OCR Text |
Show Page 6 The Utah Independent October 28, 1976 The Paper That Dares To Take A Stand SALTERS INTERVIEW WITH SEC. OF ARMY MARTIN HOFFMAN dicates in his opening statements there is a Soviet naval threat immensely more powerful than anything this country has confronted in its 200 years of existence. I didn't sleep too well after reading that. Well, we still have the Army. How prepared is the Army to meet the threat a possible threat of a major war at the present time? H: The Army is increasingly well prepared to meet the Soviet ground warfare threat. We are not as prepared as we would like to be. I think the Navy is a dramatic example of what we are confronting in our competition with the Soviet Union. We see the Soviet Union in naval terms over the last decade and a half. For the first time in their history they are building aggressively a "blue water navy designed just not ot protect their own coast and traditional areas of influence around the European continent, but to project that power on the naval bases anywhere in the world. Now, similarly would be armed forces that they have for ground warfare, in terms of weapon systems, in terms of the organization of an army considerably larger than ours. They outnumber our army by about 3 to 1 in men, 4 to 1 in tanks, 6 to 1 in surface-to-ai- r missile capabilities. In every major weapon system capability with the- exception of helicopters, they outnumber us, and their equipment is up to modem standards. Now we were, during the latter part of the 60s and early part of the 1 970s, heavily involved in Vietnam. It was a different kind of a threat than we face from the Soviet Union. You get some idea of the impact of the different kind of warfare by reviewing the Middle East war that Israel and a number of the Arab states were involved in, which was - highly mechanized warfare, extremely high fire power rate, close air support by both sides, and of course, we havent faced an opponent that had an nd tactical support aircraft capability even in Korea. So that we are at the present time, I would say, not at the status we should be as a major world power in terms of ground power. It is my objective, and I know it is the Presidents objective, to get us built back to a capability that the American people not only depend on, but have the right to expect from its ground warfare arms. S: Mr. Secretary, lets pretend for a moment that North Korea decided to be obnoxious and attacked South Korea. Are we prepared to repel them? Now let me, before you answer that, qualify it by saying: Remember, the Soviet Navy being as strong as it is, if they wanted to stop us, how would we supply those men over there? I can remember in the past when we had to lose a lot of men before we ever got there to defend them. And I don't think its fair to any man in uniform not to have the US government behind him all the way. Weill certainly agree with that. The Korean situation, I think, reflects one of the success stories of our foreign policy and military policy since World War II. Now you recall the original invasion of South Korea by the North followed very immediately the withdrawal of the US troops from Korea back in 1949. As a practical matter our World War II army of H: t have said their key urban areas to deny that practical threat. They do with it. urban area as a target to a strategic what they intend to the use of military the North Koreans attacked. If one strike. Now it alters the balance They regard force as a legitimate tool of foreign needs a reminder that weakness between the strategic strike forces, We do not. We dont think provokes aggression by an expan- strategic nuclear forces. Of course, policy. But the fact is, sionist regime, there is one of the both sides have long since achieved thats appropriate. they have been working steadily best ones. Si nee the Korean war we a very powerful capability to inflict 13 years and during a continued to maintain unacceptable damage on the other. over the last have But this apparently they regard as large part of that time weve been forward deploy forces in Korea. Not only preocWe have been able to reduce them representing a way for them to preoccupied. in our attention, but preocsuccessively because the South minimize the impact of our cupied with Koreans have taken their defense strategic forces. I think if those cupied in our expenditures Vietnam. They have built a first They've taken it into plans worked out as they project seriously. their own hands and have built a them to work out, that it would class military capability that is capable of being projected long disvery substantial army over there have that result. S: Do you feel that (and this is a tances from their homeland and and a very substantial capability. a direct threat to the They still need our assistance. And very if--y thing I know that you presents interests of the United States. they might need our assistance in cant give any solid answers), but the event the North Koreans atdo you have any gut feeling that at S: In fact I think the Secretary of tack. The problem of resupplying some future date there will be a the Navy said a third of their subwhich we would have to do, confrontation and well be put in a marines could stay in their home providing logistical assistance to position of deciding whether to go base and hit any city in the United States. Now, I'm going to let or not to go? the South Korean army, and supplying our own forces, which is H: Well I think my judgment on everybody call in and talk to the slightly larger than a division in that wouldnt be any better than Secretary of the Army. Yes, youre size there, and might depending yours or anybody who takes a look on the air. on the contingency need to be at that situation. We had a period C: Yes, Good morning. Ive got But that problem back in the early 60s when we had two brief questions regarding manreinforced. would be to some extent offset if a tremendous nuclear power. the Soviets chose to become in- preponderance. A preponderance S: All right. Would you ask the volved in the conflict. But I would of strategic power that we were questions and then hang up and let not see that as a possibility. The able to use effectively to secure a the Secretary answer? Soviets have shown some degree of very limited tactical objective of C: OK, fine. Two questions: Do restraint, as have the Chinese, in blockading Cuba. But the fact is you forsee continued success by exciting the North Koreans to do that there was naval rattling, as army recruiters in their efforts to fill the ranks of the army with an all anything. I think they respect the it's called, and there was a conposition of the US in South Korea frontation that threatened an volunteer force? Im talking about and they certainly respect the ac- exchange of strategic arms. Now I quality men and women. My complishments of the South would hope that through second question is: How much of a Korean people, who have been diplomacy, through the threat are congressmen like Les building their own defensive es- negotiations that were conducting Aspen in their efforts to make the tablishment at a steady rate of 5 now in the SALT area which has to army less attractive as a career? 7 to of growth a year. do with the strategic capabilities of S: All right. Thank you very At the same time they mainthe two nations, with the mutual much. tain one of the most progressive of force reduction talks that are H: Good questions. Thank you. economies which matches the actaking place in Vienna that have as With respect to the continued complishments of Japan following their aim the reduction balance of success of the all volunteer force, World War II. So thats a situation the confrontation of conventional youve hit the key question which is Of course, the army where we've used a combination of weapons in Europe, that we could quality. assistance to a deserving country, successfully avoid such concompetes successfully for the as well as military assistance, to frontations. young, bright, high school degree But again, as we see the graduate and weve indicated we enable them to become strong in their tremendous emphasis that the can do that. I think our continued enough to provide stability part of the world. And I think Soviets are placing on building success will depend on the their own capability, one has to willingness of the Congress to thats worked out very well. I S: have as my guest Secretary of wonder what their objectives are make monies available to keep our the Army, and Im going to let you now, or what their objectives might recruiters in the field and keep ask him a question or two. Im be; what they might be tempted to them there in sufficient numbers to going to make him autograph his do if they were able to get into a accurately present and make picture first of all. Mr. Secretary, position of tremendous available these opportunities to you better autograph that. I would predominance over the free world interested young men and women. like to ask you a very complex which is, of course, privately lead They havent shown an indication question, hopefully that you can by the United States. We are that they are willing to do that over answer very simply. I dont know if presently not second in power to the long pull, as yet. But were ' you can or not. But well try. The the Soviet Union. But I think hopeful that they will do so. I must Soviet Union is spending apanyone could understand that our say that I think weve all been improximately (and has for a number way of life, our relations with our pressed with the quality of the of years) a billion dollars a year on lives, our trade patterns, those young people. Theyre looking for civil defense. Their plans are very goods including petroleum which adventure; theyre looking for an detailed and quite elaborate. I we need from oversease, would opportunity for public service; have copies of their civil defense drastically change our way of life it theyre looking for an opportunity manuals that I have studied and I altered; that all of these patterns to learn leadership in a way in am very, very unhappy about the would change and change which no other institution can fact that we now (were late doing dramatically in the United States teach it and give practical it), are trying to inaugurate the were we not to maintain a position experience. So I think, given the same type of thing. The only thing ' of strength and a position of adequate level of resources, it will preparedness and a position of continue to be successful because it is, we don't appropriate any is a very worthwhile public service money. If the Soviet Union has deterrent. I S: Mr. direct attention, and because it is a very not only these elaborate plans for civil your Secretary, to the final statement of enjoyable challenging way to defense, spending over a billion dollars a year, who do you think the Secretary of the Navy when he spend 3 years when youre young in said, Ladies and gentlemen, the life. Iwouldadmittoabias. I did it they think is going to attack? threat is real and the choice is ours. myself, and I wouldnt hesitate to H: The civil defense preparedness of the Soviet Union has gone up We must make the right decisions do it again. Now with respect to and down over the years. They now while we have these few congressmen such as Les Aspen. precious moments of freedom left They do provide a very valuable seem to be, from what we can tell, or be willing to suffer the conse- function which I, as a manager, in a resurge, as you say, of emDo you concur with respect and phasis on that program and it fits quences. encourage in keeping that? our organization on its toes. Now into their overall strategy. The I fully concur with that, and Bill H: is we have a large organization. The principle objective, of course, to is friend close a who Middlcdorf, be able to protect their urgan Army is one of the largest, if not the in the close a associate and working centers, protect that population largest, employers in government, Were all terribly and were that is necessary to produce war Pentagon. going to make mistakes. concerned the American Were that and it also has the material; objecgoing to own up to them if realize don't Soviet the people fully tive of denying target by we make them. I think I become is a real threat. Its a very threat evacuating large large portions of disappointed, as I sense perhaps million had shrunk to a force not greater than 320,000 at the time 8!A . you do, that very often a busy congressman will not be sure of the facts and in the course of pointing out something he thinks is wrong or mismanaged, he will undertake to generalize that one example to I think, the whole institution. given the tremendous dedication of the people in the army and in the military generally, that often a disservice is implied from some of the comments that are made that suggests that everyone in the institution involved is either no more capable or no more dedicated than a single example. But in general, its part of the open society we have. Congress has a duty to oversee the military in the government, and I personally welcome the pressure that they put on us toward operating the way the taxpayer and public wants ut to operate, and the way we want to operate. S: Good morning. Youre on the air. C: Hello, I would like to ask the Secretary a question. S: All right. C: Why is it that our country, or the leaders of our nation, let Russia have the technical knowledge that they have in order to build them up? Weve helped them in every way. Haven't we done that at our own risk? S: I think she is getting into an area here now well, I dont know let him answer. H: This is a very good question, and of course, its one of the prices that we pay for our open society. There is far more access to our literature, to wander around the US by foreign governments. We have been successful in the last 2 or 3 years in imposing a far greater of control on that technology that is exported. These programs were put into effect by degree the President. We've been supporting them, and I think they have curbed to a great extent what was a very real threat 2 or 3 years ago substantial Soviet advantage through taking advantage of American technology. Now, I said would that, having point out that we still remain technologically the strongest nation in the world. And our military advances are well guarded. In a number of areas we are a number of years ahead of the Soviet Union in critical areas. And I can assure you we are going to continue to monitor very carefully, not only those exports of technology from the US, but also to work with our allies to make sure we maintain control over these sensitive technologies that weve not only spent our own money on, but spent our own valuable national resources to compile. S: Mr. Secretary, may I interject a question here and ask you if its not giving away any military secrets or anything like that this MIG 23 Foxbat fighter, I guess you call it I know its in the airforce category, but you must have an answer. When it landed in Japan (1) have we really made the breakthrough in knowledge as to their capabilities? (2) elect- ronically I've heard rumors that they havent even developed transistors for it yet, that they were still using vacuum tubes for it-- is this true? H: Part of the result is classified. I haven't been aware there were any major breakthroughs. As the army found out after the Middle East war, we captured some Soviet I I . A |