANZUS, and bilateral military alliances with other nations are being built up and strengthened.
"Negotiations” occupy a secondary place in the new doctrine. The ruling circles in the United States believe that only by relying on their own military strength and the resources of their allies are they able to conduct negotiations with the U.S.S.R. and with other countries.
Thus, the new doctrine is based on the nuclear power of the American armed forces, but provides for a wider use of the troops of its allies and of its client states. The doctrine, like its pred-
ecessor, proceeds from the idea that three kinds of war are possible: "cold,” "limited,” and "all-out nuclear” war.
"Cold war,” in the American view, is waged by exerting pressure on the enemy using diplomatic and economic measures, shows of military strength, and by conducting an ideological campaign.
Basically, the role of the U. S. armed forces in a "cold war” consists of a show of armed might by the concentration of various groupings of forces, primarily naval, in the "hot spots” of the world, and at levels reflecting the threats to the interests of American capital.
NAVY MUTUAL AID ASSOCIATION PROVIDES INSURANCE
Sin< e 1879, NAVY MUTUAL AID ASSOCIATION'S mission has been that of serving officers and <lc|iendents of the Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard.
• Membership in NAVY MUTUAL AID ASSLXilATION will provide with certainty and promptness a substantial sum of money to families ol deceased members for their immediate aid and relief.
• Membership provides assistant e, without cost, to beneficiaries in obtaining all federal benefits to which they may be legally entitled.
Our memlrership ext eeds 58,(XX) niemlrers—and our assets are in excess - of $160 million.
Write For Further Information anti Brochure
NAVY MUTUAL AID ASSOCIATION
Navy Dept , Washington, D. C. 20307 • Phone: (202) OX 4-1638
V_____________________________________ )
A diverse distribution of missions in different wars among U. S. armed forces and those of her allies is envisioned. Thus, the U. S. ruling circles primarily plan to cope with the spreading national-liberation movement by use of local reactionary forces, having granted them the arms and the other material resources needed to conduct war as a part of the notorious "military aid.” "Vietnamization” of the war in South
east Asia is an example of such actions. The military activities of satellite armies always can be supported by the American fleet and by aviation.
This emphasizes the value of the attack aircraft carriers, which can concentrate a large number of aircraft in a limited time in any region of the globe. As is known, powerful carrier groupings are constantly positioned many thousands of kilometers from the U. S. shores (it suffices to mention the U. S. Sixth Fleet cruising in the Mediterranean Sea, and the U. S. Seventh Fleet, which is conducting active military operations in Southeast Asia).
Special attention is being given to the theory of "limited warfare,” which can be waged using all branches of the armed forces and with the use of conventional and nuclear weapons. The emergence of the theory is due to the growth in the power of the strategic nuclear forces of the U.S.S.R., and the fear of the American ruling circles that in the event of their unleashing a nuclear war on a global scale, the retalia-
tory strikes of the other side will lc>“ to catastrophic consequences for the U.S.A.
The Americans are endeavoring 10 geographically limit areas of use of nu- clear weapons in such a way that U.& territory would remain outside the*1 boundaries. The American leadership lS not concerned about the fate of the peoples of those nations that are allied in NATO and in other aggressive bio* and who may find themselves located the combat zone of a "limited war- According to information in the foreign press, right now, more than 7,000 U.' nuclear weapons (bombs, missiles, ai^ artillery projectiles) and more than 3,0^ nuclear weapons delivery vehicles concentrated in Western Europe. ItlS easy to imagine what will happen t0 these peoples if both waring sides use the nuclear stores.
According to the new doctrine, the burden for carrying out military oped' tions on land in a "limited war”
falls
on the ground forces of America’s allies: that is to say, the following principle remains valid: let Asians kill Asian* (regardless of the continent on which the war occurs, and "Asian” is intend^ to include the peoples of any nationality except U. S. citizens).
In the face of the need to establish superiority over an enemy in small local wars, it is planned to use a mobile American task unit made up of four Army divisions and a corps of Marin* (four divisions and four aviation wing* At present, one division of Marines >* held in reserve.). To lift this force by air and sea, the necessary transport lS maintained in readiness within the Unarmed forces.
It is assumed that there will be lion- ited use of other regular Army troop*- but without engaging them in a large land war.
In the course of a "limited war,” 11 is planned to conduct naval and naval air operations for the purpose of gaining supremacy at sea, supporting land force*, and assuring delivery of arms, military' supplies, and other material from the United States across the oceans to the military theaters. The United States re- tains the initiative to employ nuclei weapons at that moment when its rul- ing circles deem them necessary.
Inasmuch as they view the Sovie1
r th£
0 t0 ,f fl«-
Ik*
the'(
lip1*
th£
illi^
Jo*
-d*
fit-
tig11
V-*
tf it1*
Union as the principal foe, special attention is being given in the new military doctrine, as it was earlier, to preparations for an "all-out nuclear war” with unrestricted use of strategic nuclear Weapons.
The major role in such a war is as- signed to the U. S. strategic nuclear forces, which include units armed with 'he intercontinental ballistic missiles ^linuteman and Titan, nuclear ballistic missile submarines carrying Polaris and Poseidon missiles, and the strategic air force.
Not long ago, the top spot in the U. S. strategic nuclear forces was held f>y aviation. In I960, there were 1,779 strategic bombers (or 98.9% of all of the strategic nuclear forces) and only 16 Polaris A-i missiles.
rf*
cP
•#
iFK
/
itf
in
is*1
ii£
Ilf
id
!$•
is
n
is
At the end of the 1960s, the top spot ’n the strategic nuclear forces had shifted to land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles. In 1970, the 1,054 l(-tSMs were already supplemented by 656 Polaris missiles, or nearly 38% of the "hole strategic missile inventory. At the same time, the number of strategic bombers declined to 520 and a substan- tlal number of them were participating ln military operations in Vietnam.
At the beginning of the 1970s, a ’’end was evident towards a growth in ’he relative role of the Navy within the system of strategic nuclear forces. U. S. tuling circles have perceived the huge nudear power of the U.S.S.R. and they are now striving to create a system of strategic nuclear armament which, on ’he one hand, would possess a high ’kgree of operational survivability, and "hich, on the other, would divert re- ’aliatory nuclear strikes from U. S. terri- '°ry to the ocean areas.
American experts believe that nu- dear-powered submarines carrying multi- ple-warhead Poseidon ballistic missiles Purrly satisfy these requirements. By the mid-1970s, it is planned to refit 31 nudear missile submarines with this sys-
'em.
Simultaneously, 500 obsolescent ^hnutemen-1 ballistic missiles will be ’eplaced by the Minuteman-3 which Cjrries three nuclear warheads with a f’eld of 200 kilotons each. The obsoles- eent Titan will be withdrawn from service.
The number of strategic aircraft (at
the end of 1970, they numbered 450 heavy and about 70 light bombers) will be further reduced.
By 1975-76, the U. S. strategic nuclear forces will have 1,000 Minuteman missiles with a total of 2,000 nuclear warheads, and 656 missiles on board nuclear-powered submarines, including 496 Poseidon missiles and 160 Polaris A-3 missiles carrying 5,440 nuclear warheads; that is, about 73% of the total number of nuclear warheads on strategic missiles.
Besides the guided-missile submarines, there will also be in service four nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, eight attack carriers of the Forrestal class, and four Midway-chss carriers which will carry a total of about 1,500 aircraft, of which more than 700 can carry nuclear weapons. Thus, the center of gravity of the nuclear forces is shifting to sea.
U. S. ruling circles plan to build and put at sea the SABMIS anti-strategic missile system which calls for the construction of anti-missile surface ships, nuclear-powered, with a displacement of 25 to 30,000 tons and carrying 40 to 60 anti-missile missiles with nuclear warheads in the megaton range. The American naval command asserts that such ships, patrolling close to the enemy’s shore, will be able to knock down intercontinental ballistic missiles in the initial portions of their trajectories. In this manner, as noted in the foreign press, the SABMIS anti-missile system will be more effective than the Safeguard system currently under construction and deployed over the territory of the U.S.A. Moreover, the enemy’s missiles, targeted against this anti-missile system, will detonate in the sea, and not on the territory of the North American continent.
If the new ULMS missile submarine program is implemented, then after 1980 the strategic nuclear forces will be increased by 400 more missiles carrying 4,800 warheads.
Notebook 119
The "oceanic strategy” occupies a dominant position in the new doctrine. The essence of it is a shift of the basic power of the strategic offensive/defen- sive forces and systems to the expanses of the World Ocean and to gaining naval supremacy in the course of a war. The "oceanic strategy” does not negate waging land warfare in continental theaters: the strategy proceeds from the
premise that the land campaign will be conducted principally by allied troops, while the center of gravity of the American military operations will be shifted to the sea. In fact, this is none other than a return, under new circumstances, to a concept that is traditional to the United States.
A similar concept was evident in the forming of the North Atlantic bloc in 1949, and ratified by the NATO Council on 6 January 1950. General Bradley formulated its substance in the following manner: "First, strategic bombers are the responsibility of the United States. The highest priority in the joint defense will be assigned to the delivery of atomic bombs. Secondly, the U. S. Navy and the fleet of the naval powers of the Western Alliance will conduct the major naval operations, including protection of sea lanes. . . ; and, thirdly, the commanders of the joint staff acknowledge that the basic nucleus of the ground forces will be fielded by the European nations, with the aid of other countries, depending on the scale of the mobilization carried out by them.” As is known, materialization of this concept led to the creation of a strong West German army.
However, there is a real difference between the concept in effect at the time NATO was created and that of the doctrine of a "strategy of deterrence.” Whereas in the past the prime delivery platforms for nuclear weapons were aircraft, now, as noted above, the Navy has
jufgvr--------------------
(f5 Waterline Ship Models ^ \ 1:1250 Scale A
i Over 1300 Models •
\ S
■ Send for catalog listing for $1 airmail, de- r J ductible from first order over $10. J
I We are now in full stock on all NAVIS. ) ? NEPTUN, MERCATOR, HANSA, DEL- j ' PHIN, MERCURY, and many other brands. 5 J World’s largest stocks to select from; shipment j f the same day as order received. (
) NEPI' \ #1310 ESSEX $13.50 •
J NEPI IN # 1333 Minneapolis 6.95 J
f HANSA #S-114 Graf Spee 7.35 I
• HANSA #S-I90/I HORNET 11.95 •
1 DELPHIN D-90 South Dakota 9.85 )
. . . and many others now in stock. Also many 1 new books. Write us today. :
moved into the leading position. The new "oceanic strategy” rests on the premise that the U.S.A. must possess absolute supremacy at sea and in the air of the Western hemisphere. In the Eastern hemisphere, the U.S.A. must wage war primarily by employing naval forces and Marines and with an extremely limited use of land troops and aviation.
Hence, there is a planned reduction in the U. S. Army’s troop strength from 1,570,000 men to 942,000, and a gradual shift to the recruitment of an army of highly-paid volunteers. The Pentagon will strive to kill two birds with one stone: on the one hand, by hiring volunteers for lengthy enlistments, who would form stable cadres, and who would be able to master complex equipment; and, on the other hand, it would permit the Pentagon to select "reliable” personnel—as regards their social class- contingents—suitable for accomplishing various missions in the interests of American capital in any part of the world.
In Laird’s report, it is mentioned that ". . . in the event of the outbreak of a major conflict” ("an all-out nuclear war”: Ed.), it is planned to increase the input of called-up Reservists and National Guardsmen. In accordance with the new strategic concept, they will be the prime source of manning the Armed Services in all instances when a swift major increase is required.
U. S. ruling circles also believe that under the conditions of a "general conflict” with a powerful opponent they may be forced to forego the mobilization of a multi-million man army.
Special attention is paid to enhancing the mobility of air-dropped and air- transported troops and Marines. To this end, 80 C-5 and 275 C-141 transports arc being introduced into the inventory of the regular aviation units. Additionally, if necessary, they can use the 330 aircraft from the civil aviation reserve fleet.
Organic to the Navy are landing ships and troop transports able to simultaneously transport two reinforced Marine divisions with two air wings to support them, having an overall complement of about 100,000 men. The amphibious forces have new ships built after World War II, including 65 large ones that can make 20 knots or more. Under conditions of a "general conflict,”
ships of the NATO countries merchant fleets will handle the major portion of military shipping.
In the fall of 1970, President Nixon signed into law a bill that provides for the construction of 300 high-speed merchant ships over a 10-year period that would satisfy the requirements of the naval command with regard to damage control characteristics, loading features, installation of naval equipment, etc.
All the foregoing demonstrates the major role assigned to the "naval sector” by the Pentagon in its aggressive plans. This is, indeed, attested to by the fact that the highest strategic level within the armed forces—the Joint Chiefs of Staff—is headed by a Navy representative, Admiral Moorer. The Navy receives a large share of the defense budget. It suffices to say that in 1972, $3,329 billion was appropriated for new ship construction alone—$1.6 billion more than the average annual appropriation for that purpose for the years 1966-1970.
In Fiscal Year 1973, the Pentagon intends to increase expenditures on strategic nuclear forces with stress on a missile arsenal "which is based at sea.” In order to "ensure the necessary military might” required for the conduct of policy from a position of strength, Secretary of Defense Laird requested a total military budgetary appropriation of $83.4 billion for FY 1973.
In connection with the large appropriations allocated by the government for the material furbishment of a "strategy of realistic deterrence,” within top U. S. ruling leaders, a fierce struggle continues between the bosses of the military-industrial complex and the military high command for a large slice of the military budget pie. Recently, however, the "strategy of deterrence,” the core of which is the "oceanic strategy,” was adopted, and, over a number of years, it will determine the direction of development of the Armed Forces and of their allies in the aggressive blocs.
The appearance of the U.S.A.’s new military doctrine is not accidental—it was elicited by an aggregate of internal and external factors. The change in the relative strengths in the favor of Socialism is a factor of paramount importance. In his message to Congress of 24 February 1971, President Nixon was forced to
acknowledge that the Soviet military capabilities were equal to the U. S. anil surpassed it, in several categories.
Another major factor is a change in the relative strengths within the capitalist world. By the beginning of the 1970s, the countries of Western Europe and Japan had recovered their own economic power. They no longer wish to subordinate themselves to an American diktat, and they are striving to conduct a policy which is responsive to the interests of their ruling circles.
In the Summary Report of the Central Committees of the 24th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the Secretary General of the CPSU Central Committee L. I. Brezhne'’ pointed out that . . by the beginning of the 1970s, several major centers of imperialist rivalry had distinctly formed: these are the U.S.A., Western Europe (primarily, the six countries of the Common Market), and Japan. An economic and political competitive struggle is developing among them ever more strongly.”
At the same time, many developing countries of the "Third World” have begun to conduct an independent foreign policy responsive to their own national interests, and several of these nations have taken the path of noncapitalist development.
It is also impossible to ignore the increase in anti-war sentiment among the American people, disillusioned by the Vietnamese war, and especially among the young people.
The ruling circles of the United State* of America have been forced to acknowledge that their country is now in no condition to assume alone the role of world policeman that it took upon itself, and is forced to share the "burden of responsibility” with its own imperialist allies in order to use its economic' financial, and military potential to the maximum.
Correction
A Notebook headline of the January 1973 Proceedings incorrectly stated that a "British Shipyard Is Building Frigate* For Netherlands Navy.” The two ship* in fact are being built in The Netherlands. The editors regret the error.
Date:
3/31/73
Date:
3/1/73
3/23/73
3/27/73
3/31/73
3/31/73
3/31/73
Date:
3/17/73
Date:
3/15/73
Date:
3/19/73
Date:
3/15/73
Pass-Down-The-Line Notes
Compiled by Lieutenant Commander J. B. Finkelstein, U. S. Navy 1-31 March 1973
Ships Commissioned:
de-1090 Ainsworth
Ships Stricken: ae-19 Diamond Head
ss-424 Quillback
SS-483 Sea Leopard
dd-787 James E. Kyes
dd-790 Shelton
dd-832 Hanson
Ships Recommissioned: dlg-12 Dalghren
Ships Decommissioned:
lst-1169 Whitfield County
Ships Transferred to Naval Reserve Force
dd-716 Wilt tie
Action Involving Inactive Ships
af-52 A returns
Transferred to the National Defense Reserve Fleet, James River.
U. S. Navy Shore Establishment— Facilities Established:
[2] Mar 1973 Naval Alcohol Rehabilitation Center, San Diego, Calif.
13 Mar 1973 Defense Printing
Service, Washington,
DC.
U. S. Navy Shore Establishment— Facilities Disestablished:
31 Mar 1973 Superintendent of
Shipbuilding, U. S. Navy, United Kingdom, Ministry of Defence (Navy Department), Fox Hill,
Bath Spa, England.