Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1949-10-15
Letters to The Star
Readers Defend Navy
For Making Its Case Public

Readers DEFEND Navy
For Making Its Case Public
To the Editor OF The Star:
The usually accurate and precisely objec-
tive Evening Star errs in it's editorial of Oc-
tober H. entitled THE National Security"
1t suffers from a mistaken belief that the
Navy is responsible for the agenda items
being followed by the House Armed Services
Committees investigation of the B-36.
While there Is no doubt that the Navy
welcomed the opportunity to present its
views, in the interest of truth, I think it
should be realized that the Navy is only
carrying out orders, and Is following them
out in typical Navy fashion. courageousy
and fully. HUGH l.. HANSON.
To the Editor of The Star
have for a good many years considered
The Stars editorials and its editorial stand
on the issues of the day to warrant for The
Star the position of leading newspaper in
the country. Your editorial of October H.
however, apropos the present Navy testi-
mony before Congress makes me wonder
You seem to have missed the entire point
which the Navy is attempting to make for
the American public-which is simply the
folly and peril to national security in a de-
pendence upon one weapon for waging war
especially when that weapon Is untried and
open to very great question as to its effective
ness.
You take the Navy to task for insisting
that the B-36 without escort can be shot
down In prohlbitlve numbers and try to
make the rather inane point that if the B-36
cannot reach it's targets neither could carrier
planes. Your statement is probably true but
has little bearing on the issue. The Navy
outlines the vulnerability of the B-36 and
the weakness OF intercontinental bombing
merely as a rebuttal to testimony of the Air
Force to the effect that the plane is rela-
lively invulnerable and by implication at
least can win war without the help of
other weapons. particularly Naval aviation
The Air Force might, and should, deny
having fostered the above implication 1t
has. however, been sold to the American
public and also apparently to the top brass
in the Pentagon. The Navy is doing the
country very great service in exploding
this dangerous myth.
Wants Public Informed.
You, Furthermore, criticize the Nayy's
course In making the entire matter public
and suggest that it be threshed out by the
Weapons Evaluation Board. This would be
most narrow and chimerical solution The
above board would be competent to decide
the technical merits of the B-36 as bomber,
but certainly has neither competence nor re-
sponsibility for exaluating a whole new con-
cept of warfare. Finally it might be pointed
out and that the Weapons Evaluation Board
would be hardly likely to arrive at con-
clusion any more unanimous than that of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Since we still live in a democracy, the
place to explore SO vital an issue as this is
before the American public. No data pre-
sented to date are in any way secret. The
strength and the many weaknesses of stra-
tegic bombing are we'll known to any one
who participated in the past war-including
the Russians. The average American has
passed upon many grave issues in the course
Of our history. He is qualified to pass on
this one-just as much so as Defense Secre-
tary johnson who I am sure would not claim
to be an expert but who nevertheless has
been forced heretofore to make the de-
cisions.
AS final point, I would observe that the
Naval Officers now testifying should be
heard with respect by all Americans. For,
strange as it may appear. the average senior
naval officer is vastly more familiar with all
OF the elements of war than are the generals
OF the Army and the Air Force. The Navy
has conducted land operations with it's Ma
rine Corps, including the all important tao
tical aviation. The Navy has also flown land
based planes since they were invented and
has pioneered much of the development of
air warfare. Even senior generals, on the
other hand. have ordinarily never so much as
seen an aircraft carrier in operation. and
have no familiarity whatever with combined
sea-air or land-sea air warfare except from
the point of view of their own land locked
or exclusively air point Of view. . If we
are to develop a new concept of war. we
will do SO over the Nays objections only
at our peril. JOSEPH z. REDAY.