The What-Was-Said Gap

Both the capability and the control of the U.S. nuclear arsenal were on the way to becoming major issues in the presidential campaign. Last week Barry Goldwater launched a verbal missile on each subject and drew a massive retaliation from the Johnson Administration.

Fire One. At a national meeting of county officials in Washington, Goldwater touched off a Pentagon flap by charging that a weapons gap looms ahead. Said he: "Under our present defense leadership, with its utter disregard for new weapons, our deliverable nuclear capacity may be cut down by 90% in the next decade." The Pentagon promptly labeled that statement "totally false."

Actually, Goldwater's estimate had some basis in fact--as far as it went. Goldwater figures that the U.S. Strategic Air Command's estimated 1,080 first-line bombers can carry 24-mega-ton bombs, or, 25,920 megatons of destructive power. He places total megaton capability of U.S. missiles at 2,650. Goldwater assumes that all but about 50 of the SAC planes will have been phased out by the mid-'70s. From Pentagon announcements, furthermore, Goldwater researchers place the mid-'70s missile force at 1,000 Minuteman and 656 Polaris missiles, each capable of delivering a one-megaton payload. Deliverable capacity then would be 1,656 megatons from missiles, plus 1,200 megatons from the aging bombers--a reduction from 28,570 to 2,856, or 90%.

The key point, however, is that the Pentagon considers total megatonnage less crucial than the capacity to deliver a sufficient number of warheads to do the required job. The current strategy says bombers are less likely to penetrate enemy defenses than missiles are. Furthermore, says the Pentagon, the U.S. will be flying considerably more than 50 SAC bombers ten years hence, and that by that time the retaliatory forces will have been beefed up by 5,000 TFX fighter-bombers, as well as the Polaris and Minuteman missiles.

Fire Two. The second Goldwater shot concerns what might be called the "orders gap." In Hershey last week, Barry, in responding to accusations that he is "trigger-happy," told newsmen that Lyndon Johnson had killed that issue himself with an "impulsive action that nobody has condemned, by telling subordinate commanders to use any weapons necessary" in the Gulf of Tonkin fortnight ago. "Do you mean that the President has given field commanders the right to use any weapons, including atomic weapons?" asked a reporter. "I would suggest you read his admonition to the commander of the Seventh Fleet in which he said to use any weapons," replied Barry. "Now I think I know what he means, but I also know what I meant when I said that the supreme commander of NATO should have a little more say-so in the choice of tactical nuclear weapons--and I imagine that those people--although I don't know--in the Pacific have a right to use these weapons if the commander feels it's necessary."

This time both Secretary of State Dean Rusk and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara branded Barry's assumption as "unjustified and irresponsible." White House Press Secretary George Reedy said that no such authority had been granted and that a search of "the statements the President has made and all of the supporting papers," including orders to the fleet, had failed to turn up any language that could lead to such an interpretation. The orders, in fact, specifically stipulated the use of "conventional ordnance only."

Later, a Goldwater staff member said the Republican candidate was actually referring to Defense Secretary McNamara's statement that the naval commanders had been told to use "whatever force is necessary." And Goldwater said rather lamely that he had not intended to imply that nuclear weapons were authorized, but only that the public could have got that impression. He accused President Johnson and Secretary McNamara of using "imprecise" language. At week's end Lyndon Johnson blasted Barry by name at a press conference, termed his suggestion that fleet commanders had been given authority to use nuclear weapons "preposterous," said that such "loose charges" were "a disservice to our national security, a disservice to peace, and for that matter, a great disservice to the entire free world."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.