A Bonanza for Defense

By Ed Magnuson

The Administration proposes a record military buildup

The nation's thrifty new President, basking in widespread popularity over his sharp budget and tax cuts, showed last week that he can dish money out as well as he can take it away. Turning from economic troubles at home to the Soviet threat abroad, the Reagan Administration announced the largest--and most expensive--peacetime military buildup in U.S. history. The five-year plan would more than double the current defense budget, pushing it from $171 billion in fiscal 1981 to $367.5 billion in 1986. The first big leap in new spending authority would be a 16% jump between now and 1982, costing $32.6 billion. Over the full five years, the money sought would total $1.5 trillion.*

Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger was accorded a warm reception from the Senate Armed Services Committee as he outlined what he called "the second half of the Administration's program to revitalize America." The man who earned a reputation as "Cap the Knife" for his stingy ways as Richard Nixon's Budget Director seemed now to relish his role as a generous dispenser of military goodies.

He made a strong pitch for the Pentagon's spending plans, arguing that "it is neither reasonable nor prudent to view the Soviet military buildup as defensive in nature." While President Carter had also projected more money for defense, Weinberger complained that too many military programs would have been delayed too long under the Carter plans. Contended Weinberger: "We do not believe we can afford to temporize any longer in the face of the Soviet threat; the time for taking our time has ended."

The vast increase in military funding, coupled with the proposed slashes in non-defense spending, dramatically illustrated the Reagan Administration's determination to reorder national priorities. Weinberger suggested in his Senate testimony that U.S. "social spending" and "efforts to redistribute income" have set a "bad example" for friends. "We cannot fault our allies for insufficient contributions to the common defense," he argued, "when they have merely duplicated our own behavior."

Weinberger singled out Southwest Asia and the Persian Gulf as likely areas in which Soviet interests eventually will collide with those of the West. He predicted that the U.S.S.R., like the U.S., will become economically dependent on oil from the gulf and will try either to make that fuel more costly to the West or cut off access to it. Declared Weinberger: "We cannot deter that effort from 7.000 miles away. We have to be there in a credible way." That seemed to echo the so-called Carter Doctrine, in which the previous Administration proclaimed that the U.S. would meet any challenge in the vital oil-producing region. The difference was that Reagan hopes to make the doctrine a threat with a punch behind it.

While it will take years to fulfill all its plans for a more rapid deployment of U.S. forces to meet a Persian Gulf crisis, the Pentagon request includes $887 million this fiscal year and next to build eight new KC-10 advanced tanker planes for the Air Force, put new engines in half of the nation's 517 KC-135 Stratotankers and buy seven Boeing 707s. Other funds would be used to convert eight commercial cargo ships to fast Navy resupply vessels. There are also funds to lengthen the runways at the U.S.-leased military base on Britain's Diego Garcia Island in the Indian Ocean so it can handle B-52 bombers and to improve ports at Mombasa in Kenya and Barbara in Somalia to accommodate U.S. naval vessels under agreements with those two nations.

The most spectacular shift in the Pentagon's long-range plans is a sharply accelerated shipbuilding program. Declared Weinberger: "We must have naval superiority. Control of the seas is as essential to our security as control of their land borders is to the Soviet Union." The goal is a fleet of some 600 ships by 1990, compared with today's 456. That increase would give the U.S. 15 naval battle groups,** three more than at present. According to Navy Secretary John Lehman, it would permit the U.S. to challenge the Soviet navy even in the northern seas between Iceland and Scandinavia.

The ship construction will begin with an extra $367 million this year and $3.8 billion in 1982. To get a faster start on refurbishing the fleet, Weinberger wants to pull two 1940s battleships, the Iowa and New Jersey, out of mothballs in the ports of Philadelphia and Bremerton, Wash., and put them back in service. He would do the same with the aircraft carrier Oriskany, now in Bremerton. It will take at least two years and cost more than $860 million to re-equip the vessels, which are up to 38 years old. But, claimed Weinberger, "no other ship in any modern navy is as impressive or as survivable as the battleships of the Iowa class."

The Navy also will get an extra cruiser (cost: at least $840 million), two more antisubmarine and antiaircraft frigates (cost: at least $490 million), one more nuclear-powered submarine (cost: about $1 billion) and a long-awaited start on a new nuclear-powered Nimitz-class carrier. That ship, which may cost $4 billion or more, is not expected to go to sea before 1991.

The Reagan Administration clearly takes a gloomier view of the Soviet Union's nuclear weapons capability than had Carter. Weinberger contended that the U.S. not only faces "the prospect of Soviet strategic superiority," but that it also is failing to produce any more land-based missiles or bombers. The U.S.S.R. meanwhile is "mass-producing both." To correct this, Weinberger advocated a new manned bomber designed to penetrate Soviet air defenses. He asked for $2.4 billion next year to develop such an aircraft, promising to decide by June 15 whether it would be an updated B-l design or a modification of the FB-111.

The Pentagon also intends to push for development of the controversial MX missile system, though just how it would be deployed is now under review. A plan to move the mobile missile on tracks through vast stretches of Utah and Nevada has drawn sharp opposition in those states. A proposal to place up to 320 Tomahawk cruise missiles, which can hurl nuclear warheads over a 1,500-mile range, on each of the two battleships would also strengthen the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

Just how all such nuclear-weapons plans might affect future arms limitation negotiations is uncertain. Weinberger objects sharply to the SALT II provisions. He told the Senate committee: "That treaty would have permitted an enormous further increase in So, viet offensive capacity while presenting the danger of lulling us into a false sense of security." Nevertheless, he added, "we are not abandoning hope for arms control, but we are abandoning unwarranted illusions."

In addition to all the glamorous hardware in the expanded defense budget, Weinberger emphasized the need to improve U.S. conventional forces. He cited such mundane needs as more spare parts, ammunition and supply items. The Secretary vowed to make military salaries comparable with civilian pay, asking for $2.2 billion to cover a 5.3% military pay hike in July. That would be on top of the 11.7% raise already granted this year. Also requested: an extra $15.7 billion through 1982 for more tactical aircraft, tanks, helicopters, infantry vehicles and a wide variety of electronic equipment and other gear.

With so many longtime critics of military spending ousted from Congress last fall, there were few left to question last week's defense bonanza. Democratic Senator Gary Hart argued against the expensive Nimitz carrier in favor of lighter, less expensive models. Republican Mark Hatfield, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, promises to push for some type of arms limitation agreement. Says Hatfield: "We're spending and building first before seeing if there is a method of obviating the need for that buildup. It's unnecessary and it's dangerous."

Opposition to the rest of Reagan's economic program is still too disorganized to have an impact on Congress. Yet resistance is developing. Last week Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy conducted a "policy forum," at which he assailed Reagan's plans as a "program of unfair sacrifice and unequal benefit based on an untested and uncertain economic theory." AFL-CIO President Lane Kirkland, with almost dreary predictability, attacked the Reagan budget as "the most costly roll of the dice ever proposed for this nation." United Auto Workers President Donald Fraser termed it "bad economic policy and worse social policy."

So far, Democratic congressional leaders are cowed by Reagan's popularity and are undecided how to attack those parts of his spending and tax cuts that they consider either wrong or vulnerable.

"We aren't ready to play hardball yet," admitted House Speaker Tip O'Neill. California Senator Alan Cranston sees only three options for the Democrats who oppose Reagan's plans: 1) give him everything he wants, on the theory it will prove disastrous and the Democrats then would benefit politically from Reagan's failure; 2) propose a complete substitute for the Reagan package; 3) give Reagan most of what he wants, but fight tenaciously against the worst of his cuts. Cranston dismisses the first as "irresponsible," the second as impractical and "not politically bright," which leaves him with the third.

The President last week took on the opponents of his program directly. At a meeting of the National League of Cities in Washington, he said the real threat comes from those who oppose only "the cuts that affect them." The listening mayors seemed to be in that category. They passed a resolution praising his "bold and profound set of policies," but objected to his plans to cut off funds for federal housing units and to phase out mass-transit subsidies.

There will be more pained cries this week when the President details another $11 billion in budget cuts. He revealed one of the new reductions last week: a permanent ceiling on nondefense federal employment that will remove 96,000 workers by the end of next year at a saving of $1.3 billion. Some of the new cuts are expected to come in the politically sensitive area of veterans' benefits. Reagan would shut a few Veterans Administration hospitals and close some 90 storefront offices in which Viet Nam veterans receive counseling.

The President intends to push his programs hardest while he still enjoys broad support. In May an unprecedented $6 million television blitz to drum up more backing for his programs will be launched jointly by the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee.

At the moment, such a selling effort does not even look necessary. Few federal programs have been as untouchable for so long as dairy price supports, in large part because milk producers contribute heavily to the campaigns of many members of Congress. And few committees have been as vulnerable to such pressure as those dealing with farm programs. Last week the tables were turned. In the first congressional test of a specific Reagan funding slash, the Senate Agriculture Committee agreed to kill a proposed $138 million increase in dairy subsidies that would otherwise have gone into effect on April 1. The vote was 14 to 2, a margin calculated to curdle the blood of budget cut foes.

--By Ed Magnuson. Reported by Laurence I. Barrett and Neil MacNeil/Washington

*In the celebrated Reagan analogy, that would be a stack of $1,000 bills 103.5 miles high.

**A battle group usually includes a carrier, two cruisers, destroyers, guided missile frigates and attack submarines, as well as support vessels.

With reporting by Laurence I. Barrett, Neil MacNeil/Washington

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.