THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTI­ EXECUTIVE TUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH, COMMITTEE established in I 943, is a publicly supported, Herman J. Schmidt nonpartisan research and educational or­ Chairman of the Board ganization. Its purpose is to assist policy makers, scholars, businessmen, the press William J. Baroody and the public by providing objective President analysis of national and international is­ Charles T. Fisher III sues. Views expressed in the institute's Treasurer publications are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Richard J. Farrell staff, advisory panels, officers or trustees Richard B. Madden of AEI. Richard D. Wood

COUNCIL OF ACADEMIC ADVISERS SENIOR STAFF Paul W. McCracken, Chairman, Russell Chapin, Edmund Ezra Day University Legislative Analyses Professor of Business Administration, Robert A. Goldwin University of Michigan Seminar Programs Kenneth W. Dam, Harold]. and Robert B. Helms Marion F. Green Professor of Law, Health Policy Studies University of Chicago Law School Thomas F. Johnson Milton Friedman, Paul Snowden Economic Policy Studies Russell Distinguished Service Professor of Economics, University of Marvin H. Kosters Chicago; Nobel Laureate in Government Regulation Economic Science Studies Donald C. Hellmann, Professor of W. S. Moore Political Science and Co111j1arative Legal Policy Studies and Foreign Area Studies, University Rudolph G. Penner of Washington Tax Policy Studies D. Gale Johnson, Eliaki111 Hastings Moore Distinguished Service Robert J. Pranger Professor of Economics and Provost, Foreign and Defense University of Chicago Policy Studies Robert A. Nisbet, Albert Schweitzer William]. Baroody, Jr. Professor of Humanities, Columbia Executive Vice President University G. Warren Nutter, Paul Goodloe Gary L. Jones Mcintire Professor of Economics, Assistant to the University of Virginia President for Administration Marina v. N. Whitman, Distinguished Public Service Professor of Economics, Edward Styles University of Pittsburgh Director of Publications James Q. Wilson, Henry Lee Shattuck Professor of Government, Harvard University THE U.S.NAVY: WHAT IS ITS FUTURE? John Charles Daly, Moderator Charles E. Bennett Patrick J. Leahy John Moore John Warner

A Round Table held on October 6, 1977 and sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research Washington, D.C. This pamphlet contains the edited transcript of one of a series of AEI forums. These forumsoffer a medium for informalexchanges of ideas on current policy problems of national and international import. As part of AEI's program of providing opportunities forthe presentation of competing views, they serve to enhance the prospect that decisions within our democracy will be based on a more informed public opinion. AEI forumsare also available on audio and color-video cassettes.

AEI Forum 12

© 1977by American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington, D.C. Permission to quote from or reproduce materials in this publication is granted when due acknowledgment is made.

Printed in United Swtes ofAmerica

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Main entry under title: U.S.Navy, what is its future? (AEI forum 12) Transcriptof a round table discussion, participants: Patrick J. Leahy ...et al. I. United States. Navy-Congresses. I. Daly, John Charles, 1914- II. Leahy, Patrick]. III.American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. IV. Series: American Enterprise In­ stitute for Public Policy Research. AEI forum ; 12. VA58.4.U 56 359'.0 3'0973 77-252 68 ISBN 0-8 4 47-2 113-1 OHN CHARLES DALY, former ABC News chief J and forummoderator: This public policy forum, part of a series presented by the American Enterprise In­ stitute, is concerned with the U.S. Navy and its future. Threaded through all history, ancient and modern, is the critical role of command of the seas and oceans in sustain­ ing nations and civilizations. From Xerxes' defeat at Salamis in 480 B.C., when Persia's fleet was destroyed by the Greeks, through Elizabethan England's victory over the Spanish Armada and Nelson's victory at Trafalgar over the French, to the Coral Sea and Midway in World War II, when American seapower broke the Japanese grip on the farreaches of the Pacific,the command of the seas and oceans has impressed its vital influence on the course of history. Drake breaking the Spanish Armada and Nelson at Trafalgar demon­ strated that mass and numbers alone ,do not victory make. The Coral Sea, Midway, and the Battle of the Atlantic against the Nazi submarine demonstrated that superior leadership, seamanship, tactics, technology, and intelli­ gence, supported by industrial capacity, do victory make. The question of naval supremacy always has rested on the mix of men and technology, and our question tonight is: The U.S. Navy, what is its future? Senator Leahy, weighing today's U.S. Navy against its mission, do you think its size should be increased?

I PATRICK J. LEAHY, United States senator (Democrat, Ver­ mont): If the navy's mission is defined as the capability to fight simultaneous wars in just about every place where it presently sails, the answer is no, it is not large enough. Still, the basic question for the administration and the Congress is defining and redefiningjust what that mission is.

MR. DALY: Congressman Bennett, as a member of the House fornearly thirty years, as chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee, and as the second-ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, do you feel that our present naval programs are realistically meeting the future needs of the navy?

CHARLES E. BENNETT, United States representative (Demo­ crat, Florida): Decidedly not. There are many deficiencies. We certainly need two more nuclear carriers; we need cruisers with the new Aegis* radar and intercept missiles, and we need a lot more ships in various places. Many have to be small because we cannot affordto have all large ships, but we do definitely need the expensive ships I first men­ tioned, just to carry on the fundamentals of our own defense.

MR. DALY: Secretary Warner, as under secretary and then secretary of the Navy for more than five years, your hand, so to speak, was on the tiller. Are there any alternatives to building an ever larger navy in the future?

JOHN WARNER, former secretaryof the U.S. Navy: No, ab­ solutely not, so long as we find in the Soviet Union the desire to continue to develop a fleet that will challenge us on the high seas.

*This term is explained on pp. 33-34.

2 MR. DALY: Captain Moore, as editor of Jane's Fighting Ships and the acknowledged authority on the world's navies, how do you assess the future role of the U.S. Navy?

JOHN MOORE, editor of Jane's Fighting Ships and retired Royal Navy officer: The navy's role is very much the same as it has been over the centuries. In 1666, in Charles II's time, a preamble was put into the Naval Discipline Act which we still read today-that it is upon the navy, under the providence of God, that the health, prosperity, and safety of this country chiefly depend. I think that fills the bill.

MR. DALY: All right. We have already heard some question as to the mission of the U.S. Navy. With nuclear capability, 200-mile economic exploitation zones offshore, various and arbitrary territorial offshore limits, and some discus­ sion of mining the ocean floor, has the mission of the navy materially changed? How would you define its changed mission?

MR. WARNER: A new mission has been added-what I call a peacetime mission. Those of us who have studied our naval history tend to think in terms of war, but the U.S. Navy has the equally important peacetime mission of providing safe transit for our commerce through the sea lanes of the world. This is where I disagree with Captain Moore, who said the navy's mission is the same as it has been since 1600. Each day our nation becomes more dependent upon bring­ ing in the raw materials we manufacture and export for our economy: we are absolutely dependent on the freedom of the world's shipping lanes.

CAPTAIN MooRE: I meant to say that the wealth, health,

3 safety, prosperity, and everything else in the country de­ pend upon the navy's protection. This is the same thing you are saying. Imports and exports are vital to the life of the United States. The inhabitants of this country do not realize how much they depend on the sea lanes for import­ ing materials. We are not at variance on this point; I think we are in agreement.

MR. WARNER: Historically, people think of the navy only in the context of war. But since 1946, there have been more than two hundred "incidents" in which the United States has had to inject a military presence, and, of that number, more than two-thirds have involved the navy. We usually think of Korea and Vietnam, but those are only two out of many conflictsin which our navy has had to participate.

CONGRESSMAN BENNETT: Mr. Warner and Captain Moore seem to be pretty much in accord. It may have been just semantics that tore them apart for a moment. But I do want to add to a statement by Captain Moore, who pointed out how dependent our country is upon the commerce lanes. I would like to add that 45 percent of all the oil this country uses for its industry comes by way of ship. Many of our essential defense materials, such as chrome, magnesium, cobalt, and tin, are 100-percent im­ ported. As chairman of the Strategic Stockpile Committee of Congress, I am aware that, because of the shortage of materials in our stockpiles, we have to import 100 percent of some materials that are vital to our national defense.

MR. DALY: Senator Leahy, you raised the question of the navy's mission. How do you see the mission changed?

SENATOR LEAHY: The problem we have in the Congress, 4 which will affect the navy's funding and its acceptance by the American people, is to get a definitionfrom the navy of just what its mission is to be. Last year, when I served on the Armed Services Com­ mittee, we had at one time four different navy programs before us to be considered-each somewhat different from the others. We had two or three of them prior to the Texas primary and one afterward. And we had the question of Title 8; that is, whether to give all surfaceships, or all major surface ships, or just some ships nuclear capability. Time and time again, we have asked, What is the navy's primary mission-to project power ashore or to maintain the sea lanes? If it is to maintain the sea lanes, then we do have some significant inadequacies. If we had to resupply our NATO forces at a time of war, we could not do so adequately; we would have enormous losses. If it is the navy's primary mission to project force ashore, then where? If it will be done by aircraft carriers, can the type of aircraft we have adequately project against sophisticated defense systems, or are they more attuned to less sophisticated shore defenses, as there were in Viet­ nam?

CONGRESSMAN BENNETT: Having been on the Armed Ser­ vices Committee for so long and being chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee at present, I think I know the functions of the navy. The navy's primary function is to keep the sea lanes secure in peacetime and in time of war. In order to do this, there must be some power projection. This term power projection has been used to knock the navy around and to confuse many people, because they think from those words that the navy will run the entire war. But the navy needs power projection to get bases on the coastline from which to operate. It must take those bases and neutralize the military in that area. It cannot just

5 carry the material to another continent and stand off­ shore; it has to take the base. Power projection in the U.S. Navy is only an ancillary part of the one function of the navy, which is to keep the sea lanes open for the movement of materiel, for the movement of personnel, and for commerce.

SENATOR LEAHY: Congressman Bennett has been on the Armed Services Committee since I was a child, and I cer­ tainly defer to his much longer experience. [Laughter.] But when I was on the Armed Services Committee, I read the transcripts of ten or twelve years of navy testimony. Time and time again I found contradictory statements in the navy's own definition of its role, or in what part of its role should be emphasized most.

CONGRESSMAN BENNETT: I hate to trespass on the time of this audience, but I do have some knowledge from experi­ ence that might be helpfulhere. One reason why members of Congress are confused about conflictingtestimony is the procedure by which we get our information. First, a scien­ tificstudy is made within the navy itself and advice is given to the secretary of the Navy. The secretary of the Navy has constrictions put upon him, and a budgetary limit. He can only do certain things, and he is in a very difficultposition. Sometimes the navy's needs include both a billion­ dollar submarine and a billion-dollar-plus carrier, almost $2 billion-

MR. WARNER: Steady now.

SENATOR LEAHY: They cost several billion dollars now.

CONGRESSMAN BENNETT: It has been a year or two since you were secretary, Mr. Warner. Prices have gone up.

6 SENATOR LEAHY: Come back next year, and they will cost more.

MR. WARNER: I served under a Republican administration. [Laughter.]

CONGRESSMAN BENNETT: When only a few billion dollars are allocated by Congress, then there must be a decision to ask for either a Trident submarine or a carrier. There is the problem of getting along with the Office of Manage­ ment and Budget and with the White House in regard to how much will be allowed in the budget beforeit comes to Congress. And in Congress, people· like myself think it makes no sense to build cheap carriers that are not cost­ effective. I want carriers that are able to do the job, not ones that can't. So, I fight for strong ships.

MR. DALY: Does this indicate that you are fighting for a completely nuclear-propelled carrier force?

CONGRESSMAN BENNETT: No, no. We can't afford it. I think we can only afford two more nuclear carriers, and we should get them as soon as we possibly can. We probably will not even be able to get all nuclear cruisers or de­ stroyers; we just cannot afford them under the budget.

SENATORLEAHY:· What happens to Title 8, then?

CONGRESSMAN BENNETT: It has already been bypassed. Title 8 says that major new combatant ships must be nu­ clear-powered unless the President of the United States says it is in the interest of national security to opt for an­ other type of power. The purpose is to ensure cost­ effectiveness over the whole life of the ship. But that rule can be waived by the President.

7 I want to make one further point. Something new has happened to the Soviet navy that has changed the picture materially. The Soviet navy is not building a lot of new ships. It will be a smaller navy, but a very effectivenavy. In the last ten or fifteen years, the Russians have been build­ ing fewer ships, but ships with tremendous firepower. We in the U.S. Congress quibble over what kind of ship to build; the Russians don't. They put the best possible mis­ siles and counter-missiles on their ships. That is what we are confronted with-a quantum jump in what has hap­ pened with regard to our navy vis-a-vis theirs. We are not trying to build a carrier forevery carrier of theirs or a cruiser for every cruiser, but the potency of the weapons on their ships today must give us pause. For the first time in history, the Soviet navy has a world presence. For the first time, it possesses 4,000-mile range missiles which we do not possess. It has anti-ship missiles of 400- mile range, and many other weapons that we don't have. In order to have an adequate navy in the future, we must get ahead with first-classships.

SENATOR LEAHY: Doesn't it also make one think that per­ haps we have made a mistake in allowing some of the de­ bate to center, as it often has, purely on numbers or on tonnage? Last year the secretary of defense came before the Armed Services Committee with an enormous chart, which showed the number of ships in the Soviet navy and the number of ships in the American navy over the last ten or fifteen years. But just look at the fact that one of those Soviet ships is a patrol boat about the size that the state police have on one of the lakes in my state, and one of ours is a 90,000-ton aircraft carrier. It is partly the fault of the Congress, and partly the fault of the administrations, both Democratic and Republican, that the data are presented so simplistically, especially around budget time. Last year, all

8 the major news magazines and news items carried these charts; it could almost be seen where "Department of De­ fense" had been erased and the magazine's logo put in. This downgrades the sophistication of the people in this country who sincerely want a strong defense and are willing to pay for it, but who are constantly confused by what largely amounts to rhetoric-sometimes by us on Capitol Hill, sometimes by the news media, and oftentimes by the Pentagon.

MR. DALY: What a terrible thing to say about the media. Pick on each other; leave us alone. [Laughter.]

SENATOR LEAHY: We learned it from the media.

MR. WARNER: Having spent fiveand a half years in making that march fromthe Pentagon to the Hill, I want to defend the President of the United States, irrespective of what his party may be, or who he may be, or who the secretary of Defense and other Defense Department personnel are. The budget is made up by civil servants whose only interest is in the security and the safety of this nation. When they go to the Hill and seek funds, they can back up every fact. They have done so in the past. We were discussing the navy's mission a moment ago. Let's not forget that we also have what is known as a for­ ward defense strategy. When I went in the navy in 1944, this nation of ours, which really is an island nation, was ringed with coastal defense batteries, guns pointing out to sea, in case the enemy should come to our shorelines. Our present defense strategy is such that we are ringed by some forty allies, whom we must work with and resupply, so we have to have the ships-not only the mer­ chant ships, but also the warships-to reach out and help them in time of need.

9 SENATOR LEAHY: I don't disagree with what Secretary Warner just said. I have found the vast majority of the people in the Pentagon and in the services to be exactly as he has described. But before we get too carried away in the totally nonpolitical nature of these people, I would point out that a few, usually the ones who have been in the front line arguing fora particular program on the Hill, have, not coincidentally, moved into extremely high-paying jobs in the defense industry that makes that particular program.

MR. WARNER: Well, that happens in all phases of life.

CONGRESSMAN BENNETT: We are correcting that by new legislation which I have pending, and it is making some progress.

SENATOR LEAHY: And I happen to agree with it.

CONGRESSMAN BENNETT: I know you've helped with it.

MR. WARNER: But I certainly want to stand up forthe thou­ sands of people, from the secretary of defense right on down, who work on those budgets. And, gentlemen, if a service secretary or the secretary of Defense makes a repre­ sentation that is not true in fact, I'm sure you find out about it through leaks or in some other way. Am I not correct?

SENATOR LEAHY: Yes.

MR. DALY: Captain Moore,Jane's deals with the realities of fightingships, and therefore you should have a very broad perspective on these issues. With your background of ser­ vice in the Royal Navy and your intimate knowledge of the

10 navies of the world, what in your view should be the size of our naval force, and what should be emphasized?

CAPTAIN MooRE: The U.S. Navy is primarily concerned with making sure that the United States is safe. And, as a result of many factors, including the lack of attention paid to various programs during the Vietnam situation, the navy today does not have sufficient strengthto do this job. We have to remember that the interests of the country must be protected in both peace and war. And we in Europe, looking back to Big Brother over the water, are occasionally a little disturbed at the attitude taken by cer­ tain representatives of this country, who appear ignorant of the country's dependence on what floats on the water both to it and from it. The safety of this country depends on its imports, its exports, the physical security of its harbors, and the secu­ rity of all those who live there. This safety can be disrupted in peacetime by various methods of harassment and can be absolutely slain in wartime, unless the country has adequate means to def end itself.

MR. DALY: And you do not findthat our navy in its present posture has adequate means to do its job?

CAPTAIN MooRE: Since I became editor of Jane's five years ago, the numerical force of the major combatants of the navy has been halved. There was a set program whereby the old ships were removed so that they would not absorb the money which could be put into new ships. But, over a period of fiveyears, this has reduced the capabilities pf the U.S. Navy, and it is only beginning to have its effect.

MR. WARNER: It is also important to note that we tend to concentrate on the Soviet navy, but that there are some

11 forty-eight other navies in the world that either possess or have ordered missiles; some thirty-eight other navies pos­ sess or have ordered diesel submarines. There is a growth of nationalism throughout the world that has brought about many other navies; although small, they could pose a problem.

CAPTAIN MOORE: This is absolutely true. In the five years I have been at this job, I have watched with fascination the increase in capability; some countries, which at one time had only two or three coast guard vessels, acquire a com­ plete inventory of minor craft with enormously potent mis­ siles. Suddenly they buy two submarines, and before long they are buying four more. The other day I discovered that one little country had bought six submarines. What does it want these submarines for?

MR. WARNER: As a matter of fact, there are catalogs not unlike those of Sears Roebuck and Montgomery Ward, fromwhich a whole array of vessels can be ordered.

CAPTAIN MooRE: I have a whole shelf full of them at home. [Laughter.]

SENATOR LEAHY: Do they take Master Charge?

CONGRESSMAN BENNETT: May I enter the numbers game here? For the last ten years, the navy has talked in terms of numbers of vessels, and has suggested the figure 600 as what we ought to have. Presently we have 464 vessels. The navy has estimated that we ought to purchase thirty new combatants per year for the next five years. That is a specific program, not just an arbitrary number. It involves a mix of nuclear ships, non-nuclear

12 ships, cruisers, destroyers, and potency in firepower. But the navy has not been able to get that many ships. It has gotten only about half of what it needs each year. The navy did reduce its size in order to get money to build new ships, but it has not been allowed to build the new ships. We need at least thirteen carriers, and our joint chiefs of staff,if at liberty to say, would probably admit that we need a few more than that. We will not have thirteen carriers at the rate we are now building them; they will not be available. It takes a long time to build a carrier. At the rate we are building now, we will be in bad shape even with regard to carriers in the near future. We are also in bad shape with regard to nuclear-attack submarines. We have thirty fewer than we should at pres­ ent, not to fight some war in the future, but to serve our needs right now. The Russians have thousands of ships, hundreds of which are not particularly large, but which carry tremendous firepower. They are not little fishing craft; they are craft which can knock down great big ships of ours. The reason the Russians have small ships is that they do not expect to come to our coast; they expect to knock down our big ships with what they have. Carriers are the most nearly invulnerable things on earth; nothing is stronger. They are protected by their tremendous firepower, and they can project power across the seas to help defend our country. Unless we build these kinds of ships, we will be in danger.

SENATOR LEAHY: You speak of a mix of 600 ships. Do you think that by the end of this century we will even approach that? Won't we have closer to 500, even twenty-two years from now?

CONGRESSMAN BENNETT: Senator, if we resist passing costly

13 foreign aid bills, revenue sharing bills, and bills that supplant state government programs in aiding the victims of crime-some of which are finepieces of legislation-and subtract their tremendous cost from our Treasury, we can finance the defense we need. If we do not, all the food stamps, foreign aid, and aid to the victims of crime will go down the tube.

SENATOR LEAHY: I will certainly defer to the expertise of the other three members on facts and figures. But from a purely political standpoint, with the really botched situa­ tion that we presently have in shipbuilding capabilities, is it possible to have 600 of these ships by the end of this century?

CONGRESSMAN BENNETT: I think so. When the American people realize they are not being adequately defended, they will remove from Congress those who are voting for horribly expensive programs. All the polls show the Amer­ ican people feel they are not being adequately defended, and they are I 00 percent correct. These programs that are attractive only because they have a virulent, active minority lobby behind them should be stopped. We should just say no to them. I voted against about $150 billion of domestic spending this year, and t:hat'sa lot.

SENATOR LEAHY: I come from a very conservative Republi� can state, and I probably voted for more spending cuts of all kinds than any other senator from New England, with the possible exception of Ed Muskie, the chairman of the Budget Committee. But I know from the polls in my own state-

MR. WARNER: Good for you. You gents vote for reelection of your own navy. [Laughter.]

14 SENATOR LEAHY: No, this program is not carried in Ver­ mont. But our polls show that one kind of spending that bothers people very much, especially in Vermont, is de­ fense spending.

CAPTAIN MOORE: In what way does it bother them?

SENATOR LEAHY: They look at a number of unsuccessful programs that appear to be overly expensive, and feel they are not given a clear picture of exactly where we stand. They resent very much the simplistic presentation of the military's self-serving charts and data-charts showing who will win if we are in a war. We would probably win in Nicaragua, for example, and they would never try it again-that kind of thing. There is a great duty on the part of the President and Congress to engage in some signifi­ cant national debates, and to make available to the Ameri­ can people a lot of informationthat we now hold classified. We sit there feeling very secure and very self­ righteous. We can sit with our "Top Secret" folders, and only the people at that table in Congress and the people in the Kremlin and the Pentagon know what is inside them. The American people, who will pick up the tab, do not. We should have objective, point-by-point debates within the Congress, instead of spending time, as we have done in the Senate, on a series of insignificantroll-call votes, while wait­ ing for one or two significant ones. We owe this country, and all our NATO allies, that kind of open, bold, realistic debate. This country has an energy crisis that is real and that should be discussed. We also have a military crisis that is real, that will be even more of a crisis if we attempt to solve it just by spending more money. That is not the answer. Instead, we must look at what is to be the foreign policy of this country in the future.

15 We do not debate defense policy and foreign policy together as a rule, and yet we should, because each affects the other. We must determine exactly what the United States will do or will not do in foreign affairs in the next twenty-fiveyears, and then design our armed forces in that fashion. We have not done that in the navy, air force, or army.

CONGRESSMAN BENNETT: If we did the same thing with na­ tional defense that we do with food stamps, Senator, we would have nothing to worry about. When we passed the food stamp bill, we never thought about what the bottom line was, about how many billions of dollars it would cost. Many people were against the B-1 bomber because it might cost a hundred billion dollars by the year 2000. Well, the food stamp program will cost much more than that, but nobody ever cared. They just passed the program anyway. So maybe we should consider paying whatever is needed for an adequate defense. Now I want to mention the problems we have had with regard to shipbuilding companies. There are no companies in my district that build military ships, but I have a lot of contact with small shipbuilders, and know something about complicated contracts and cost overruns. If we compared cost overruns in building ships to overruns in building the Kennedy Center, the RFK stadium, the Rayburn Building, or the highways, we would find that ships are fairly eco­ nomical. We have a botched-up shipbuilding problem in this country because Congress has not provided a logical program, spelling out what ships to build in what year. Congress builds up to a great crescendo on a particular program and then drops it because some influential senator or congressman wants a contract for his own dis­ trict. This is a sad, but true, aspect of modern politics.

16 SENATOR LEAHY: Congressman Bennett and I are really saying the same thing. We cannot justify a botched-up shipbuilding program because we have had a botched-up road-building program. Neither one justifies the other.

CONGRESSMAN BENNETT: Congress botched up the ship­ building program by being so indecisive.

SENATOR LEAHY: It has been indecisive, but for a reason. Last year we had at least two different programs presented by the Ford administration. A third program came from the House, and a fourth took shape right after the Texas primary. The same thing has happened with Democratic administrations, I want to hasten to add. But four or five programs forthe navy should not be presented to the Con­ gress in one year, or even in ten years.

CONGRESSMAN BENNETT: Let me explain why different programs come to the Congress. Last year we had, in fact, two separate navy programs. The navy was compelled by an order from the sec�etary of the Navy and the President to present a particular program to Congress. Then, we in the congressional committees asked for the personal and professional views of admirals and other navy officials. These peopletold us we needed a much stronger navy program than they were allowed to submit. So we did have two navy views: one official view determined by the budget; and another view which repre­ sented the real sentiments of the navy. Senator Leahy mentioned a program that came over from the House. That one was primarily a restatement of the navy's view, and it had a political motive. I don't mean to imply that members of the House are any better than members of the Senate, but in the House I seldom hear parochial interests expressed. When I go to the House-

17 Senate conferences, on the other hand, I know somebody will say that a particular senator's constituency demands that we continue to build ships in his district.

SENATORLEAHY: Well, I don't have any ships in my district.

CONGRESSMAN BENNETT: I know.

MR. WARNER: I certainly hope that our viewers will carry away the followingimpressions: first, that the United States still has the finest and strongest navy in the world; and second, that American enterprise is delivering to the fleets today the finest warships to be built anywhere. The botching that occurs is probably in the economics and the delivery schedule. But the able craftsmen in this country who provide the technology are the ones that enable us to keep a military lead.

CONGRESSMAN BENNETT: I can echo everything Mr. Warner said. I am glad he said it because I was afraid the audience might have gotten a different impression. We do have the best navy in the world today. Though we face some prob­ lems that may not be entirely solvable, many other prob­ lems are also not entirely solvable. We have a problem with regard to the Soviet navy and its extreme firepower which we never encountered before. We have never before encountered a potential opponent which was capable of being all over the seas. Our technology will continue to make breakthroughs, as it has with Aegis and with our cruise missiles, so we have a fighting chance to stay ahead of them, but only if we produce good ships.

MR. DA1.v: Captain Moore, do we, indeed, have the finest

18 and the best navy in the world in the view of Jane's Fighting Ships?

CAPTAIN MooRE: Could I just sidestep that question? [Laughter.] The answer will come later. John Warner has just mentioned the standard of the men in the shipyards. One should think just as much of the standard of the men in the ships. This is an enormously important part of the whole equation. We have a little piece at the beginning of the Royal Navy's staff handbook that says the greatest single factor is the man. I have been brought up on that, and I believe it is totally and utterly true. The manpower of the U.S. Navy today is among the most professional and dedicated in the world. It is only right that they should be given the best material to work with. Anyone who has given his time and his whole family life, in many cases, to a service career deserves this. If we compare the standard of the men of the U.S. Navy with the standard of the men of the Soviet navy, we find that this country is winning all along the line. Its men are better educated and better trained; they are used to technology. And they are competing with a conscript group who are nowhere near the same standard. That is a source of some comfort in the overall power equation. I hope I have answered your question, Mr. Daly.

MR. DALY: Thank you, sir. We have talked about the Soviet navy, and certainly all of us can recall from history that Kaiser Wilhelm built up his navy to set the whole globe on edge. To some degree, the Soviet navy is doing the same thing now. Mr. Warner, you negotiated with and got to know Rus­ sian Admiral Gorshkov, about whom very little is known.

19 What are the character and spirit of the leadership of the Soviet navy?

MR. WARNER: In 1971, it was determined that this country should send a naval delegation to the Soviet Union to try to reach an agreement that would eliminate what was com­ monly called in the press "chicken at the sea." Soviet ships were coming very close, and Soviet aircraft were making passes that were dangerous to American military men and to whatever civilians might be nearby. I went to the Soviet Union, and at that time had the privilege of meeting Admiral Gorshkov, a very interesting figure in naval history. As a part of the summit, in May 1972 we signed the agreement. Following the summit conference, I had a memorable visit with Admiral Gorshkov on his barge, which was travel­ ling up and down a river in Moscow. We talked at length. This gentleman was an admiral at the age of thirty-one. In his late forties, he took over as commander-in-chief of the Soviet navy, and he has held that position for some twenty­ two years. He is by farthe best-known chief of naval opera­ tions in the world. And he has changed the Soviet navy from an ill-trained, ill-equipped, basically coastal defense force, to a great power, in terms of numbers and fire­ power, capable of challenging the free navies of the world on the high seas. Indeed, a remarkable man. In my judgment, we have, in our U.S. Navy, three dozen men as capable as Gorshkov, but we only retain our chief of naval operations for four years, which is proper and should continue. Admiral Gorshkov had the support of the major political figures in the Soviet Union, and that combination of his genius and political backing enabled him to bring a navy into being in less than twenty-five years.

20 CONGRESSMAN BENNETT: I recently read a book by Admiral Gorshkov, and in it he said that the flagof the Soviet navy fliesover the oceans of the world today, and that sooner or later the United States will have to understand that it no longer has mastery of the seas.

R. DALY: We have raised some provocative ques­ tions. Now let us move on to our audience forthe M I question-and-answer session. May have the first question, please?

REAR ADMIRAL C. A. HILL, JR., U.S. Navy: I was formerly the assistant chief of naval operations formanpower under Secretary Warner. Senator Leahy, we have heard a lot about the complex­ ity of the weapons systems we have to procure for the fu­ ture. What are you doing to make it attractive for young men to join the navy today and to stay in the navy to repair and maintain those weapons systems? I would like to ask the same question of an aspirant for the U.S. Senate, former Secretary Warner.Simply put, why should a young man join the colors today?

SENATOR LEAHY: The first reason for any young man or woman to join the navy or any other branch of the military is a deep sense of patriotism, not financialreward. The services and the Congress have worked hard to­ gether to make military service more attractive financially, but no amount of money can adequately compensate for the hardships the average service man or woman has to go through, especially in a time of conflict.

21 But having said that, our navy does pay far more at­ tention to the habitable nature of its ships than does, for example, the Soviet navy. We have the benefits, as well as the drawbacks, that go with a nonconscript navy. But we still have, and always will have, a long way to go, and not just in terms of dollars and cents, to make the navy more attractive. From the chief of naval operations on down through the skipper of a particular ship and the commander of a particular base, the attitudes and the types of rules and regulations involved in navy lifepose substantial barriers to many potential recruits. We must realize that we went through a very painful time at the end of the Vietnam War. We had doubts not only about the U.S. purpose and missions abroad but about the role of the military. There was peer pressure against young men and women who considered going into the military. I hope, for the sake of the country, that this is changing. There is a lot more to pursuing a military career than dollars and cents, even though employees' salaries now make up approximately 50 percent of the navy's budget. And that is something else that we have to think about. The ratio of people to ships will have to come down in the future. Otherwise we will not have the money to build the ships that we desperately need.

MR. DALY: Will you comment, Mr. Warner?

MR. WARNER: Is this directed to the aspiring politician?

MR. DALY: Yes.

MR. WARNER: I was once asked the definitionof an aspiring politician. I was told it is one who still breaths. [Laughter.]

22 The most important part of the navy, as Captain Moore noted, is the men and, perhaps in the future, the women who operate the ships and the airplanes. We, in the United States, do provide the finest living conditions to be found for any service personnel in the world. But we should al­ ways remember that, if we don't look out for it, an en­ croachment on the rights of these personnel can set in. We see signs of it now. With all due respect, I think Congress is looking too closely, for example, at commissary privileges. That is a very marginal benefit for the men and women who serve in the armed services. As Senator Leahy pointed out, patriotism motivates primarily, but let us not forget the wives who have to stay behind and wait out months and months of ship deployment, and the children who are deprived of their fathers during their many months at sea. Dollars and cents cannot fully compensate these in­ dividuals. The nation's respect for them is of utmost im­ portance. I hope our viewers will bear that in mind the next time they see a white hat going down the street.

CONGRESSMAN BENNETT: Let me emphasize what Secretary Warner said. America's attitude toward the military man needs to be improved. Any parents who are listening to me know the problems of raising children today-the tempta­ tions, the peer pressures, and so forth. What a burden it must be upon the service man's wife who is left at home to meet these problems alone. I know about this because I have correspondence with these people. In spite of all the sacrifices that are made by these people, there is constant nitpicking about commissaries, medical benefits, double-dipping, and the civil service practice of giving veterans a five-pointadvantage on exam­ inations.

23 People are rushing to criticize all these things. Most of that criticism comes from the Office of Management and Budget and irresponsible members of the media, not from the Congress. Congress has protected the commissaries, and has tried to find adequate doctors to serve the people in the military. But from the point of view of a military man's wife, the nitpicking criticism of these minor benefits to the military must be very hard to take. I don't know how they manage to stick together as a family or why they stay in the service. They get little credit in return for their tremen­ dous sacrifice of time and labor. It is sad that we are not doing more to show our gratitude to the people in the service.

MR. WARNER: I think that, overall, the respect for the men and women of the armed services is on the upswing.

CONGRESSMAN BENNETT: Absolutely.

MR. WARNER: They are really entitled to the "benefits" we have spoken of. It is part of their pay.

CONGRESSMAN BENNETT: Correct.

MR. WARNER: And their benefitsare beginning to drop; we must not let that happen.

JAMES D. HESSMAN, editor-in-chief, Sea Power magazine: Senator Leahy referred to the botched-up shipbuilding process. What, if anything, can be done to improve it? Per­ haps Captain Moore can tell us if there is anything we can learn fromthe Russians to improve ourselves in this area.

SENATOR LEAHY: We know that it has come to the point

24 where some of the major shipbuilding yards do not even want navy contracts, which is certainly a reversal of what we have seen in years past. We can authorize and appropriate funds for a ship in the Congress, but it sometimes takes a substantial time before that ship rides the waves. We can take too long in settling claims. Sometimes we do not allow the navy nearly enough discretion. As a trial lawyer, I know it is important, at some point, to give somebody discretion to settle claims. I would much prefer that the question be answered by Congressman Bennett, who has looked at that particular problem a lot longer than I and in much greater depth. Having said that, it is with the utmost regret that I will have to head offto the Senate for a vote. I have found it a rare privilege to be on a panel of experts of the caliber that is here tonight.

MR. DALY: Thank you, Senator. We understand the Senate has taken up working at night, and we are sorry they have intruded upon something you were enjoying. Thank you very much for participating. [Applause.]

CONGRESSMAN BENNETT: There is a great deal in what the Senator said. Let me mention two innovations that can happen in the next two decades that may be helpful to the navy. One concerns the similarities of hulls. Instead of start­ ing offwith a design fora ship that has no similarity to any other ship that has been built before, why not design a basic hull that can be used for all ships. In that way, we will start offwith constant hulls and constant hull frames. Another possibility is a type of operation in which segments of damaged parts would be replaced by new· parts. Instead of doing all the repair work on board, we

25 would make uniformparts forall our ships which could be replaced. We ought to explore both possibilities. The major cause of overruns in the military is the fact that it takes a long time to build a ship. If it takes fiveor six years to build some of these complicated ships, from the drawing board until-

MR. WARNER: Actually, it takes seven years.

CONGRESSMAN BENNETI: Well, by the time we are ready to put in the weapons, more up-to-date weapons are needed to counter something else that the other side has, such as anti-missile missiles or something of that type. We would not want to build the Old Ironsides today. We are moving so fast in technology that, by the time the ship gets built that was planned seven years ago, new parts must be added. That costs a lot of money. Ripping out parts, putting new parts in, adjusting the space, and so on are very expensive. But I want to remind everyone that highways are built in the United States which have greater overruns than many of our ships do. The Rayburn Building was supposed to cost $50 million. I think it wound up costing more than $100 million. The same goes for the RFK stadium, and many other buildings.

MR. WARNER: Let us make certain our viewers know that · American engineers and workmen build fine ships. The term "botched," which we have used rather loosely, applies mainly to the way we pay for the ships and delay their construction with changed orders. These problems have plagued navies fromthe beginning. I could show you many examples fromhistory. But does anyone in the world build ships with greater ease than we?

26 CAPTAIN MOORE: All over the world today the designers and builders of ships are up to their necks in alligators. [Laughter.] One of their problems, as Congressman Ben­ nett pointed out, is always having to shove something new into a ship at the last minute. We have experienced this phenomenon in the United Kingdom. We get ships that, as a result of being late, are becoming obsolete almost before they are commissioned. The Soviet navy's advantage over other navies is its tremendous amount of continuity. Admiral Gorshkov has been sitting in his plushy chair since 1956. This is the sort of continuity that brings results.

CONGRESSMAN BENNETT: We have Admiral Rickover. He is still around.

CAPTAIN MooRE: I prefer not to mention him. [Laughter.]

MR. WARNER: I prefer to mention him. I think he is one of the greatest men in the history of the U.S. Navy.

CAPTAIN MOORE: I only preferred not to mention him be­ cause we were getting into a very specialized subject.

CONGRESSMAN BENNETT: I am sorry, but I admire Admiral Rickover so much I had to bring him up. Excuse me.

CAPTAIN MooRE: As I was saying, continuity is the basis of the Soviet navy. Last year a man died who had been the chief designer of dock-yard building programs for Gorsh­ kov. He had been working hand in glove with Gorshkov ever since 1954.

REAR ADMIRAL G. E. R. KINNEAR, chief of legislative affairs, Navy Department: Perhaps I should have informed

27 Senator Leahy that the major shipbuilder, probably the one he referred to as not interested in building U.S. Navy ships, asked for and gained permission to bid on the last three 688-submarines. The company is Newport News Shipbuilding, a subsidiary of the Tenneco Corporation, and it won that bid. I would like to remind the good captain that he still owes us an answer as to whether we are building the right kind of navy. He was never given time to respond.

CAPTAIN MOORE: I did respond. I said yes. [Laughter.]

ADMIRAL KINNEAR: But are we building the right kind of navy as faras composition is concerned?

CAPTAIN MOORE: The right kind of navy is one that will do the job we set down in 1666-to look after the country. One of the greatest menaces to the country is the sub­ marine. Therefore, we have to-. Sorry, I should say "you," not "we." I keep identifying myself with this country because one of my forefathers signed a thing called the Declaration of Independence. [Laughter.] Every single NATO nation has to increase its antisub­ marine capability by all sorts of means. All NATO nations have to increase the number of ships, and increase the capacity of the ships to hold helicop­ ters. Having spent most of my life in the navy, in sub­ marines, the one thing I hate is a helicopter. I love flyingin them, but when I am under the water, it is a very different matter. The answer to Admiral Kinnear's question is yes, but there is still a long way to go.

JEFFREY Y ACKER, Georgetown Center for Strategic and In-

28 ternational Studies: I noted a disparity in judgments of the Soviet navy; on the one hand, they have an immense number of ships deployed around the globe; on the other hand, the caliber of personnel seems to be somewhat less than in the U.S. and the Royal navies. What is the mission of the Soviet navy, and how does it affect the future of the U.S. Navy?

CAPTAIN MooRE: My goodness, the role of the Soviet navy. We could go on for about three hours if we got onto that. But let us accept, forthe moment, Admiral Gorshkov's own definitionof his navy's mission. As commander-in-chief of the outfit, he is probably reasonably right in his assump­ tions. According to him, the navy is there to carry out cer­ tain wartime roles, such as making strategic strikes and defending the homeland. There are other roles involved, but, particularly, the Soviet navy plays a political role. It is part of the political machinery of his country. It is the projection of a political requirement. Mr. Yacker mentioned the problem of the manpower situation vis-a-vis the technical. In a nation that is so dic­ tatorially governed as the Soviet Union, the navy gets its materials because the government says "Thou shalt have them" and does not block the path with bureaucratic obsta­ cles. Admittedly, the bureaucracy of the U.S.S.R. is very considerable, but everyone pushes in the same direction. The economy is oriented toward the military, so they get the ships they want, but because it is a nondemocratic country-monolithic, totalitarian, or whatever-it is all the more difficult to get the sort of men they need.

MR. WARNER: Since it is totalitarian, no matter what the mission may be today, there may be a different mission altogether when the leadership changes. That is why we in the United States must build and maintain at all times a

29 navy that can meet every capability of the Soviet ships at sea.

CONGRESSMAN BENNETT: The study that I have made of the Russian navy indicates something a little unusual, that is, it seems that their major thrust is for a first strike. The Rus­ sian navy is not producing ships forlong-time endurance. I cannot explain why; I am just telling you what I think. As a history buff, I want to underline something the captain said. The Soviet navy has never tried to project itself overseas to any great extent in the long centuries of its existence-until now. And now that is one of its major functions; it is part and parcel of the whole political philos­ ophy of Russia. Those are the two major things about the Soviet navy: it is a first-strike navy, and it does not have endurance. In endurance, the American navy would win hands down, but, forthe firststrike, the Russians could causeproblems. I think that one of their goals is to preempt the Ameri­ can navy from using the sea lanes. It is not their firstgoal, or their second; it is their third ambition. I cannot explain why that is so, but that is the way I see the Soviet navy today.

TALBOT SHAW LINDSTROM, attorney, Washington, D.C.: My question is addressed to Captain Moore and Congressman Bennett. What is your assessment of the ability of the American Atlantic fleet, as currently equipped and pos­ tured, to prevent an effective Soviet interdiction of Ameri­ can Atlantic shipping in a standing-start conflictof limited duration?

MR. DALY: Who wants to go first?

CAPTAIN MOORE: Where is the starting line?

30 MR. LINDSTROM: Central Europe.

CAPTAIN MOORE: Would you like to go first? [Laughter.] I said earlier that the antisubmarine situation is vital. I do not think any NATO country is adequately prepared for an antisubmarine war. There are not enough ships, aircraft, or helicopters. The NATO countries have the knowledge, but anti­ submarine warfare is an incrediblr difficult art. If, from a standing start, we attempted to ferry weapons over to Europe from this side, we would lose a very great propor­ tion of them in the first month. It is not necessary for the Soviet submarines to attack the sea lines of communication-or SLOC, as they call it. There is always the possibility of hitting convoys or in­ dividual ships before they leave harbor. The protection of our sea lines involves a whole picture of ships, aircraft, and so on. We have to protect our ships from the moment they secure up their berth and start loading until the moment they shift into an English port and start unloading. We must continue to protect them until they are unloaded, because it is infuriatingto get a ship into harbor and findit sunk before your eyes, before you have unloaded it. It makes me want to spit. [Laughter.]

CONGRESSMAN BENNETT: The official position of our chief of naval operations, Admiral Holloway, is very similar to what has been said here by Captain Moore. It sums up brieflyby saying that in the scenario in the Atlantic, we can expect to take very serious losses at the beginning. In a conventional war, we will win. We can master that sea. We could not master that sea and the entire Pacific at the same time, but we could master that sea, after heavy losses at the beginning.

31 MR. WARNER: Let me add a word. In a speech a few weeks ago, the chief of naval operations addressed this question. He said we can carry out our mission only with what he would call the slimmest margin of confidence. That is why I hope our viewers carry away the impression that every American should give his support to the U.S. Navy.

JosEPH WASSON, chief engineer, Naval Enlisted Reserve Association: In the recent past, navy personnel have be­ come more and more aware that our rights have been eroded, and promises made to us have been broken. We may not get what we thought we would, and we are disil­ lusioned. Secretary Warner, to what extent is this a portent forthe future?

MR. WARNER: My recollection is that you and I served to­ gether, and I think you have had some thirty-five years of experience with the navy. When you first enlisted, not only the navy, but the United States made certain promises to you as an individual, promises to be carried out when you finished your term of enlistment. We, as a nation, cannot renege on those perfeqly valid and understandable con­ tracts that are entered into in good faith with the young men and women who sign up forduty.

CONGRESSMAN BENNETr: I do not think Congress will re­ nege on them. I think most of the agitation and turbulence have been brought about by magazine and television ads on this subject, but there is not much realism in them. The commissaries have not been cut down. As a matter of fact, they are expanding. As of last week, they have begun sell­ ing tires. The original commissaries were established as posts in outlying areas. Now there are countless numbers of them right here in the District of Columbia. And their services

32 have improved; they have not been diminished. About the only thing that has been diminished is the medical assist­ ance to retirees and their dependents, something Congress cannot control. The problem there is that we cannot get enough doctors to come into military service.

MR. WARNER: There is a poem, Tommy, written by Rudyard Kipling many years ago, about a British army private. It's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "Saviour of 'is country," when the guns begin to shoot. That has been the attitude for generations, and we have to turn it around. I hope we have impressed upon our audience that our navy is just as important in peacetime as it is in wartime.

COMMANDER JAMES G. RocHE, military assistant, office of the Secretary of Defense: I would like to ask Captain Moore and Congressman Bennett what they see as the principal vulnerabilities of the Soviet navy over the next ten to twenty years?

CONGRESSMAN BENNETT: I think the Soviet navy will have the same problems we have. Wehave some advantages over them in missiles and antimissile systems. We have the Aegis system, and AWACS, which is not yet at sea, and some other devices that are better than their devices. Though most of it is still in the blueprint stage, we do have a lot of good equipment.

MR. DALY: Would you explain Aegis and AWACS for our general audience, sir?

CONGRESSMAN BENNETT: All right. The Aegis system tracks

33 incoming missiles and shoots them down before they reach their targets. It is a very complicated system. It is miracu­ lous to me that such a system could exist, but it does, and we can build it. AWACS is sort of a land operation. It involves planes that look down over the terrain and see things that can be shot down. Both systems are very, very expensive. AWACS is an Air Force project; Aegis is a naval system that can be installed on our cruisers. It will be of great value to us. Getting back to the Soviet navy, it is vulnerable in many areas. For its present goal of keeping us fromgetting over there, it is pretty well-prepared, but it is vulnerable in the long pull-it has a good first-strike capability but not much endurance.

CAPTAIN MooRE: There are three particular weaknesses of the Soviet navy that should be mentioned. One is their geographical position. Every fleet must get out to sea through gaps. A second is their command and control system-they are over-commanded and over-controlled, which is probably part of their national makeup. Third, their men are below the standard of the men in our navies. That is a significant weakness, though it would be wrong to overestimate problems of feeding and accommodating their personnel. After all, some of their personnel have come down from pretty rough old holes up in the Arctic Circle. They have been used to a sack fullof grain and that sort of thing; they don't really need four hot meals. No, the weakness is the training.

REUVEN LEOPOLD, technical director of ship design, U.S. Navy: I want to address my question to Congressman Ben­ nett, who said that we cannot afford to have all nuclear­ propelled ships, but that it is important to have some. What percentage of the 200-warship fleet-I am talking about

34 just surface warships-can we, realistically, afford to give nuclear power?

CONGRESSMAN BENNETT: I believe in Title 8. I helped draft it. It is a provision of the law which says that all major combatants shall be nuclear. One reason for it is that, un­ like oil, there is no shortage of nuclear power. A more important reason is the endurance nuclear power provides a ship going long distances. The ship does not have to be tied to an oiler; it can pursue its course and see it through. Those are two great reasons why all major combatants should be nuclear. The Senate, however, is very parsimonious about nu­ clear ships, so it is not easy to get all the ships we want of the quality we would like. If the Senate says we can only spend so much money, then we have to go along with that and do the best we can. We may build a non-nuclear carrier. I think it would be a mistake. I think all our carriers should be nuclear, but it is better to have a non-nuclear carrier than no carrier at all. With regard to the submarines, there is an added virtue of the nuclear propulsion, and that is its silence. That factoris not so important with regard to surface ships. In surface ships, the endurance value of nuclear propulsion is very, very important. It could be the crucial dimension in combat. I think we can afford nuclear-propelled ships, frankly. If we cut out the major part of our foreignaid, if we cut out revenue sharing, and if we cut out the measure we just passed giving aid to the victims of crime, and maybe those supporting the arts and humanities as well, we could find $50 billion easily-

CAPTAIN MooRE: How about the Bronx Zoo?

CONGRESSMAN BENNETT: There are just loads of things we

35 could do if we approached the navy as we do food stamps and other things. We never questioned in Congress that we should have a food stamp program. We did not look at the bottom dollar and say cut it offat so many billions. It is now running $6 billion a year, and it may be $7 billion next year, but Congress never considered that. It just said a food stamp program is what we need. If we did the same with the navy-deciding what the navy needs to defend America, and then paying forit some way-it would work out. We don't treat the navy the way we treat social programs.

VICE ADMIRAL GERALD E. MILLER, U.S. Navy (retired): Mr. Warner, one of the frustrationsthat many naval officers in our navy have had is the lack of contact with the officersof the Soviet navy. Many of us have felt that were we able to get to know them better, we could reduce the incidence of sea situations, maybe ease tensions, generally promote peace and welfare, and so on. In your discussions with Admiral Gorshkov in Moscow, did this subject ever come up? I mean such things as having joint port visits and hav­ ing the commanding officers of our ships and our admirals get together a little bit more. Do you have any particular views on this subject?

MR. WARNER: Yes, Admiral, I have a very definite view. I think more interchange between the professionals of our navy and the Soviet navy would be for the best and would encourage peace of the world. In my several trips to the Soviet Union, I was accom­ panied by officers of our navy, and I found that they were not concerned with politics of the world. They were more concerned with their own professional safety and with those things about which sailors usually talk. [Laughter.] I favorship visits. After my trip, I recommended them to the

36 secretary of Defense, and we have now had a ship visit to the Soviet Union. I think they foster peace and better un­ derstanding among the professionals.

REAR ADMIRAL GENE LAROCQUE, U.S. Navy (retired) and director of the Center for Defense Information, Washing­ ton, D.C.: Is it possible for us to have any sort of extended naval war at sea with the Soviets fighting only with con­ ventional weapons, or would we be likely to move up to nuclear weapons?

MR. WARNER: Admiral LaRocque, the answer to that is really a political matter. The commanding officers of the ships, the fleet commanders, the chief of naval operations would take their instructions from the President of the United States, who, as you know, would be advised by the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. Perhaps your question was, Could we maintain a sus­ tained war with the Soviet Union? I certainly think that the U.S. Navy is capable of doing so, as of today. In this very speech I alluded to moments ago, however, our chief of naval operations, Admiral Holloway, points out that the trends in our maritime power are moving downward, whereas, at the same time, the trends in the Soviet maritime power are moving upward. Unless these trends are reversed within perhaps fiveto ten years, the next chief of naval operations or his successor may not be able to guarantee to the American people that he can carry out his mISSIOn.

CONGRESSMAN BENNETT: I agree that we could win without going to a nuclear war at sea. I think we could, and I think we would. If that were all the war there was, I think we would win it. I would like to add one final statement. I hope our

37 audience has not concluded that the panelists here are champing at the bit for national defense merely to build a big navy or big army, or something like that. The bottom line is peace. When I was in college some forty or fifty years ago, I was a radical pacifist. I really am still a radical pacifist. The reason I want a strong national defense forour country is that I do not want to see a great war occur-or any kind of war occur. History tells us that if we are well-defended, we will not get into any battles.

MR. DALY: That concludes another Public Policy Forum presented by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. On behalf of AEI, our heartfelt thanks to our distinguished panelists, Captain John Moore, Royal Navy, retired, Representative Charles E. Bennett, and Sec­ retary John Warner, and our thanks, of course, went with Senator Leahy, when he was called away to a roll call at the Senate. We also wish to thank our guests and our experts in the audience for their participation. [Applause.]

38 AEI ASSOCIATES PROGRAM

The American Enterprise Institute invites your participa­ tiqn in the competition of ideas through its AEI Associates Program. This program has two objectives: The firstis to broaden the distribution of AEI studies, conferences, forums, and reviews, and thereby to extend public familiarity with the issues. AEI Associates receive regular information on AEI research and programs, and they can order publications and cassettes at a savings. The second objective is to increase the research activity of the American Enterprise Institute and the dissemination of its published materials to policy makers, the academic community, journalists, and others who help shape public attitudes. Your contribution, which in most cases is partly tax deductible, will help ensure that decision makers have the benefit of scholarly research on the practical options to be considered beforeprograms are formulated. The issues studied by AEI include: • Defense Policy • Economic Policy • Energy Policy • Foreign Policy • Government Regulation • Health Policy • Legal Policy • Political and Social Processes • Social Security and Retirement Policy • Tax Policy For more information, write to: American Enterprise Institute 1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 The U.S. Navy: What Is Its Future? an edited transcript of an AEI Public Policy Forum, presents the opinions of four experts on the type of sea power our country should proj­ ect in the corning decades. The participants discuss such diverse issues as the kinds of ship the United States should build, the strengths of the Soviet navy, in comparison with those of the U.S. Navy, and the budget constraints that determine what the navy can procure, as differentiated from what it would like to procure. The distinguished panel consists of: • Senator Patrick J. Leahy, a member of the Appro­ priations Committee and formerly a member of the Armed Services Committee, who is concernedabout the navy's lack of definition of its mission. • Representative Charles E. Bennett, ranking mem­ ber of the House Armed Services Committee and chairman of its Sea power Subcommittee, who argues that, though we have the world's best navy, it is essential that the U.S. build more first-class ships, with the best possible weapons sys­ tems. • Former Secretary of the Navy John Warner, who points out possible challenges not only from Soviet naval power but also from other navies in the world. • John Moore, editor of Jane's Fighting Ships and a retired captain in the British navy, who says that the U.S. Navy has the edge because of the quality of its manpower, but that the decrease in its size may carry dire implications for the future. John Charles Daly, former ABC news chief, serves as moderator. The main discussion is followed by questions from the audience, which consists of representatives of the media, the military, and the academic community. $2.00

�American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research �1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036