OCR Text |
Show Family Weekly May n, mo Carriers? opposing views NO By Sen. WALTER F. MONDALE (MINN.) Last I year's Congressional over military spending demonstrated to many Americans that the Pentagon spends billions of dollars to continue programs based on questionable and unchallenged assumptions. I am convinced that one of the most glaring examples of this policy is the Navy's insistence that it needs a minimum of 15 attack carriers. While I do not question that some carriers are necessary, I have serious reservations about the Navy's clf im that 15 is the minimum. Because of the Navy's belief that the role of the carrier has not changed substantially since World War II, Congress is now being asked to appropriate $152 million to start construction of a third M'mttz-clas- s nuclear attack carrier. More than adherence to tradition is at stake here. Money, and a great deal of it, is involved. Rather than give the Navy a blank check for additional carriers, Congress decided in 1969 to reassert its constitutional responsibility for military affairs by asking hard questions fleet. about the need for a As a result of an amendment that I introduced with Sen. Clifford Case of New Jersey, no additional carriers er can be funded until Congress completes a study of the program. I believe our carrier fleet is much too large now, and reducing its size will provide substantial savings to the taxpayer without endangering national security. With the advent of Minuteman and Polaris missiles, the attack carrier is no longer part of our strategic nuclear forces. Its main role today is to provide air cover for such limited war missions as bombing enemy supply lines and supporting ground troops. There are several fleet is not reasons why a for: First, deploying carrier task forces called overlaps and duplicates our air power. The Air Force maintains 23 wings of tactical aircraft at home and abroad. The geographic spread of overseas bases, either operated by the United States or available to us, provides ample facilities for bringing our air power to bear wherever it is needed. This is especially true in the Mediterranean and the Western Pacific. Furthermore, we have an almost limitless capacity to create new bases when required. The Air Force reports that there are at least a thousand civilian airfields arcund the world that could be converted to fully equipped bases in three days' time. Second, carrier air power is far d more expensive than air power. A nuclear carrier task force, including escorting destroyers, costs land-bas- ed land-base- The Capitol: center of eoneiderable opposition to adding carriers to the fleet. &l - 7 'Nuclear carrier USS Enterprise. Congress is debating need for more like it. at least $1.4 billion. Since two more carrier task forces must be held in reserve, according to Navy spokesmen, this means that it costs a minimum of $4.2 billion to provide us with one carrier "on station." In comparison, we can build an in the Pacific for $5S million or convert a civilian airfield into a base for approximately $26 million. Third, their high degree of vulnerability to attack makes carriers far less effective than land bases for our jets. Hlf of the cost of a carrier task force is for its defense. Its tremendous investment in a carrier task force gives the Navy an understandable reluctance to commit the carrier to combat until assured its area of operations will be reasonably safe. Once committed, the carrier cannot effectively launch air strikes when attempting to evade p enemy attacks. And advanced missiles render the carrier's position untenable in any encounter. Fourth, the carriers that have joined the fleet since the the Entereight Forresfol-clasprise, and the two tftmtlz-clas- s ships that will enter the fleet in the next few years are nearly twice the size of our older carriers. They are equipped with more modern aircraft that deliver a greater punch. Fifth, wm are told that 15 carrier task forces are necessary to keep five continually on station, two in the Mediterranean and three in the Pacific. Five more are in training and the remaining five are undergoing overhaul at any one time under this schedule. Naval spokesmen acknowledge that, except for the need to relieve the crew, a carrier task force could remain on its station longer. air-ba- anti-shi- mid-1950- s, 's se The Navy has dealt with this prob- lem in Polaris submarines by rotat- ing two crews for each submarine that is on duty. Finally, the fact that our adversaries and potential adversaries do not have attack carriers further weakens any justification for keeping our carrier fleet at its present level. In addition to questions of the efficiency and effectiveness of aircraft carriers, the use of these vessels has serious implications in the field of foreign policy. The Navy contends that the carriers' main advantage is that they can be employed unilaterally without involving third parties or relying on treaties. We are told they can take positions off a nation's coast and possibly influence events by their mere presence. The Senate has an obligation to debate whether it is in our national interest to have this many carrier task forces poised for unilateral action. Such a debate is needed to make certain that foreign policy determines our military expenditures, not the reverse. In calling for Congressional vigilance over military spending, I am well aware of the high priority of nations! defense. But approving questionable items in the defense budget does not serve our defense. When military forces cost more than is necessary to do a job, our inefficiency may force us to abandon other policy commitments in the areas of education, health and welfare, housing, urban and rural development, and protection of our environment. At a time when our people are bearing an overwhelming tax burden and inflation demands economies in Government spending, we must take a closer look at the carrier program. Family Weekly, May U, 1970 |