JFK Assassination System Date: 6/24/201 _ Identification Form a a Agency Information AGENCY: ARMY RECORD NUMBER: — 198-10009-10079 RECORD SERIES: | CALIFANO PAPERS AGENCY FILE NUMBER : . Document Information -ORIGINATOR : FROM: TO: SECRETARY OF DEFENSE TITLE: |» MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE - APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS: MR. MCNAMARA VERSUS MR. MCCONE DATE: 00/00/0000 PAGES: 12 SUBJECTS : - MCCONE, JOHN MCNAMARA, ROBERT SOVIET MILITARY PRESENCE IN CUBA - FROG MISSILES DOCUMENT TYPE: PAPER, TEXTUAL DOCUMENT CLASSIFICATION: — Secret RESTRICTIONS: 1B CURRENT STATUS: — Redact DATE OF LAST REVIEW: 04/21/1998 OPENING CRITERIA : COMMENTS : Califano Papers, Box 6, Folder 3. Memo to the Secretary of Defense re: apparent contradictions made in statements by McNamara and McCone concerning Frog missiles in Cuba. SEK Cpu rece Department of the Army EO 13526 eclassify | Exclude ™ Exempt Authority, = Refer To Review Date /44-V By La ec v9.1 46 Docld: 3242746389 Page 1
NOFORN MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE SUBJECT: Apparent Contradictions: Mr. McNamara versus Mr. McCone In response to your request, attached are three separate papers addressing the three apparent contradictions concerning FROG missiles, the "static situation,” and submarine bases. Each of these papers presents in sequence the relevant statements or testimony with an indication of source, the facts pertinent to the testimony as provided by DIA, and & brief conclusion. Some statements by Mr. Hughes of DIA have been included since these statements are used as a reference point in your subsequent statements. Docld: 3242746389 Page 2?
- Pier area (Mariel) on 27 Dec 62. STATEMENTS : This photograph was taken of the LaBoca ~~abrerart are sweeping back and forth and anaes observed this Soviet ship moving into the harbor arés from out in the ocean sector, at thet time, we also observed parked at . dockside 10. probable frog missile trans- "porters along with their support equipment. with ts Tate ship pulled in, this equipment was apparently loaded, and moved away from the ea area. This is one of the first he fact that some of the Soviet tactical oeket forces have departed the telena, (p; 34 - Special Cuba Briefing) ‘My. McNamara: Recently, our reconnaissance has _ Fevealea that certain equifment of these Boviet Goubat. forces, namely that associated wat the vactical rocket units, has also ‘startea to bé moved out of the island back Jf I 8b the Soviet Union, | (ps 36 + Special Guba Briefing), We? SECRET nr Docld: 3274274689 Page 3 Again our hotographs that we have firming up at least Mr. MeCone , Mr, McNamara said also, I believe; being sent back to ‘Russia. There has been no previous mention by anyone that - any of these have been shipped out. . What, is your position on this? Mr, MeCone+ Some six weeks agok we noted that. | ten or 12 frog missile lauchers were on. the dock at Martel, Bs believe , and ; presumably were loaded on a ship.’ we a dontinuad to carry the number of midsiles, x of frog: missiles, and launchers ; in Me fy Guba that I mentioned yeaterday, which te. renge is 24 to 33; Mr, Cline: That is the missiles. themselves. Mr. MeCone: Those are the missiles themselves. Have you ever carried more than that ; estimate? . | I do not beliae so, no, : (p: 93-Bestimony before Stennis Committee ye]
“@e SeCRET! Horonw Mr. Secretary, you said that certain equipment associated with the remaining Soviet forces has started to move out, .. Gan you give us some details on that and what you think it means? Yes, I don't wish to over-emphasize this point, I don't wish to mislead you ~ into thinking that there are clear indica~ tions that the four Soviet combat forces _ which I described as having on the order of 1,200 men apiece, roughly 5,000 in total, are at the present time moving out of Cuba. «But it is a fact that certain of the equip- "ment formerly assigned to those forces, specifically certain of the rocket equipment has been moved out of Cuba. What this implies for the future, I can't state. (p. 39, Special Cuba Briefing) On 6 November 1962 low-level photography revealed five probable frog missile transportere and two probable frog missile launchera at the Remedios Military Gamp. 9 November 1962, a sixth probable transporter was sighted. Based on these figures, plus the existence of four such major Soviet military camps, it was estimated that from 24 to 32 frog missiles were probably in Cuba (assuming 3 or 4 missiles per launcher). Subsequent analy tie of all photography to date fails to reveal any ad SEG NOFORWV Docld: 32742746389 Page 4
definitive count of frog missiles in Cuba or any indication of outshipment of ... feog misdiles. Therefore, the estimate of between 24 and 32 frog missiles in Guba rémaing the best figure. It should be noted that this is an estimate not acount. The estimate is based upon what was seen by photography coupled with knowledge of Soviet organization and practice. | On 28 Fecember 1962 high-level photography revealed ten probable frog missile transporters on the dock at gicl. No frog missiles or frog missile launchers were detected. A Soviet merchant ship was simultancously phote- graphed approaching the dock at Mariel on which these transporters were detected. Photography on 29 December 1962 revealed uo frog miesile trans- porters or associated equipment on the dock at‘Mariel but the merchant ahip — _— had not departed. Whether the transporters were loaded aboard this vessel and placed in the hold or whether the merchant vessel unloaded additional . frog migellesa which were transported by the ten traneporters te some other icscation in Cuba, we do not know. The presumption by CLA and the Watch Committee was that the transporters were leaded aboard the snip. Based upon arrangement of transporters. ) of The estimate of 24 to 32 frog missiles was made on 9 November 1962 and vemains uachanges. Mz. Kendell refers to Frog Missiles being ehipped out, Mr. MeCone refers og Missile Launchers presumably leaded on a ship, and Mr. McNamara refers ment Associated with Tactical Recket Unite started to bemmoved out, CIA and the Watch Committee preaqume that the Forg Missile Transporters were loaded aboard ship. = Docld: 324274689 Page 5
A Along with this equipment removed from Cuba, we estimated that 5,000 Soviet soldiers and technicians have also depart- ’ ed the island, Remaint g in Cuba, there- fore, are the defensive weapons aystens shown here at their deployed locations, along with the approximately 17,000 Soviet tropa end technicians. (p. 32 - Special Cubs Briefing, 6 Feb 63). ‘Me, MeNemare : In summary, then, ladies and gentle- men, we have recorded the entry of Soviet offensive weapons systems into Cuba and we have reported the introdugtion into Cuba of a substantial quantity of Soviet military pérdonnel and Soviet military equipment, defensive armé. Soviet military personnel on the island, including techniciens increased, we believe, to a total of approximately 22,000 by roughly the let of November. That total, as Mr. Hughed reported to you, Mr, MoNemoeza aise indicated that he considered Ciba to be a lessening unitary threat since military people and equipment are being moved out. T think this is a dircet quote, “There appears to be some contimiing movement. out." This ie contrary to the information at. Least I have, My information Je that after the misdiles and the IL-288 were moved out, with the reduction that you have indicated to 5,000 personnel there has only been & rotation 6f people home end & continuing movement in of the supplies and spare parts and backup ammunition for such things as SA-2. Will you comment on that? Mr, MeCone: Yes, sir, we observed the withdrawal of what appears to be about 5,000 men at the time that the MREMs and the I BMe Docld: 32742746389 Page 6
has been reduced by the Disem Barkation, Yemovel. of about 5,000 men from Cuba and theix shipment to the Soviet Union, leaving a total of about 17,000 Soviet military personnel including technicians in Cuba tp. 35 + Special Cuba Briefing, 6 Feb 63) mestion: (Unidentified ~ Believed to be Amn Bordone, Northern Virginie Sun) Mr, Seeretary, I gather from vhat you say that. in vedent Weeks Cuba has become less of a military threat to the United States than it was at the time right after the crisis, after the missiles and the bombers were removed, less of a threat in the sense of, I think you aaid, 5,000 Russians had returned to the lomaland, It is a lessening threat to the United States, from whet I gather, Cuba is a lessening military threat to the extent that the military personnel of the Soviet Union and their equiprient are being removed. As you point out, 5,000 Soviet military personnel have moved out an the last sight or nine weeks, and there appeara to be some continuing movement out. holds, t can’t say. It te and thé bombers were removed. assumed that this personnel are the ones that were in charge of these units and résponsible for them, end also possible some collateral support and security | forces in connection with those particular Weapons systems, | The removal of the troops occurred almost concurrently with the removal of the equipment. Now, since then we heve observed what we feel is a relatively static | situation with, as I said yesterday, | with some rotation, We aré continually getting intercepts, one as recently as yesterday, speaking.of going home, but we interpret this from our ebserva~ tion as rotational rether than a Senator Stennis: If counsel would yield just there, Mr, McNamara, that very point there . cbout the Secretary saying tt vas a \y lessening, here are his exact words as quoted here in the morning paper, A - lessening military threat." We have a rule in thé courtroom that we won! t en-one witness to pass on the ia fa (os 50 - Special Cuba Briefing, 6 Feb 63) o” Sener] . ‘ c Docld: 3242746389 Page fF
Docld: 32742746389 Page & wot URW y validity of another witness' testimony, that ie for the judge or the jury to want you to have to pads on Mr.McNamara's testimony, But how ¢ould there be such a difference in your testimony? Poe you have aecéss to the same facts? “_* Mr, MeCone ¢ Yourself? Mr, McCone: Yes, we have éccess to the sane facts, It is a matter of judgement. Senator Stennis: A matter of judgement only? Mr. MoGone': I have expressed by views and I think, Mr. Chairman, you will Have to | ask Mc, McNamara how he reached his econtlusione. Bonator Stennie: | Tt is highly commendable that you | did and I was avoiding any personal | conflict between you, rr pa 7 eT ve 7 5 >
None what. go ever, Senator Stennis: I say I was avoiding the interference in the record or even in the Committee ! but this is a matter of judgement and you certainly don't aeé any lessening of the military strength after the with- areal of the 5,000. (pp. 93-95, Testimony Stents Comnittes) FACTS: Bincé the departure of the last contingent of the IL-283 bombers and the personnel. eccompanying them, we have observed no significant change in Soviet military forces in Cuba. ‘There have been some small shipments of military-associated transport and a manber of large crates Which could contain additional coastal defense cruise missiles arriving in Cuba, However, there havé been no major changes in the personnel . Bitustion. Mr, MeCone’s atatement that, "We are continually getting interéepts, one | a’ recently as yesterday, speaking of going home, but we interpret this from our hy obdervation aé rotetional rathér then o withdrewel," is confirmed as essentially the interpretation of the Intelligence commnity. On this basis we would consider the present situation as ené of neither build-up nor reduction but rather static. 4 Régarding Mr, MeNemera's statement concerning, "A lessening militery threet," / ftom the standpoint of offensive capabilities against the United States aé currently known and estimated by the Intelligence community, this. would be @ correct etatenient, with ‘the removal of the offensive MREMs and the I-28 bombera, the military threat of Cuba visseevis the United States. is less than it was prior to. this action on the part ronel ab of. the Seviet Union, However, thee” at # definitive evidence to show that this is. Lu tcl Docld: 3242746389 Page 93
@ continuing movement but rather that Lt has been completed, The statement concerning "A lessening military threat" 1a the context of offensive capabilities against the United States as currently Imown and estimated is 6 correct statement. “(Less than prior to the removal of the MREMs and IL-28 Phere is no definitive evidence to show that thie is a continuing movement but rather that the moveme nt has beén completed. Docld: 3274274689 Page 10
Mr. MeNamare Question: (Unidentified Source) Mr. Secretary, are there any sea-based offensive weapons of the Polaris type or others operating in and around Cuba? No, and I think perhaps what you have in mind is that there are recurring rumors that »the Soviets have established submarine basés ' on the shores of Cuba, bases which might pre- | euniably be used for submarines carrying no missiles, We have no evidence whatsoever thet such bases have been established. As a matter of fact, we have positive evidence that they Kave not been. (p, 44 - Special cuba Briefing, 6 Feb 63) a C Docld: 3274274689 Page i1 STATEMENTS + we | 7 C7 SECRET, Mr. MeCone 7 Mr. MeCone: ~~ We Imow of no submarines in the Z wiethity, of Cuba at the present tame, Ta october there were four submarines that we hed under curve tance that. were beat of the Azorés » end 6 mother ship in the vidinity oft the Azores. Which we likewise had under surveillance, They are building a harbor under the cover ofa fishing trawler harbor, I have nd doubt but what they will install in Cubs facilities for the mainterance of submarines, The Soviet nuclear submarine fleet and 1té missile launching fleet is growing, as you know, and it would be very convenient for them to have a place to operate out of. The Soviet communications Link between Moscow and the Havana consists of two links which have been installed since the 20th of October, One appears to support the Soviet Naval operations and the other links the Soviet miniéter of defense with
we ~ : (we SEORET the commander of the Soviet forces These are very ominous, and important developments, in my opinion. (From the Inclosure to Memorandum to the Président from Mr. McCone dtd were T Feb 63 which lists Mr. MeCone’s public and private statementa, ) ; “wir. Kenaadts Now, on the question of submarine base capability-in Cuba, Mr. McNamara was quite emphatic that there was none and, ag I recall, 1t was your judgement | : that the developments of such bases ! | : ‘yas either in being or very probably. j. for the future, } Can you verify your podition on that? Mr, MeCone: fo Yes, I think my position was thet / 4) . there appéars to be under construction | @ merine base the announced purpose of which wad to service fiehing trawlers and similar ships but I had no doubt but what it would and could gerve as a suily marine servicing base} that the existence of such a base would be highly desirable. However, we cannot say absolutely urea o a al that that particular base is to be a Docld: 3274274689 Page 12
¥ . ‘pubmarine pase. @ 1OL + Testimony Stennis Committee) The Joint Moscow-Havend copmayanent of the signing of an agreement to construct ", fishing port” capable of hands @ levee number of fishing ‘trewlers and the facilities for processing the catch éeaused. condiderable apprehension and speculation within thé intelligence commnity ee to the Peal purpose of this port, Tt wes speculated thet such a facility eould. be used as 68 base for servicing Soviet submarines o> Bea, We have. no evidence thet thie is the intends purpose of the fishing port. Mr, MeCones, statement that, “there appears to be under construction a maine base," 4é an unfortunate choice of words in that our information indicates that construction is due to begin in Februray 1963 and therefore the base could at best be only in the — anittel stages of conétruction, We have no évidence that work has actually started on this. eonstruction. At the present time wé are unable to determine whether or not the fishing port could bé used as a submarine pase. At the request of DIA the Navy Kes undertaken a study to determine the suitability for using this fishing port Or sity other facility in Cuba as a submarine basé. This study should be completed within the neéxt week. CONCLUSION: fare is no evidence that construction has atertéd. There ig no evidence thet the fishing port will be used as a submarine base, “he We have not been able to determine whether the fishing port site could be used as a submarine base, (Study has been utidertaken, ) mx Docld: 3274274689 Page 153