New Look?

The Joint Chiefs of Staff, in preparation for the Defense Department's 1955 budget last week, forwarded their estimates on what kind of armed forces the U.S. should have. The Chiefs' "new look" at U.S. military strength had received considerable advance publicity, but, for a country faced with a startling change in its enemy's striking power, last week's new look was remarkably unaltered.

There was the same big Army (26 divisions manned by 1,400,000 men). There was the same big Navy (including four battleships among its 408 combatant ships). There was a slight increase in Air Force strength--the 1955 goal for the Air Force, deeply cut in the 1954 budget, was raised from 110 to 120 wings.

Both Secretary Wilson and Admiral Arthur W. Radford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, conceded that their new look delivered last week was only a quick look, and a temporary one. Obviously, the armed forces must soon be altered drastically, to fit a changing concept of war and the changed military situation of the U.S. The Chiefs cannot do this on their own authority. Switching armaments is expensive in the short run, even though an armed force redesigned to fight atomic wars may not turn out to be more expensive than the one the U.S. has now. (Example: while the U.S. may need to spend more money on atomic submarines, it may effect considerable savings on battleships, which seem to be more irrelevant than ever.)

Only President Eisenhower can take the essential step in a policy decision to recast the U.S. armed forces to meet their new challenge. Lately, he has been spending about half his time considering a drastic change in the weapons and the nature of the U.S. armed forces. The new look will come next year.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.