NARRATOR: The United States Congress has the constitutional responsibility to raise and support armies. It proves the money for the military. The president is commander-in-chief. The secre-tary of defense runs the Pentagon. But it's the American people who have the ultimate say at the ballot box.

The issue is military spending and the future size and shape of the American military. A changing world seems to demand changes in our military strategy. Opinions differ.

Senate SAM NUNN (D., Ga.), Chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee (at hearing, 2 Feb 90): "These changes have altered many of the basic assumptions on which our national security policy, our military strategy and our defense budgets have been based for the last 40 years."

Secretary of Defense RICHARD CHENEY (at briefing, 29 Jan 90): "There are those who are arguing now that, in light of the developments we've seen in the world, somehow we need to funda-mentally alter US military strategy. I think that's a mistake."

NARRATOR: How much will military spending be? Will there be a peace dividend?

Senator ALAN DIXON (D., Ill.) (at hearing): "And the biggest catchword on the Hill this year is 'peace dividend.' But if you look at the budget, you couldn't buy a good Havana cigar out of the peace dividend in the budget this year."

Secretary CHENEY (briefing, 29 Jan 90): "I've heard a lot of talk about the peace dividend. A lot the people who've been touting the peace dividend have never supported defense programs, they've never -- never seen a defense program they liked. They've just got a new rationale for attacking what -- what we felt it was necessary to do."

NARRATOR: Today, on "AMERICA'S DEFENSE MONITOR," we try to bring some clarity to the confusion surrounding "The Great Arms Debate."

["AMERICA'S DEFENSE MONITOR" program introduction.]

Admiral EUGENE LaROCQUE (US Navy, Ret.): Hello. Welcome to "AMERICA'S DEFENSE MONITOR." For 40 years, the role of the US military has been very clear. We have an enemy, Soviet communism, and for 40 years the military armed itself, trained and prepared to destroy communism, to defeat the Soviet Union. Now events are changing very rapidly. It's hard to keep up with the changes, they're occurring so fast. Do we still have an enemy? Do we still need to prepare to destroy the Soviet Union?

Many experts disagree on this subject. You've already heard two of them express directly contradictory opinions. As you listen to the rest of them in "The Great Arms Debate" today, try to decide who is the enemy and why are we preparing, arming our-selves to destroy them.

NARRATOR: Let's begin with some basic facts about the American military establishment. We all know it's very large for peacetime. There are 2.1 million active duty military personnel. One-quarter of these, 500,000, are stationed in foreign coun- tries. There are also 1.6 million in the reserves. One million civilians work for the Department of Defense. Over 3 million are employed directly in defense industry. In total, including retired military people, more than 9 million Americans regularly receive money from the Pentagon.

All this costs a lot. For Fiscal 1991, the Bush administration is asking for $307 billion for military programs, up from $302 billion the previous year. The Pentagon wants further increases for future years. These numbers may be revised as the great arms debate continues.

In the Pentagon's plans, military budgets are going down by about 2 percent a year only when measured in constant dollars, which are adjusted for guesses about future inflation.

About $200 billion every year is for the capability to fight in Europe, Asia, the Persian Gulf and other distant regions of the world. Preparing for war in Europe is, by far, the most expensive American military activity. That costs about $160 billion a year, with 340,000 US military personnel in Europe and most troops stationed in the United States allocated to fighting in Europe if war comes.

The United States has about 12,000 long-range nuclear warheads targeted on the Soviet Union. They are carried on bombers and sea and landbased missiles. About 20 percent of the military budget goes for nuclear forces, $60 billion in this year's military budget.

Preparing for war with the Soviet Union and its allies has been the central mission of the American military since the late 1940s. The United States constructed a network of military alliances in Europe, Asia and elsewhere to resist aggression by the Soviet Union. A huge, diverse nuclear arsenal was built as the United States and the Soviet Union engaged in a vigorous nuclear arms race.

In the 1980s, President Reagan initiated the largest peacetime increase in military spending in US history. More than $2.2 trillion was spent on the military. Habits of big, expanding defense programs became ingrained in the military establishment. All of this was premised on the fear that the Soviet Union was an increasing threat to the United States.

The major rationale for the US military began to unravel after Mikhail Gorbachev became the leader of the Soviet Union in 1985. He rapidly initiated basic changes in domestic and foreign policy. Big unilateral cuts in Soviet military forces and concessions in arms control negotiations have come in quick succession. The collapse of the Warsaw Pact in 1989 drove the final nail in the coffin of the familiar traditional Soviet military threat.

General John Vessey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Reagan, frankly states the problem military officials see today.

General JOHN VESSEY (hearing, 2 Feb 90): "Maintaining the willingness to provide enough for defense is going to be hard to do when it looks like the threat is disappearing."

NARRATOR: The Department of Defense wants to keep military spending close to the record levels of the Reagan administration and plans only relatively modest reductions in the future.

Secretary CHENEY (briefing, 29 Jan 90): "I would not want to go much below, long term, the level of spending that we're forecasting here in the '94-95 timeframe. I think you get to a point out there where you have -- you will have cut below the essence of what we have to have in order to remain a superpower."

NARRATOR: President Bush staked out his position when he chose to kick off the campaign for his new budget with visits to the headquarters of the Strategic Air Command and a pep talk to nuclear weapons scientists working on the Strategic Defense Initiative. He wants almost $5 billion for Star Wars this year.

President George Bush (Lawrence Livermore Lab, 7 Feb 90): "Yours are the minds that are rarely at rest. Sometimes blessed, sometimes burdened with the flow of ideas that simply won't quit."

NARRATOR: It is the job of the US Congress to approve or reject the Pentagon's request for $307 billion. The House and Senate Armed Services Committees listened to Pentagon officials make their case. Questions are asked, various points of view are expressed, alternatives are suggested. Democracy in action. Senator Sam Nunn is the influential chairman of the Senate Arms Services Committee.

Sen. NUNN (hearing, 1 Feb 90): "One does not need closed-door briefings by the intelligence community to know that real changes in the Soviet threat have taken place. We've all seen these changes unfold on our television screens every night. Our challenge is to determine if this budget reflects the realities and the full dimension of the changes in the threat, the political situation in Europe and the fiscal situation here at home."

NARRATOR: Senator Nunn sums up the results of extensive hearings with military experts.

Sen. NUNN (hearing, 2 Feb 90): "There's been a virtual unanimous opinion that the overall threat to the United States and its allies from the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact in Central Europe has decreased substantially. These changes have altered many of the basic assumptions on which our national security policy, our military strategy and our defense budgets have been based for the last 40 years."

NARRATOR: Nunn concludes that, "The basic assessment of the overall threat to our national security on which this budget is based is rooted in the past" and the "development of a new military strategy that responds to the changes in the threat has not yet occurred."

But the secretary of defense believes there's little reason to change our military strategy.

Secretary CHENEY (hearing, 1 Feb 90): "But I think the basic elements of our strategy continue to be valid. Regardless of what kind of scenario we portray for the future, we're going to continue to want to maintain adequate nuclear forces to pro-vide for deterrence. We're going to want to continue to rely upon a system of alliances around the world, in Japan, Korea, NATO. We're going to want to continue to rely upon the concept of forward deployments, although perhaps at lower levels."

NARRATOR: Other experts see the need for big changes. James Schlesinger, the respected former secretary of defense and director of the CIA:

JAMES SCHLESINGER (hearing, 30 Jan 90) "As a country, we must move on. We must recognize that the international environment has now been transformed. We must not go on doing what we have done in the past on the premise, why change a successful strategy. Were we to do so, it would prove to be self-defeating.

"What I have pointed out here is, hey, for 45 years we've been worried about that Warsaw Pact threat. It ain't what it used to be and we must recognize that."

NARRATOR: One reason the Department of Defense seems to be slow to change is that many Pentagon officials continue to see the Soviet Union as a major threat to the United States. They argue that positive changes could be quickly reversed.

Secretary CHENEY (Briefing, 29 Jan 90): "There is enormous uncertainty about the likely political developments in the Soviet Union in the months and years immediately ahead. There's always the prospect that I have to plan for, the contingency, if you will, that there could be a sudden reversal of current trends, in terms of Soviet foreign and national security policy."

NARRATOR: William Webster, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, disagrees with Cheney.

WILLIAM WEBSTER (hearing, 1 March 90): "The dramatic changes, either planned or already implemented, will increasingly be difficult to reverse.

"As a result, a successor regime would face the same types of economic and political pressures that President Gorbachev has and would probably continue to pursue arms control agreements with the West. It would be unlikely, in addition, to seek a broad reversal of the changes that have occurred in Eastern Europe or to try to revive the Warsaw Pact.

"In closing, Mr. Chairman, even a major reversal of leadership and policies in Moscow would be unlikely to restore an international order resembling the one that existed until only a few years ago."

NARRATOR: Most experts believe that the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and large cuts in Soviet conventional forces mean that a Soviet invasion of Western Europe is now almost unthink-able.

Richard Perle was known as a hawk in the Pentagon under President Reagan. He sees a different world today.

RICHARD PERLE (hearing, 24 Jan 90): "It is simply no longer possible to imagine a cohesive Warsaw Pact, led by Soviet troops, forcing its way through the center of Europe in a massive inva-sion of NATO territory."

NARRATOR: Remember that preparation for a Soviet-Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe has been the primary purpose of the US military for four decades. More than half the military budget has been devoted to this purpose.

Even US spending on strategic nuclear forces has been driven by the prospect of escalating war in Europe, as the United States has tried to extend its so-called nuclear umbrella over its European allies. But military officials are eagerly hunting for new threats in the emerging post-cold war world to try to justify the retention of most existing military forces. The

biggest new threats, we are told, are "uncertainty" and "instability."

General COLIN POWELL, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff (hearing, 1 Feb 90): "The world may be less threatening, but it is also I believe, at the moment, less stable and there is a great deal of uncertainty in the world. And we must always, Mr. Chairman, be prepared for the crisis that no one expected and the contingency that no one planned for."

Secretary CHENEY (briefing, 29 Jan 90): "And we've seen the risk of instability I think increase. And it's that instability, as much as anything else, that needs to be guarded against."

NARRATOR: American military officials want the United States to assume responsibility for maintaining stability and dealing with uncertainty in every corner of the world. We would truly be the world's policeman.

Secretary CHENEY (briefing, 29 Jan 90): "And the US presence around the world I think gives us enormous influence, obviously is required if we plan to continue to be the leader of the free world, is welcomed by most nations around the world. And the fact that we are present in so many parts of the world with our own military forces alleviates the need for others, who might be tempted to build their own, if there were a vacuum there to be filled."

NARRATOR: Cheney's enthusiasm for the American military as the ever-present cop-on-the-block is summed up in his observation that, "The rest of the world is confident about, feels good about, is happy with US military forces in their neighborhood."

General Powell wants the United States to keep a super-power sign on the door.

Senator JOHN WARNER (R., Va.), Senate Armed Services Committee member (hearing, 27 Feb 90): "What is your understanding of stability force? What is that mission? In other words, to put it bluntly, what do you put on a recruiting poster now? Join the Army and become a stability force soldier?"

NARRATOR: Admiral Eugene Carroll, Deputy Director of the Center for Defense Information, offers an other perspective.

Admiral EUGENE CARROLL (US Navy, Ret.) (27 Feb 90): "In 1945 we could be the world's policeman and guarantor of security everywhere, but we no longer have the political, economic or military power to direct events to our advantage by military means all over the world. To an increasing degree, the US and, even more so, the Soviet Union are becoming irrelevant in determining the course of events in many parts of the world. Economics and national politics are far more significant factors around the world today than the cold war confrontation between East and West was even five years ago.

NARRATOR: As part of the new "stability" role, the Bush administration plans to keep 225,000 US troops in Europe indefinitely, even if the Soviet danger goes away completely. This would be a reduction of only 80,000 from today's level.

Secretary CHENEY (hearing, 1 Feb 90): "I would argue that probably the ideal outcome is one in which the Soviets are gone from Eastern Europe, NATO continues, the US continues to have a presence in NATO, but at reduced levels, the kinds of levels we're talking about now with the president's proposal."

NARRATOR: Some members of Congress question this plan.

Senator NUNN (hearing, 1 Feb 90): "It won't take long for the allies to grab all the reductions and we're going to be sitting over there with a US Army and -- and virtually no allies and no -- and -- and a -- and a questionable threat. Now that would be a curious position. I -- I -- I think we've got to be very careful vis a vis our allies because they're a lot of them, noble that they -- people they've been over the years and as much as they've supported the alliance, they would like nothing better than to disband their forces virtually and leave the United States basically defending Europe. There are some of them that would like to do that."

NARRATOR: The Pentagon wants to keep large numbers of US soldiers and sailors in other parts of the world, as well; Korea and Japan, for example. Japan has the third largest military budget in the world and 50,000 US troops on its territory. Korea hosts 44,000 US troops. The Pentagon plans to make small reduc-tions in these numbers.

The Soviets are reducing their military forces in the Pacific region, as they are in Europe.

General POWELL (hearing, 1 Feb 90): "In the Pacific, it is unlikely that the Soviets would initiate hostilities which threaten our interests. Much of Soviet attention will remain focused on their bilateral concerns with China. As a part of their general force reductions, the Soviets have begun to draw down land and air forces in Mongolia, throughout their eastern district and at Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam. "

NARRATOR: Senator Alan Dixon chairs the Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness. He has a special interest in US overseas bases.

Senator DIXON (hearing, 1 Feb 90): "But I want to make the point that I think we can close more foreign bases -- I think the American people want it -- that we can bring more troops home now with corresponding dependents right now from Europe and Korea. I think the people of America want it and I think it can be done readily without in any way impairing our ability to successfully carry out our responsibilities as a great superpower all over the globe. I'm serious about that."

NARRATOR: Sen. Dixon does not agree with Defense Secretary Cheney that cuts in US forces overseas can only be made through formal agreements.

Senator DIXON (hearing, 1 Feb 90): "You keep saying this stuff about agreements, all the time agreements. The Germans are going to reduce their force levels by 20 percent in their own country without any agreement with us. The Belgians, the first country overrun, are getting out. And you are saying to us that we should make no reductions until you get an agreement with the Soviet Union. I don't support that.

"They're going to get out of Eastern Europe whether they like it or not without any agreement with the United States. They're going to kick them out, in Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Romania, all over the place; maybe in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. And they've got troubles, as you pointed out, in Azerbaijan. And we're waiting here to do things till we have an agreement. I'm not saying strip it till we're naked. I'm saying do sensible things now here in our country, even without agreements.

"My dear friend, Mr. Secretary, when you go back home and talk to people, they say, 'This doesn't make sense.' And you know why? Because it doesn't make sense."

NARRATOR: Senator Al Gore suggests a new approach.

Senator ALBERT GORE (D., Tenn.) (hearing, 1 Feb 90): "I think it's likely we will enter a period of -- I don't know what you could call it other than something like mutual unilateralism, where each -- where the United States and the Soviet Union, on their own, without quid pro quo -- quid pro quos, start taking unilateral steps which roughly mirror the steps taken by the other, withdrawing forces on both sides at a rough -- roughly comparable pace, as this new strategic environment is -- is shaped."

NARRATOR: The new military budget contains some savings in conventional forces, but spending on nuclear forces increases. Five and a half billion dollars for the B-2 Stealth bomber, $3 billion for new mobile missiles, $3.2 billion for Trident sub-marines and missiles, $4.7 billion for the Strategic Defense Initiative, Star Wars. Even bigger requests for money for new nuclear weapons programs are planned for future years.

Senator Nunn wonders where all the money's going to come from. He notes that the General Accounting Office estimates it will cost nearly $100 billion to deploy just the first phase of the Strategic Defense Initiative, SDI.

Senator NUNN (hearing, 7 March 90): "We're having sticker shock over the B-2, just think what's going to happen if somebody comes up here and says we want a 100 billion now, starting in 1993, to deploy SDI. We want a B-2. We want two missiles. We want to continue the Trident program and we want an SDI and, at the same time, we're going to have an arms control agreement that's going to make the world safer and we're asking for hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars for these systems. Does anybody really believe that Congress is going to be able to -- or the American people, the American taxpayers are going to be able to find this kind of money?"

NARRATOR: Defense Secretary Cheney concedes that the Soviets are reducing their conventional forces and cutting military spending.

Secretary CHENEY (briefing, 29 Jan 90): "But what we don't see is any reduction with respect to their strategic capability, the strategic threat targeted against the United States."

NARRATOR: On the other hand, CIA Director William Webster has revealed that, "Important changes have occurred in the strategic arena. Last year for the first time, there was a reduction in the number of strategic Soviet launchers."

The Soviets have cut back on the production of nuclear missiles and bombers and reduced or eliminated some of their submarine and bomber patrols.

Richard Perle sees a diminished Soviet nuclear threat that permits cuts in US nuclear programs.

Mr. PERLE (hearing, 24 Jan 90): "Senator Warner, I -- I think the importance of these agreements has declined dramatically."

Senator WARNER: "Oh, really?"

Mr. PERLE: "Yes, I do, not least of all because, whereas a few years ago, we always projected -- I didn't always believe it, but as a -- as a country we projected -- vast increases in Soviet strategic forces in the absence of arms control agreements. I don't believe those projections now, didn't believe them then, but nobody believes them now. The Soviet Union is -- the Soviet empire is collapsing. It is a -- a very different world."

Senator WARNER: "Not in terms of strategic capabilities."

Mr. PERLE: But I believe the Soviet ability to continue to grind out strategic weapons mindlessly as it faces economic collapse is -- is not a threat to be regarded with the serious-ness that-- that we had to take it 10 years ago."

NARRATOR: The forthcoming Soviet-American START treaty will have little or no impact on new US nuclear weapons programs. It will permit the United States to retain almost as many nuclear warheads as it has today.

Most military spending goes for non-nuclear forces to fight around the world. As the prospect of war in Europe recedes, should the United States spend more money on forces to fight wars in the Third World? Are we returning to an era of "gunboat diplomacy?"

Secretary CHENEY (hearing, 1 Feb 90): "My experience has been, both during the Bush administration and previously, that whenever there is a crisis, the first thing that happens is the president wants to know where the aircraft carriers are."

NARRATOR: Colonel Harry Summers, a highly respected military analyst and combat veteran believes that in the absence of the cold war superpower conflict, the United States can and should avoid Third World military involvement.

Colonel HARRY SUMMERS: I think most of that was driven by the East-West conflict. That is, the reason why we were concerned about Angola really had nothing to do very much with Angola, it had to do with the Soviet presence there and we saw it as a zero-sum gain. If the Soviets gained influence, therefore, we lost or -- and vice versa. So, I think that's going to wane. I think we've seen and the Soviets both have seen that these interven-tions in the Third World are just a pain in the neck, they really don't -- they really don't benefit you and all they are is a -- is a drain on your resources.

NARRATOR: What's lacking in the great arms debate is a bold new vision of the future and the place of the United States in a changing world. The Pentagon's vision, as Senator Nunn has observed, is rooted in the past. Pursuing the old military policies means spending at about the same old levels, with no prospect of a peace dividend in sight.

Phil Karber, an influential military consultant to Congress and the Defense Department, offers an approach that he calls a best-case plan.

Mr. PHIL KARBER (hearing, 24 Jan 90): "If we lay out a sense of where we want to go, both in strategic forces and in -- in conventional posture, in a world that looks very peaceful, then I think we will -- can have a very rational force. We need a sense of direction. We had had a sense of direction in the sense that we were viewing ourselves in a major long term strategic competition with the Soviet Union and we were afraid they were going to eat our lunch if we didn't push -- push the state of the competition everywhere we could. The possibility of that relationship changing now I think is high enough that we ought to sit down and say what if we face, five, six years ago [sic], a very non-competitive relationship with the Soviet Union."

NARRATOR: Senator Nunn agrees.

Senator NUNN (hearing, 24 Jan 90): "I could not agree with you more. We need a best case; we need a -- a case that we get from the Department of Defense, which won't be the best case. It never has been and probably never will be."

NARRATOR: Two of Senator Nunn's colleagues, Republican Senators William Cohen of Maine and John McCain of Arizona, have called for Pentagon budget cuts that are twice as great as those offered by President Bush.

The great arms debate is far from over. Some experts believe at least $100 billion of today's $300 billion military budget is devoted to obsolete cold war purposes; others see new enemies. Can Congress act to bring a substantial peace dividend? Fears of base closings, lost defense contracts and unemployment may get in the way. It's too early to tell what action comes after debate, but every American has an important stake in the outcome.

Admiral LaROCQUE: Well, you've been listening. Who's the enemy? It certainly isn't the Soviet Union, it isn't China, it isn't our friends in Eastern Europe. But everyone seems to be unwilling to make too many changes yet. We have to deal with uncertainty and instability. Do we need a 2 million-person armed force to do this? Do we need a $307 billion national defense budget?

I don't believe we do, but the debate goes on. It's going to be very important that the American public become part of this debate, speak up, be heard. We'd like very much to hear from you at the Center for Defense Information to find out what your ideas are. How much do we need to spend to defend America in a rapidly changing world?

Secretary CHENEY: "The idea that you're going to get sharp, sudden reductions beyond what I've already demonstrated to you here that we're going to propose is going to be up to Congress to find some place to cut. Now I am absolutely fascinated at the fact that, in all of this exercise, not one single member of Congress of either house has called me up and said, 'Dick, why don't you close my base, why don't you shut down my production line.' Nobody on Capitol Hill has volunteered a single dollar in defense spending that they'd like to see cut out of their district.

"From my standpoint, as somebody who as a member of Congress voted for every single defense program -- I never saw a defense program I didn't like as a member of Congress -- now having to pay for them in a time of shrinking budgets is a very different proposition."

CONDITION OF USE: Credit "AMERICA'S DEFENSE MONITOR."

(Center for Defense Information.)

______________________________________________________