Evening star., 1961-04-09
BY RICHARD FRYKLUND
Star Staff Writer

Pentagon officials studying
the policy implications of the
Presidents defense budget be-
lieve the country's military
posture is headed for a basic
change.
Their conclusions:
President Kennedy and Sec
retary Of Defense Mcnamara
are trying to choose between
two new defence strategies-
finite deterrence" and "coun-
terforce" in Pentagon jargon.
Finite deterrence received a
big boost from the budget. But
the issue has not been settled
and may not be for a year or
more.
The argument is complex
and centers more on foreign
than defense policy. specifi-
cally on arms control and dis
armament. Decisions in this
area would be reflected how
ever in big-war and limited
war policy changes.
The two contending points
Of view are argued within the
administration by people with
different views on security
problems. The first group, rep
resented in the White House
by men like Jerome B. Wies-
ner, special assistant to the
President, and in the Penta-
gon by Paul Mite. Assistant
Secretary Of Defense, gives
first priority to arms control
agreements.
Faith in Agreements
These people believe the
danger of thermonuclear war
can be ended only by effective
agreements with the Soviet
Union to limit or control use
of atomic weapons. They hope
any changes in foreign and de-
fense policies will make it cas-
ier to get such agreements.
The other group, found
largely in the Pentagon among
Mr.. McNamara's top civilian
advisers, would give first prior
ity to a workable defense and
second priority to arms control.
They want to reshape defenses
better to insure survival and
victory during a war and then,
turn their attentions to arms
control.
When the new administra-
ton took office and started
lengthy studies of policy, it
found in the Pentagon two con-
testing military theories that
squared nicely with the two at
titudes toward arms control
ability.
One, which originated in the
Navy. where it was tagged
finite deterrence," would re-
strict use of thermonuclear
weapons to deterrence of attack
directly on this country by
threats to destroy the enemy's
cities. Assuming the enemy
does the same thing. the result
would be stable deterrence"-
both sides would deter nuclear
attacks: neither side would
start one.
Military issues would be set
tied with limited war, prefer
ably using non-nuclear weap-
ons. Since deterrence can be
accomplished with a small
number Of ICBMs, 1t would be
easy to negotiate treaties re-
ducing the number of missiles
ana doing away with long
range bombers.
Devastating Force Backed
The other strategy, counter
force" originated in the Air
Force. 1t asserts that wars can
best be deferred and American
vital interests protected by a
building a nuclear force which
can survive a war and win. The
force would be used to deter
attacks both on America and
her allies and to carry the
fight to the Communist heart
lands in defense of American
vital interests anywhere in the
world. Both bombers and mis-
siles would be needed to fight
controlled, deliberate wars: city
destruction would be deferred
during the war by threats to
level enemy cities If the enemy
deliberately attacked ours.
From an arms-control point
of view, cOunterforce goes in