I. THE NEED

Ever since the end of World War II the United States has
found itself in a position of unparalleled involvement in foreign
affairs and of primary responsibility for the security of the free
world. This is a situation quite different from our historical experi-
ence where our major concern with respect to the rest of the world was
to be left alone to develop our country undisturbed. And it differs
from our past military efforts which concentrated on meeting a specific
threat within a specific time limit. Our historic expectation has
been that war and peace were successive phases of policy with the
purpose of war to destroy the enemy's will to resist; to be followed.
by a period of peace in which disputes were settled by diplomacy, con-
ceived primarily in terms of negotiating skill.

Ever since the end of World War II, however, we have found
ourselves in a situation which has fitted neither our concept of war
nor our concept of peace. All our inclinations have impelled us to
contribute to the construction of a new international system and to wish
for an end to the Cold War. At the same time, we have found it impossible

2.

[Y]

to engage in constructive measures without assuring the security of the countries concerned. Without a modicum of protection against foreign attack, no program of economic and political development will prove effective. Without sufficient strength to deter an attack on the United States our policies will be based on quicksand. It is often argued that the United States has paid too much attention to military factors. But the correct way of putting it is probably that it has paid inadequate attention to the more positive aspects of policy, for even in the defense field our effort has suffered from a lack of direction. Throughout the free world there has been a lack of clarity about the meaning of the new weapons technology, about the measures to assure the common defense, about the significance of force in settling international disputes, about the possibility of disarmament. This difficulty of coming to grips with some of our more urgent problems has been a source of confusion within the Western alliance and has kept us from deriving the full benefit from our own effort. Occasionally we have been galvanized into action by some spectacular Soviet achievement such as the launching of the sputnik. But the real difficulty we have faced is the problem of a sustained effort which cannot be a response to Soviet initiatives without

3.

[Y]

grave danger for the entire free world. It has been extremely difficult, however, to make this sustained effort. The enormous destructiveness of the new weapons technology has thrown into question many of the traditional presuppositions of strategic thought. In fact, the scale of experience on which a great deal of the expertise in this area has been formed is often itself a handicap to clear understanding. Not much progress can be made until there is a clearer understanding of the roles of national security policy in the nuclear age: of the role of power, the specific threats to the security of the free world, the means of achieving peace in such circumstances, the relationship between power and diplomacy.

The problem ultimately reduces itself to a question of personnel both within the government and the country at-large. Every government official concerned with defense matters complains about the dearth of adequately trained manpower. Almost every official at whatever level requires a great deal of briefing before he begins to be effective. The reservoir of talent is exceedingly small. The result is that the same people both in and out of the government find themselves

4.

[Y]

so overawled with dealing with current problems that they have little
time left for reflection. Thinking in this field tends to stagnate
because the few men with experience are not given sufficient time to
push forward new frontiers.

The shortage of personnel reflects in part the inadequate
attention defense studies have received in universities. Little oppor-
tunity has existed for able graduate students to concentrate in this
field or for faculty members to devote themselves to research on it.
To be sure, there have been individual studies of major problem areas.
But the great need is for a focus of continuing concern, both for train-
ing and for research. A continuing examination of major problem areas
would serve not only an educational but a national need. For a
program of this kind would be a natural place to turn for many of the
efforts now conducted by ad hoc groups. At the same time, the training
of civil servants as well as of graduate students in various fields
would address itself to the immediate needs of the government as well as
expanding a long-term pool of talent.

[Y]

5.

## II. HISTORY OF THE DEFENSE STUDIES PROGRAM

The Harvard Defense Studies Program was started in 1955 through a grant from the Ford Foundation. In its first three years, the Program concentrated primarily on two activities: the organization of basic materials which have become the core of teaching in other universities (Ohio, Duke, Wisconsin), and the giving of a Defense Policy Seminar. This center has drawn students from the School of Public Administration, the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, the Law School and the Harvard Business School. It is the only Seminar at Harvard with such a wide representation. It has invited distinguished guest lecturers to speak before the Seminar (see attached Report for 1957-1958.)

The pioneering work of the Defense Policy Seminar is indicated by the fact that similar efforts using almost identical formats have been set up at Ohio State, the University of Wisconsin and Duke University. In every case the Director of the Program consulted with the Harvard Project before starting his own effort.

III. THE FUTURE OF THE DEFENSE STUDIES PROGRAM

A. Defense Policy Seminar

The Defense Policy Seminar was reorganized beginning with the
academic year 1958. For the first time the Faculty of Arts and Sciences
has accepted it as part of its curriculum. It will therefore attract
more graduate students working for an advanced degree. This in turn
will provide the basis for sustained research efforts. At the same
time, the emphasis of the seminar has been changed from presenting a
survey of a new field to the more detailed exploration of specific
problem areas. The topics for the Seminar itself have been grouped under
three major headings: strategy and organization, basic strategic concepts,
and strategy and foreign policy. A syllabus outlining the topics has been
prepared, with basic reading requirements which will supplant much of the
reading matter used earlier. Each student in addition to participating in
the large Seminar will be required to participate in one of three groups
meeting bi-weekly. Each of these groups will take one of the major topics
given above and study it intensively throughout the year. Faculty members
working in related fields will be associated with these groups, which will

7.

be led by members of the Defense Studies Program staff.

## B. Advanced Training and Research

The Defense Policy Seminar seeks primarily to train students for future public service or for research in the field of military-political affairs. In addition there is a need to assist in the training of civil servants and military personnel and to establish a focus for continuing advanced research. Opportunities for meeting both of these needs exist through the new Center for International Affairs, which will supervise the advanced training and research of the Defense Studies Program. The Harvard Center for International Affairs will invite each year senior civil servants and military officers both from this country and abroad. They will engage in advanced research under the direction of a faculty member. A partial list of the 1958 fellows is attached. This year's group will include senior Colonels from the Army and Air Force and a Navy Captain as well as representation from the State Department, CIA and foreign governments.

Those participants interested in military-political affairs will meet in regular seminars. They will work on a topic of their own choice within general fields established by the Center. (See attached program

[Y]

8.

of the Center.) Their research will contribute to the continuing exami-
nation of major problem areas and their experience will benefit the
training aspects of the Defense Policy Seminar.

### C. A Faculty Seminar.

In order to draw full benefit from the experience available
within the Harvard community, the Center for International Affairs will
create a faculty Seminar to encourage research and to help establish the
general framework for the training. This seminar will meet once a month
on the basis of papers or reports prepared by its participants. The
following have agreed to participate: Robert R. Bowie, former Secretary
of State for Policy Planning, Arthur Smithies and Lincoln Gordon, both
consultants to the Weapons Systems Evaluation Group of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, General McCormack, President of the Institute for Defense Analysis
and former Chief of Air Force Research and Development, General Gavin, former
Chief of Army Research and Development, W. Barton Leach, Consultant to the
Air Force, Thomas Schelling and Henry A. Kissinger, Consultant to the
Operations Research Office and the Weapons Systems Evaluation Group. One
of the senior scientists in the area will be a regular participant.

The Fellows of the Center interested in military affairs will be invited to attend regularly. Younger faculty members will be invited on topics of their specific competence.

### D. Research Programs

The Defense Studies Program under the direction of the Center for International Affairs will conduct research in major fields drawing on both its staff and its fellows. Its research interests include the following.

1. The relationship between policy and strategy, with particular emphasis on the control and reduction of armaments. One of the difficulties we have had in the field of foreign policy is that out policies for the control and reduction of armaments have often had to be formulated without a full understanding of the strategic implications. Particular attention will be paid to studies about the relationship of diplomacy and national security policy in this important field.

2. Alliance Policy - As the leader of a community of free nations, the United States has a particular responsibility to develop policies which make sense not only in terms of our own interest but in those of our allies as well. The purpose of these studies would be to

[N]

10.

examine the impact of strategic doctrine and weapons technology on our
system of alliances and the changing requirements of alliances over
a period of time.

3. Strategic Doctrine - One of the difficulties in a consideration of defense policy is the armorphousness of work with respect to the purpose or requirements of military force in the nuclear age.

The Center would propose to study this through means of games theory, studies of weapons technology and policy requirements.

4. National Security Organization - Military policy ultimately has to be translated into political action. Major attention will have to be placed on the organization for national security, since organization tends to produce basic patterns of thought.

This list is obviously not exhaustive and indicates the areas
in which existing personnel is doing preliminary work. Thus Dr. Kissinger
is dealing with disarmament and alliances; Dr. Schelling with the question
of strategic doctrine, and Dr. Ransom have been working on problems of
organization.

11.

The continuing research as well as the training program is
dependent however on adequate financing and could be greatly expanded
if funds became available. Moreover, if such a focus for continuing
research were created, it would be only natural that many projects
for which ad hoc groups now have to be assembled might have at least
the preparatory work done here.

## IV. FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS

The basic approach of the Defense Studies Program will be inte-
grated as closely as possible with other activities at Harvard. This
means that except for research associates and secretarial staff, most of
the participants will also hold some other university appointment. The
basic categories of support are as follows:

### A. Visiting lecturers

It would be extremely useful to induce senior officials or
military officers or senior professors to spend sometime at Harvard and
to contribute while here both to the research and training. Preliminary
conversations have already taken place with Viscount Montgomery and General
Norstad about their availability.

[Y]

12.

## B. Research Associates

These would concentrate on major fields of research which would change from time to time. They would also serve as a nucleus of assistance in the teaching of the Defense Policy Seminar.

## C. Faculty Seminar

This requires primarily administrative support and on occasion the possibility to free some of its members from teaching obligations to pursue a particular line of research. It should also have funds to pay for papers especially prepared for the Faculty Seminar.

## D. Library

The collection of basic materials in this field should be continued.

Attached is a proposed budget which would include the proposals discussed above, as well as the regular operating costs.

## V. Personnel

The personnel available for the Defense Studies Program include:

Henry A. Kissinger; Thomas G. Schelling; James M. Gavin, Fellow of the Center; Harry Ransom, Research Associate; Maurice Feld.

May 9, 1958

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

DEFENSE POLICY SEMINAR, 1958-1959

Syllabus

Note: The outline and reading lists which follow were drafted in the spring of 1958. Students enrolled in the Defense Policy Seminar, 1958-59 may expect additions, deletions or other revisions in this syllabus at a later date.

Seminar students may want to obtain personal copies of the items marked below with an asterisk (*). It is advisable to write your Representative or Senator for individual copies of Congressional hearings or reports. The Harvard Defense Policy Seminar Serials listed below will generally be made available as distributions to members of the Seminar, or on loan from reserve collections.

Detailed Seminar requirements and specific schedules for meetings of the Seminar and discussion groups will be announced in September.

HARVARD DEFENSE POLICY SEMINAR, 1958-1959

An Introductory Survey
=======================

1. Basic Issues of National Strategy in the Nuclear Age - The Nature of Deterrence - An Introductory Preview.

2. The Nature of Likely Threats to Western Security and the Role of Force in Meeting the Threats.

3. The Impact of Science and Technology upon Strategic Planning for National Security. Developing Weapons Systems.

Strategy and Organization
=========================

4. The Concept of Civilian Supremacy in Military Affairs. American Governmental Machinery for Integration of Political, Economic and Military Elements into National Policy.

5. Department of Defense Organization and the Strategic Planning Process.

6. Central Intelligence and Strategic Decision.

7. The Role of Congress in the Formation of National Security Policy.

8. Information, Secrecy and National Security: the Flow of Public Information.

9. The Military Budget and Budget Process as an Instrument of Strategic Choice.

Elements of the Strategic Problem
=====================================

10. The Relationship of National Security to American Foreign Policy - The Determination of Force Requirements in Relation to Political Objectives, with Special Reference to the National Security Council, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Armed Services.

11. Problems of Total War.

12. Problems of Limited War.

13. The Armed Services - the ARMY:Function, Strategic Doctrine, Organization.

14. The Armed Services - the NAVY:Function, Strategic Doctrine, Organization.

15. The Armed Services - the AIR FORCE:Function, Strategic Doctrine, Organization.

16. Civil Defense and National Security.

17. The Economics of National Defense: the Availability and Allocation of National Resources for Military Security.

Technology and Strategy
=========================

18. Research and Development - Weapons Planning.

19. Logistic Requirements, Procurement and Industrial Potential in the Nuclear Age.

Strategy and Foreign Policy
=========================

20. Collective Security: Structure of Military Alliances in the Nuclear Age.

21. Mutual Military Assistance: Problems of Implementing a Collective Security Strategy - A Comparative Look at NATO and SEATO.

22. The United Nations and United States Security.

23. The Korean War: A Case Study.

24. Disarmament: The Scope and Shape of the Problem.

25. Disarmament: The Coordination of Strategy and Policy.

-3-

[N]

**General Reading Requirement:** During the academic year, each student will be expected to become familiar with the arguments and information contained in the following:

Acheson, Dean, *Power and Diplomacy*, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1958.

Aron, Raymond, *The Century of Total War*, New York, Doubleday, 1954.
(Also Boston, Beacon Press, 1955)

Beal, John R., *John Foster Dulles*, New York, Harper, 1957.

Earle, Edward Meade (Ed.), *Makers of Modern Strategy*, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1949.

Finletter, Thomas K., *Power and Policy*, New York, Harcourt, Brace, 1955; also *Foreign Policy, the Next Phase*. New York, Harper, 1958.

Great Britain, *Statement on Defence*, London, HMSO, 1957 (Cmd. 124) 1958 (Cmd. 363).

Halle, Louis J., *Choice for Survival*, New York, Harper, 1958.

House, Armed Services Committee, *Hearings*, "The National Defense Program -- Unification and Strategy," 81st Congress, 1st. Session, Washington, 1949. (See also *Report*, "Unification and Strategy"); also *Hearings*, "The President's 1958 Reorganization Plan," April-May, 1958.

Huntington, Samuel P., *The Soldier and the State*, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1957.

Kaufmann, William (Ed.), *Military Policy and National Security*, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1956.

*Kennan, George F., *Russia, the Atom and the West*, New York, Harper, 1958.

King-Hall, Sir Stephen, *Defense in the Nuclear Age*, London, Gollancz, 1958.

Kintner, William R., (with others), *Forging a New Sword*, New York, Harper, 1958.

*Kissinger, Henry A., *Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy*, New York, (Council on Foreign Relations), Harper, 1957.

Miksche, Col. F.O., *Atomic Weapons and Armies*, New York, Praeger, 1955.

Millis, Walter, *Arms and Men*, New York, Putnam, 1956, (available in paperback edition).

Millis, Walter (Ed.), *The Forrestal Diaries*, New York, Viking, 1951.

Osgood, Robert E., *Limited War*, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1956.

Roberts, Henry L., *Russia and America*, New York, Harper, 1956, (available in paperback edition).

*Rockefeller Brothers Fund, *International Security: The Military Aspect*, Special Studies Report II, New York, Doubleday Headline Publications, 1958. (50 cents)

*Senate, Armed Services (Johnson) Preparedness Investigating Subcommittee, Hearings, "Inquiry into Satellite and Missiles Programs," 85th Congress, 1st and 2nd Sessions, 1957, 1958, Part I, Washington, 1958.

Senate, Armed Services (Symington) Subcommittee on the Air Force, *Hearings*, "Study of Airpower." 23 Parts and *Report*, Washington, 1956, 1957.

Slessor, Sir John, *Strategy for the West*, New York, Morrow, 1954.

Stanley, Timothy W., *American Defense and National Security*, Washington, Public Affairs Press, 1956.

-4-

An Introductory Survey

I. Basic Issues of National Strategy in the Nuclear Age - The Nature of Deterrence - An Introductory Preview.

a. The problems modern weapons have raised for diplomacy and for strategy.

b. Evolving concepts of deterrence.

c. Deterrence and the strategy for fighting a war.

d. Offensive and defensive foreign policies and strategies.

Readings: REQUIRED

Acheson, Dean, *Power and Policy*, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1958.

*Foreign Affairs*, (quarterly), *World Politics*, (quarterly), *Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists*, (monthly), *Orbis*, (quarterly), *Journal of the Royal United Service Institution*, (London, quarterly), *Revue Militaire Générale* (Paris, monthly).

King, James E., "A Discussion of Henry A. Kissinger's Views on Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy," 2 parts, *New Republic*, July 1 and July 8, 1957.

Kissinger, Henry A., *Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy*, New York, Harper, 1957.

SUGGESTED

Brodie, Bernard, "Strategy versus Tactics in a Nuclear Age," in *Brassey's Annual*, New York, The MacMillan Co., 1956.

Finletter, Thomas K., *Power and Policy*, New York, Harcourt, Brace, 1954; also *Foreign Policy, the Next Phase*, 1958.

Halle, Louis J., *Choice for Survival*, New York, Harper & Bros., 1958.

Kaufmann, William W. (Ed.), *Military Policy and National Security*, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1956.

Knorr, Klaus, "Is the American Defense Effort Enough," Princeton, Center of International Studies, Memorandum No. 14, Princeton, New Jersey, December 23, 1957.

Royal Institute of International Affairs, *On Limiting Atomic War*, Rear Adm. Sir Anthony W. Buzzard and others, London, RIIA, 1956.

a. Analysis of basic Sino-Soviet objectives.

b. The basic principles of contemporary Russian (and Chinese) political theory and military strategy.

c. Illustrations of Communist use of military force in the attainment of objectives.

d. The political and military strengths and vulnerabilities of the Sino-Soviet bloc in the pursuit of their strategic objectives.

e. Other possible threats to international security.

-5-

## Readings: REQUIRED

Acheson, *Power and Diplomacy*, Chapter I.

Garthoff, Raymond L., *Soviet Strategy in the Nuclear Age*, New York, Praeger, 1958. (See also his *Soviet Military Doctrine*, Glencoe, The Free Press, 1955.)

Kennan, *Russia, the Atom and the West*, Chapter II.

Kennan, "The Sources of Soviet Conduct," *Foreign Affairs*, July 1947.

Kissinger, *Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy*, Chapters 10 and 11.

## SUGGESTED

Fainsod, Merle, *How Russia Is Ruled*. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1953, Chapter 17.

Harvard Defense Studies Program, Serial No. 82, "Forces of the Communist Bloc," by Feld and Keesing.

Leites, Nathan, *The Operational Code of the Politburo*, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1951.

Liddell-Hart, Basil H., (ed.), *The Red Army*, New York, Harcourt, Brace, 1956.

Roberts, Henry L., *Russia and America*, New York, Harper, 1955.

Rostow, Walt W., (et.al.), *The Prospects for Communist China*, New York, Wiley, 1954.

Vershinin, Marshal, "Comments on Military Strategy," (a translation from *Pravda*), Harvard DPS Serial No. 119.

a. The relationship between scientific and technological resources and strategic capability.

b. The nature of a technological breakthrough.

c. Problem of evolving weapons technology.

d. The relationship between technological development and strategic choice.

e. The degree to which there is freedom of choice of, and the techniques available for choosing among, weapons systems. The role of the opponent's choice in determining research and development.

f. The future of the arms race: advantages and disadvantages for the United States in the projection of present trends.

## Readings: REQUIRED

Blackett, P.M.S., *Atomic Weapons and East-West Relations*, New York, Cambridge University Press, 1956.

*Bulletin of Atomic Scientists*, "Science and Military Strategy," May 1956, (Entire Issue, various authors).

Kissinger, Acheson, Kennan, King-Hall, op. cit.

Millis, Walter, *Arms and Men*, New York, Putnam, 1956.

Teller, Edward and Albert Latter, *Our Nuclear Future*, New York, Criterion Books, 1958.

-6-

SUGGESTED

Aron, Raymond, *The Century of Total War*, New York and Boston, 1954, 1955.

Baldwin, Hanson W., "The New Face of War," *Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists*, (v. 12) May 1956, pp. 153-158.

Lincoln, Col. G.A. and Lt. Col. Amos A. Jordan, "Technology and the Changing Nature of General War," *Military Review*, (v. 37) May 1957, pp. 3-13.

Ransom, Harry H., (compiler), "Science, Technology and Modern War," Harvard Defense Policy Serial No. 39(1955) with Bibliography by William R. Emerson.

Senate (Johnson) Preparedness Investigating Subcommittee on Armed Services, Hearings, "Inquiry Into Satellite and Missile Programs," 85th Congress, 1st and 2nd Sessions, Part I, Washington, 1958.

Smyth, Henry D., "Nuclear Power and Foreign Policy," *Foreign Affairs*, October 1956.

Strategy and Organization

a. The problem of civil-military relations in the American environment.

b. The chief characteristics of existing machinery for national policy-making.

c. The basic elements of and requirements for national security decisions.

d. An assessment of existing White House (including NSC, ODM, CIA), State Department and Pentagon devices for and attitudes toward policy coordination.

Readings: REQUIRED

Cutler, Robert, "The Development of the National Security Council," *Foreign Affairs*, April 1956, pp. 441-458.

Huntington, Samuel P., *The Soldier and the State*, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1958.

Kintner, op. cit.

Roberts, Chalmers, "The Day We Didn't Go to War," *The Reporter*, September 14, 1954.

Stanley, T.W., op. cit.

SUGGESTED

Ballard, John (compiler), "The Job Concept of the Civilian Secretary," Harvard DPS Serial No. 93.

Davison, W. Phillips, *The Berlin Blockade*, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1958.

Donovan, Robert J., *Eisenhower: The Inside Story*, New York, Harper, 1956.

Elliott, William Y., et. al., *United States Foreign Policy: Its Organization and Control*, New York, Columbia University Press, 1952.

[N]

-7-

Fox, W.T.R., "Civilians, Soldiers and American Military Policy," *World Politics*, April 1955.

Leach, W. Barton, "The Job of a Service Secretary," Harvard DPS Serial No. 103.

Masland and Radway, *Soldiers and Scholars*, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1957.

Millis, Walter (Ed.), *The Forrestal Diaries*, New York, Viking, 1952.

"Readings on Civilian Control," Harvard Defense Policy Seminar Serial No. 90 (S.P. Huntington and Sir Ian Jacob).

Ridgway, Matthew B., *Soldier*, New York, Harper, 1956.

Smith, Dale O., "What is OCB?" *Foreign Service Journal*, November 1955.

Smith, Louis, *American Democracy and Military Power*, University of Chicago Press, 1951.

Souers, Sidney, "Policy Formulation and National Security," *American Political Science Review*, June 1949.

Stanley, Timothy W. and Harry H. Ransom, Harvard Defense Policy Seminar Serial No. 104, "The National Security Council."

Vagts, Alfred, *Defense and Diplomacy*, New York, Columbia University Press, 1956.

## 5. Department of Defense Organization and the Strategic Planning Process.

I. a. The characteristics and assumptions of the existing defense organization.

b. The environment in which "Unification" evolved.

c. The balance between military functions and organizational structure. The conceptual basis on which military roles and missions are currently assigned.

d. The strengths and weaknesses of the present defense organization.

II. a. The advantages and disadvantages of the existing Joint Chiefs of Staff and Joint Staff organization.

b. The relation of currently assigned roles and missions to the military capabilities of potential enemies and an accelerating weapons technology.

-8-

c. Major proposals for reorganizing the Office of Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

d. Relations between the Defense Department and other Executive agencies.

Readings: REQUIRED

Eisenhower, Dwight D., Address to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, Washington, April 17, 1958. (Reprinted in U.S. News and World Report, April 25, 1958, p. 120ff).

Eisenhower, Dwight D., "Message on Department of Defense Reorganization," April 3, 1958. (The New York Times, April 4, 1958).

Harvard Defense Studies Program Serial No. 89, "Unification of the Armed Forces, with Bibliography.

Kintner, William R., et. al., Forging a New Sword, New York, Harper, 1958.

Rockefeller Brothers Fund, International Security: The Military Aspect, New York, Doubleday, Headline Publications, 1958.

Stanley, Timothy W., American Defense and National Security, Washington, Public Affairs Press, 1956.

Vinson, Hon. Carl, Speech on Department of Defense Organization, Congressional Record (daily edition), April 16, 1958.

-10-

Huntington, Samuel P., "Radicalism and Conservatism in National Defense Policy," *Journal of International Affairs*, No. 8(1954), pp. 206-222.

Katzenbach, E.L., Jr., "How Congress Strains at Gnats, Then Swallows Military Budgets," *The Reporter*, July 20, 1954, pp. 31-35; also "Appropriations and Information," Harvard DPS Serial No. 118.

McConaughy, James J. Jr., "Congressmen and the Pentagon," *Fortune*, April 1958, pp. 156-162,166-168.

Shackelford, Francis, "The Separation of Powers in Time of Crisis," *Government Under Law*, ed. by Arthur Sutherland, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1956.

SUGGESTED

Dahl, Robert, *Congress and Foreign Policy*, New York, Harcourt, Brace, 1950.

Huzar, Elias, *The Purse and the Sword*, Ithaca, Cornell Press, 1950.

Thomas, Morgan, *Congress and Atomic Energy*, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1956.

Westerfield, H. Bradford, *Foreign Policy and Party Politics*, *Pearl Harbor to Korea*, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1955.

Wilson, Woodrow, *Congressional Government*, Meridian Books, 1956. (Reprint)

8. Information, Secrecy and National Security: The Flow of Public Information.

a. The effect of national security considerations on the basic principles of free speech, free press and other aspects of freedom of inquiry.

b. The proper limits upon restricting the free flow of information. The harmful effects of widespread secrecy.

c. The military requirements for secrecy.

d. The American governmental and social system's requirements for disclosure.

e. Public debate and classified information. A challenge to the democratic process.

Readings: **REQUIRED**

Cutler, Robert, "The Seamless Web," *Harvard Alumni Bulletin*, June 4, 1955.

House, Government Operations (Moss) Subcommittee on Information, *Hearings*, November 1955-February 1958, 15 parts, Washington, 1956,1957,1958 (and various reports).

Millis, Walter, *Individual Freedom and the Common Defense*, New York, Fund for the Republic, 1957.

Ransom, Harry H., "Government Secrecy and National Security: An Analysis," Harvard Defense Policy Seminar Serial No. 123, January 1958.

SUGGESTED

Committee on Classified Information, Charles Coolidge, Chairman, *Report*, 1956. Reprinted, in part, in *Harvard Defense Policy Seminar Serial No. 100*.

Parks, Wallace, "Secrecy and the Public Interest in Military Affairs," *George Washington Law Review*, October 1957.

[Y]

-11-

Price, Don K., *Government and Science*, New York, New York
University Press, 1954.

Shils, E.A., *The Torment of Secrecy*, Glencoe, Free Press,
1957.

Wiggins, James Russell, *Freedom or Secrecy*, New York, Oxford,
1956.

Wright Commission Report, 1957, section on "Classified Information."

9. The Military Budget as an Instrument of Strategic Choice.

a. The effectiveness of the present military budget
process for providing means for rational
choice of strategic alternatives or precise
information about what the money is to buy.

b. The effectiveness of the budget, as presently
developed, as an instrument for planning, programming,
review and control, either by the Executive or
the Congress.

c. Possible improvements in budgetary procedures.

d. Major steps in the formation of military budgets.

e. Balancing fiscal ceilings with military requirements.

Readings: REQUIRED

Mosher, Frederick C., *Program Budgeting: Theory and Practice*, Chicago, Public Administration Service, 1954.

Smithies, Arthur, *The Budgetary Process in the United States*,
New York, McGraw-Hill, 1955.

Wood, Marshall K., W.B. Leach, and H.H. Ransom, "The Budgetary
Process and Defense Policy," Harvard Defense Policy Serial
No. 122.

SUGGESTED

Burkhead, Jesse, *Government Budgeting*, New York, Wiley,
1956.

Keesing, Donald B., "Problems in the Budgetary Process,"
Harvard Defense Policy Seminar Serial No. 96,
especially its Bibliography.

Leach, W.Barton, "How to Question the Adequacy of a Budget,"
Harvard Defense Policy Seminar Serial No. 95.

-13-

Kissinger, Henry A., "Force and Diplomacy in the Nuclear Age," *Foreign Affairs*, April 1956.

Sapin, Burton and Richard C. Snyder, *The Role of the Military in American Foreign Policy*, New York, Doubleday & Co., 1954.

SUGGESTED

Beloff, Max, *Foreign Policy and the Democratic Process*, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press, 1955.

Cook, Thomas I. and Malcolm Moos, *Power Through Purpose*, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press, 1954.

Elliott, William Y., *U.S. Foreign Policy: Its Organization and Control*, Columbia University Press, 1952.

Hoopes, Townsend, "Civil-Military Balance," *Yale Review*, Winter 1954.

Kennan, George F., *American Diplomacy, 1900-1950*, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1951.

Marshall, Charles B., *The Limits of Foreign Policy*, New York, Holt, 1954.

May, Ernest R., "The Development of Political-Military Consultation in the United States," *Political Science Quarterly*, June 1955, pp. 161-180.

Morgenthau, Hans, *In Defense of the National Interest*, New York, Knopf, 1951. (See also his *Politics Among Nations*, New York, Knopf, 2nd ed. 1954).

11. Problems of Total War.

a. The character of strategic war: the problem of surprise attack.

b. The concept of the quick war vs. the broken backed war.

c. Soviet strategic capabilities.

d. The basic design question: strike first or retaliatory blow.

e. The role of active defense.

f. Preview of civil defense.

Readings: REQUIRED

Dinerstein, Herbert S., "The Revolution in Soviet Strategic Thinking," *Foreign Affairs*, January 1958, pp. 240-252.

Dulles, John Foster, "Policy for Security and Peace," *Foreign Affairs*, April 1954 (v. 32), pp. 353-364.

House, Committee on Armed Services, *Hearings*, "The National Defense Program: Unification and Strategy," 81st Congress, 1st Session, Washington 1949.

Kissinger, *Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy*, Chapter 4, "Principles of All-Out War."

Smith, Dale O., *U.S. Military Doctrine*. New York, Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1955.

SUGGESTED

Finletter, *Power and Policy*.

Johnson, Ellis A., "Our Defense is Very Poor -- If an Attack Were to Come Immediately," *U.S. News and World Report*, (Interview with Director of Army's Operations Research Office), January 31, 1958, p. 50 ff.