It is a customary occurrence for elected officials to undergo significant changes in attitudes between the time they are campaigning for votes and the time they make decisions after they are in office. Although this metamorphosis is usually disheartening, it can be a cloud with a silver lining.
One of the changes that may take place in President-elect Jimmy Carter is his attitude toward the B-l bomber. During the campaign he called it a “wasteful” expenditure and he ran on the Democratic Platform which ominously called for being “tough-minded” about the decision to build it.
When carter gets to the White House in January, it is very possible that he will come to the conclusion that the B-1 is essential to the defense of the United States.
The B-1 is a replacement for our B—52 bombers. The B-52s are great planes, but they are all at least 14 years old. We don’t ask our President to drive around in an automobile that is 14 years old, and we shouldn’t ask our pilots to depend on a plane that was mass—produced 14 years ago and represents the technology of nearly 20 years ago.
Everyone agrees that the B-l is technically ready for production and has been for some time. The Ford Administration made a major contribution to U.S. defense with its decision to build three planes and to keep the B-1 program alive for the first five months of 1977 in order to give Carter time to make a careful decision.
When President Carter moves into the Oval Office, he will be able to review the massive evidence of what Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld calls “the reality of an expanding Soviet capability” and what Air Force Secretary Thomas Heed calls “every indication that the Soviets are striving for strategic superiority.”
Another good piece of bedside reading for President Carter would be a recent U.S. Air Force compilation of Soviet military writings called “The Soviet Theater Nuclear Offensive.” It contains impressive documentation of the morbid preoccupation of Soviet military theoreticians with how a surprise first strike is the “most important principle of military art.”
If your country is planning aggression, you can select your time and place of attack and build only the weapons systems needed for use on specified targets. If you are not planning on striking first, then you must build a mix of weapons systems and be ready on all fronts at all times. That costs more, but it is the price of freedom and independence.
The B-1 is the most versatile of all our potential weapons because, unlike missiles, it can be recalled after launch and ite targets can be changed after launch.
Some people are trying to confuse the issue by arguing that we should cancel the B-1 and choose the cruise missile instead. Since the cruise missile is untested technology, the net effect of this proposal would be to delay the decision a couple more years.
This type of postponement was 9 typical tactics of former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara. He called it “reserving his options.”
He reserved his option on a new strategic bomber for the entire seven years he was in office and never did build one.
The cruise missile is not a substitute for the B-1 but supplementary to it. The B-1 can carry the cruise missile and launch it toward enemy targets without ever flying over enemy territory. The B-1 cruise-missile combination would give us the advantages of both aircraft and missiles. As an extra bonus, the cruise missile can fly low enough to elude eneny radar, which our ICBMs cannot.
