Evening star., 1949-10-20

Bradley, chairman of the Joint
lestion and ponders another as
med Services Committee, which
ing. -AP Photo.
Navy witnesses, without proposing
a better substitute. have done the
Nation the disservice of attempting
to belittle the strategic plans, the
international commitments, and the
weapons which are at hand to carry
out those plans and commitments.
Offensive Power of Navy.
Next, I would like to discuss the
second major charge which I be-
lieve has been made in this inves-
tigation: That the offensive power
of the Navy is being destroyed by
action of the Secretary of Defense
and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the
detriment of overall national de-
tense. -"
The cancellation of the super
carrier, the U. S. S. United States,
has been offered as Exhibit A be-
fore this committee. = a"
The Navy has used as an example
of the out-of-line reduction of its
offensive power, the situation of
Naval Air. Yet the number of
large carriers in the Navy was only
reduced from eleven to eight. In
my opinion, this is not out of line
with the cuts made in the other
services.
Included in this charge is the
fact that the Joint Chiefs of Staff
and the Secretary of Defense have
reduced Navy carrier capabilities,
and thus reduced its offensive
power. This has been accomplished,
according to the insinuation, by
the Air Force and the Army out :
voting the Navy two to one. And
now that I am chairman, have
added to that not by vote, but by
influence, to make this for all prac-
tical matters three to one.
This suggestion represents SO
much compound folly that it is
hard to- answer it patiently. 1t
ignores the fact that each of us
realizes that we could never sue
cessfully project war away from
the United States without the
Navy. -
Now I personally believe in Naval
aviation, and especially in the hun
ter-killer task forces that are needed
to fight Soviet submarines; and I
endorse vholeheartdely an adequate
program Of Naval aviation to assure
us Of control over enemy navies, and
the ability to subdue the sterner
submarine menace.
Not Primary Mission
However. in listening to the pre-
sentationS before the Joint Chiefs
OF Staf-and these presentations
were given adequate hearings many
hours long-the arguments for in
creased large carriers have not been
based for need on action against a
Russian feet, nor even on Naval
aviation against the menace of the
submarine. Their presentations have
demanded increased carrier strength
to attack land targets and to oppose
hostile air in limited areas for a
limited time. This Is not the Navy's
primary mission. -
Just sailing the seas and prevent
ing surface ships of the enemy from
venturing far from shore will not
defeat large land, power like
Russia.
Without disclosing the details of
any vote in the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I may freely admit that on many oc-
casions the Navy stands alone in its
concept on a specific decision. This
is not because of any "old school tie"
nor any collusion on the part of the
Army or the Air Force. The truth
of the matter is that very few Navy
men, on the staff of the Chief of
Naval Operations, have had any ex-
perience in large-scale land oper-
ations.
Uppermost in their minds are is
land hopping campaigns of the Pa.
ciflc, and the battles at sea. /" 4
Considerable has been said about
the decision made this year by the
President and the Secretary of De-
tense to stop construction of the
heavy aircraft carrier, the U.S.S.
United States.
When the Joint Chiefs of Staff
failed to reach unanimous deci-
sion on this matter, the Secretary
of Defense asked each member-at
that time I was Chief of Staff of the
Army-to submit in writing his view
on the subject.
Secrecy of Decision.
AS you know, the decisions of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff are considered
secret, and until this investigation,
the opinion of any particular mem
Der of the Joint Chiefs of Stan has
never been disclosed. In the in
terests of national security, I deplore
the fact that there has been a svio-
lation of that security. q.
However, in Admiral Derlfeld's
statement before the Committee, in
discussing the decision made on the
heavy carrier, he made the follow
ing remarks, and I quote: g.
"On April Is, 1949, the Joint
Chiefs of !Statf were asked for, their
individual opinions on the flush
deck carrier project which was well
under way. The several answers
were completed on April %. 1t is
no secret that Gen. Bradley reversed
his earlier approval of this project" :"
Obviously, the admiral has been
carelessly misinformed.
AS I stated, the decisions of the
members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
should not, in the interest Of ma
tional security, be disclosed. But
because my own position in the mat
ter has been enormously presented.
in violation Of our agreement, have
permission from the Secretary of
Defense to give in substance the
krAntAYafe ~ ySau-ef a tasssAs,fs - 1aiy,s