MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE - APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS: MR. MCNAMARA VERSUS MR. MCCONE
Agency: ARMY
To: SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
Document date: 00/00/0000
Document type: PAPER-TEXTUAL DOCUMENT

## Page 1

JFK Assassination System

Identification Form

Agency Information

Date:

6/24/201

AGENCY: ARMY

RECORD NUMBER :

198-10009-10079

RECORD SERIES :

AGENCY FILE NUMBER :

CALIFANO PAPERS

Document Information

ORIGINATOR:

FROM:

TO:

TITLE:

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE - APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS: MR.

MCNAMARA VERSUS MR. MCCONE

DATE:

PAGES:

SUBJECTS:

00/00/0000

12

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.

Department of the Army EO 13526

Declassify

• Exclude !

• Exempt

Authority.

I Refer To _

Review Date /44U6IS Bylag, Calls

v9.1

DocId: 32424689

Page

46

---

## Page 2

SECRET

NOFORN

MEVORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

SUBJECT: Apparent Contradictions:

Mi. McNamara versus Mc. 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 statemente

or testimony with an indication of source, the facts pertinent to the

testimony as provided by DIA, and a brief conclusion. Some statements

by Mr. Hughes of DIA have been included since these statements are used

a reference point in your subsequent statements.

IT SECRE

NAFORT

DocId: 32424689

Page 2

---

## Page 3

SECRET

ASCARIN' FROG MISSILE CONFRADICIION

BLADEMINIS:

2 NelVamars

Mr. Hughes: (Briefing)

This photograph was taken of the LaBoca

Pier area (Mariel) on 27 Dec 62. Agatn our

aircraft are sweeping back and forth and

observed this Soviet ship moving into the

horbor ares from out in the ocean sector,

at that time, we also observed parked at

dockside 10 probable frog missile trans-

porters along with their support equipment.

•This ship pulled in, this equipment was

apparently loaded, and moved away from the

LaBoca area. This is one of the firet

photographs that we have firming up at least

the fact that some of the Soviet tactical

rocket forces have departed the leland,

(p. 34 - spectal Cuba Briefing)

Mr. McNemare :

Recently, our reconnaissance has

revealed that certain equirment of these

Soviet conbet forces, namely that associated

with the taetical rocket units, has also

started to be moved out of the island back

to the Sovlet Union.

(D. 36 - Special Cuba Briefing)

INOr SECRET

Mx.. McCone

Mx. Kendall:

Mr. MeNanara said also, I believe,

Mr. Metone, that the frog misalles were

being sent back to Fussia. 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 ago, we noted that

ten or 12 frog missile lauchers were on

the dock at Mariel, I believe, and

presumably were loaded on a ship,

We

continued to carry the number of miosiles,

of frog: missiles, and launchers, in

Cube that I mentioned yesterday, which

range is 24 to 32:

Mr. Cline:

That 1s the utssiles themselves.

Mr. McConé:

those are the missiles themselves.

Mr. Kendell:

Have you ever carried more than that

estimate?

Mx. McCone :

I do nót bellere so, no.

(D. 93-Testimony before Stennis Committee )

DocId: 32424689 Page 3

---

## Page 4

SECRET, NOFORN

John Scall, ABC:

Mr. Secretary, you said that certain

equipment associated with the remaining

Soviet forces has started to move out.

Can you give us some details on that and

what you think it means?

Ms. McNamara:

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)

FACTS:

On 6 November 1962 low-level photography revealed five probable frog missile

transportere and two probable frog missile launchers at the Remedios Military Canap.

On 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 analysis of all photography to date falls to reveal any

SECRET

NOFORN

DocId: 32424689

Page 4

---

## Page 5

definitive count of frog missiles in Cuba or any indication of outahipment of

frog missiles, Therefore, the estimate of between 24 and 32 frog miasiles

in Caba remalan the beat figure. It should be noted that this is an estimate

not a count.

The estimate in baied upon what was seen by photography coupled

with knowledge of Soviet organiaation and practice.

On 28 Fecember 1962 high-level photography revealed ten probable frog

mientle transportere on the doci at Martol. No frog mipalles or frog missile

launcheze were detected. A Soviet merchant ship was simultaneously photo-

graphed approaching the dock at Mariel on which these transporters were

dotected. Photography on 29 Docomber 196% revealed no frog minallo transe

porters or associated equipment on the dock at bariel but the merchant ship

had not departed. Whether the traneporters were loaded aboard this vessel

and placed in the hold or whether the merchant vessel unloaded additional

is to, the

frog missiles which were transposted by the ten transportera to some other

lecation in Cuba, we do not know. The presumption by CIA and the Watch

Committee was that the transporters weze loaded aboard the ship.

#Sased

upon arrangement of transportezo. )

CONCLUSIONS:

The estimate of 24 to 32 frog missilee was made on 9 November 1962 and

remains unchanges.

Me. Kendall refora to Frog Misallos being shipped out, Mr. MeCone refera

to Erod Missile Launchere presumably loaded on a ship. and Mr. McNamara refers

to Equipment Associated with Tactical Rocket Unlin started to bermoved out. CIA

and the Watch Committes prosume that the Fong Miselle Transporters were loaded

aboard ship.

DocId: 32124689

Page 5

---

## Page 6

SECRET

APPARENT SEATIC SITUATION CONJRADICLION

STATEMENTS:

Nr. MeNamara

Vr, Fughes:

..Along with this equipment removed

from Cuba, we estimated that 5,000 Soviet

soldiers and technicians have also depart-

ed the foland, Remaining in Cuba, there-

fore, are the defensive weapons ayateme

shown here at their deployed locatione,

along with the approximately 17,000 Soviet

troops and techniolans:

(p. 32 - Special Gube Briefing, 6 Feb 63)

Mr. McNamare:

Mc. McCone

Mic. Kendall:

Mr. Mclenare also indicated

that he considered Cuba to be a

lessening military throat since

military people and equipment are

being moved out. I think thiế 10 a

direct quote, "There appears to be

some continuing movenent out." This

Is contrary to the information at least

I have, My informtion 1e that after

the missiles and the IL-28s were moved

In Burnery, then, Indies and gentle

out, with the reduction that you have

mex, we have recorded the entry of Soviet

indicated to 5,000 personnel there has

offensive weapons systens into Cuba and we

only been a rotation of people home

have reported the introduction into Cuba

and & continuing movement in of the

of a substantial quantity of Soviet nilitary

supplies and spare parts and bacup

personnel and Soviet mlltary equipment,

armunition for such things as 3A-2.

defensive arms, Soviet military personnel

Will you corment on that?

on the toland, Including techniciens increased,

Mr. McCone:

we belleve, to a total of approxinately

Yes, sir, we observed the withdrawal

22,000 by roughly the let of November:

of what appears to be about 5,000 men

That total, at Mr. Hughee reported to you;

at the time that the MREMe and the IRBMs

ECRET

DocId:32424689

Page 6

---

## Page 7

has been reduced by the Disem Barkation,

removal of about 5,000 men from Cuba and

thetr shipment to the Soviet Union, leaving

= total of about 17,000 soviet military

personnel including technicians in Cuba

today.

(D. 35 - Special Cuba Briefing, 6 Feb 63)

Question: (Untdentified - Believed to be

Ann Bordone, Northern Virginia Sun)

Vr. Secretary, I gather from what you

day that in recent weeke fuba 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 threst in

the sense of, I think you said, 5,000

Russians had returned to the lomeland.

It is a lessening threet to the United

States, from what I father.

Secretary McNemara:

Cuba is a lessening military threat

to the extent that the military personnel

of the Soviet Union and their equipment are

being removed. As you point out, 5,000 Soviet

military personnel have moved out in the last

eight or nine weake, and there appears to be

some continuing novement out. What the future

holds, I can't say.

(p. 50 - Special Cuba Briefing, 6 Feb 63)

DocId: 32424689 Page 7

SECRET

and the bombers were removed. It 1e

assumed that this personnel are the ones

that were in charge of these units and

responeible for them, and alao possible

some collateral support and security

forces in connection with those particular

weapons systems,

The renoval of the troops occurred

alnost concurrently with the removal

of the equipment.

Now, since then we have observed

what we feel 10 a relatively statio

situation with, as I said yesterday,

with some rotation. We are continually

getting intercepts, one as recently

as yesterday, speaking of going home,

but we interpret this from our observa

tion es rotational rather than a

withdrawal:

Senator Stennis:

If counsel would yleld just there,

Mr. Meltemars, that very point there,

about the Secretary saying it was a

Lessening, here are his exact worde as

quoted here in the morning paper,

VA

lessening military threat." We have a

mile in the courtroom that we won't

none witness to pass on the

UNLI

---

## Page 8

- SECRE

validity of another witness' testimony,

that l6 for the judge or the jury to

decide, and particularly we wouldn't

want you to have to pass on Mr. McNamara's

testimony.

But how could there be such a

difference in your testimony? Do you

have accéss to the same facts?

McCoge :

Yes.

Senetor Stennis:

Yourself?

McCone:

Tes, ve have eccess to the same

facts. It la a matter of Juâgement.

Senetor Stennie:

A matter of judgerent only?

Mr: Mclone:

I have expressed by views and I

think, Mr. Chairan, you will have to

ask Mc, McNamare how he resched his

conclusions.

Benator Stennia:

It is highly commendable that you

did and I was avoiding any personal

conflict between you.

→ SECRET

DocId:32124689

Page

8

---

## Page 9

1 0ш

ULUMLI

Mr. Metone :

None what so ever:

Senetor Stennis:

I say I was avoiding the interference

In the record or even in the Committee

but this is e matter of judgement and

you certainly don't see any lessening of

the milltary strength after the with

draval of the 5,000.

. 93-95, Testimony Stennis Comittee)

Since the departure of the last contingent of the IL-28 bombers and the personnel

secompanying them, we have observed no significant change in Soviet military forces in

Cuba.

There have been sone small shipments of military-associated transport and a

number of large crates which coula contain additional coastal defense cruise missiles

arriving in Cuba. However, there have been no major changes in the personnel

situation. Mr. MoCone's statenent that, 'We are continually sotting intereepts, one

as recently as yesterday, speaking of going home, but ve interpret this from our

observation as rotational rather than a withdrawal, " 1e contired as essentially the

Interpretation of the Intelligence community. On this basis we would consider the

present situation as one of neither build-up nor reduction but rather statie.

Regarding Mr. McNamera's statement concerning, "A lessening military threat,"

from the standpoint of offensive capabilities against the United States as currently

known and estimated by the Intelligence cormunity, this would be a correct statement,

with the removal of the offensive MRiMe and the Il,-28 bombers, the military threat of

Cuba vie-a-vis the United States in lese than it was prior to this action on the part

of the soviet Union. However, there 15-29

1 definitive evidence to show that this 1s

DocId: 32424689 Page 9

---

## Page 10

SECRETI

e continuing novement but rather that it has been completed.

CONCIUSIONS :

The statenent concerning "A lessening military threat" in the context of

offensive capabilities against the United States as currently known end estimated

16 a correct statement. (Less than prior to the removal of the MRBMs and IL-28

bombere. )

There ie no definitive evidence to show that this is a continuing movement

but rather that the novement has been completed.

SECRET

DocId: 32124689

Page

10

---

## Page 11

"E SECRETI

APPARENT SUBMARINE BASE CONTRADICTION

STATELENES :

Mr. McNamara

Question: (Unidentifled Source)

Mr. Secretary, are there any sea-baged

offensive weapons of the Polarla type or

others operating in and around Cuba?

Secretary McNamare:

No, and I think perhaps what you have in

mind is that there are recurring mmore that

the Soviets have established submarine bases

on the shores of cube, bases which might pre-

sumably be used for submarines carrying

missiles. We have no evidence whatcoever

that such based have been established. As

a matter of fact, we have positive evidence

that they have not been.

(p. Il - Special Cubä Briefing, 6 Feb 63)

Mr: McCone

SECRET

We know of no submarines in the

vicinity of Cuba at the present time.

In October there were four submarines

that we hed under surveillance that

were west of the Azores, and & nother

ship ta the vicinity of the Azores

which we likewise had under survelllance.

They are building a harbor under

the cover of a flshing trawler harbor.

I have no doubt but what they will

inatall in Cuba facilitles for the

mainterance of submarines.

The soviet nuclear submarine fleet

and, its missile launching fleet is

growing, at you know, and it would be

very convenient for then to have a

place to operate out of.

The Sovlet communications link

between Moscow and the Havana consists

of two linke which have been installed

since the 20th of October. One

appeare to support the Soviet Naval

operations and the other links the

Soviet minieter of defense with

DocId: 32424689

Page 11

---

## Page 12

GoF SECRET

Nor SECRET

the commander of the Soviet forces

In Cuba.

These are very ominous, and important

developments, in my opinion.

(From the Inolosure to Memorandum to

the President from Mr. Mcdone atd

7 Feb 63 which Ilate Mr. McConele

public and private statemente.)

Mr. Kendall:

Now, on the question of submrine

base capability in Cuba, Mr. MeNamera

vas quite euphatle that there was none

end, as I recall, it was your judgement

that the developments of such bases

was either in being or very probably

for the future.

Can you verify your podition on that?

Mx. McCone :

Yes, I think my position was thet

there appeare to be under construction

a merine base the announced purpose of

which was to service fishing trawlers and

sinilar ships but I had no doubt but

what it would and could serve as a sub-

marine servicing bose; that the existence

of such a base would be highly desirable.

However, we cannot say absolutely

that that particular base is to be a

DocId: 32424689

Page

12

---

## Page 13

SECRET

bubmerine base.

(D. 101 - Testimony Stennis Committee)

FACTS : .

The joint Moncow-Havana ennouncement of the signing of an agreement to construct

"a fishing port" capable of handling a large nunber offishing trevlers and the

facilities for processing the catch caused considerable apprehension and speculation

within the Intelligence community as to the real purpose of thie port. It woo

epeculated that such a facility coutd be used as a base for servicing Soviet submarines

at sea, we have no evidence that thie is the intonded purpose of the fishing port.

Mr. NcCones statement that, "there appeers to be under construction a marine bade, "

is 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

initiol stages of construction. We have no evidence that work has actually sterted

on this construction. At the present time we are unable to deternine whether or not

the flohing port could be used as a subuarine base. At the request of DIA the Navy

has undertaken & study to determine the suitability for using this fishing port or

any other facility in Cuba as a submarine base. This stuäy should be completed

within the next week.

CONCLUSION:

There 19 no evidence that construction has started.

There ie no evidence thet the flahtng port viil be used as a submarine base.

We have not been able to determine whether the fishing port site could be used

as a submerine base. (Study has been undertaken. )

SECRET

DocId: 32424689 Page 13

---