construction of the revetments and shelters it would have been possible for a small group of aircraft penetrating our missile defenses and aircraft defenses to do very serious damage.

NUMBER AND TYPE OF U.S. NAVAL VESSELS NEAR KOREA

Mr. PAUL. I would like to turn back to General Michaelis to ask him a naval question if I may. Could you tell us approximately the number and type of U.S. naval vessels near Korea?

General MICHAELIS. All U.S. naval forces are directly under CINC PACFLEET, a subordinate command of CINCPAC, which is beyond my competency.

Mr. PAUL. But do you have a general knowledge as to what they are, for a basis of discussion?

General MICHAELIS. CINCPAC generally has a carrier task force of one carrier and supporting vessels within a [deleted] hour sailing distance of the Korean Peninsula.

Mr. PAUL. Is that in the Sea of Japan or is it in the waters south of Korea?

General MICHAELIS. [Deleted] hours sailing time would put a force south of Japan in Sasebo or Kyushu.

General HOLDERNESS. I could make the statement it is not kept in the Sea of Japan it is [deleted].

Mr. PAUL. Do you know what they keep in the Sea of Japan? General HOLDERNESS. In the Sea of Japan at the present time the only permanently stationed naval vessels are [deleted].

NORTH KOREAN AIR POWER

Senator SYMINGTON. Are there no submarines in the Sea of Japan? General HOLDERNESS. I don't know.

Senator SYMINGTON. If there was a war between North and South Korea, and we supported South Korea with what we have out there, including Japan, are you saying we could not win the war against North Korea because of their superior numbers and the fact they have hardened airfields?

General HOLDERNESS. No, sir, I didn't make such a statement.
Senator SYMINGTON. How do you feel about that?

General HOLDERNESS. [Deleted.]

Senator SYMINGTON. Can you destroy the airfields of North Korea with premises I am talking about?

General HOLDERNESS. [Deleted.]

Senator SYMINGTON. Even though it has been kept secret for reasons still secret to me, we have been using air power heavily in Laos; but just as, in my opinion we have gained nothing in Vietnam because we didn't feature air along with ground troops, so in Laos we are playing house with that war because we haven't used ground troops with air. They go together. They have always gone together in successful operations of the past.

We could take out, if necessary, the North Vietnamese or the North Korean air power; but the problem would be, [deleted] what the Russians would think of it or/and the Red Chinese. Is that right?

General MICHAELIS. [Deleted.]

Senator SYMINGTON. Do you agree with that.

Mr. PORTER. [Deleted.]

Senator SYMINGTON. [Deleted.] Apparently under these policies we are stuck all over the world, because we are afraid of the reaction of either the Chinese or the Soviet Union.

PEACEFUL INCLINATIONS OF UNITED STATES AND SOVIET UNION

Let me ask you Mr. Ambassador, a sort of philosophical question. We threatened to go to nuclear war if the Soviets didn't take nuclear missiles out of Cuba in the fall of 1962.

Senator FULBRIGHT. 1962 ?

Senator SYMINGTON. 1962. Have the Soviets ever threatened to go to nuclear war if we didn't take nuclear missiles out of Turkey that you know of?

Mr. PORTER. Not that I recall, sir.

Senator SYMINGTON. Turkey is right on the border of the Soviet Union, isn't it?

Mr. PORTER. There is certainly a common frontier.

Senator SYMINGTON. For thousands or hundreds of miles.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Hundreds of miles.

Senator SYMINGTON. Hundreds of miles. Why should not they be as annoyed at us-the other superpower-for putting nuclear weapons into Turkey, as were we when they put them into Cuba.

Senator FULBRIGHT. It is an unfair question.

Senator SYMINGTON. I would like an answer.

Mr. PORTER. I can't really give you an answer to that. Perhaps they are. Perhaps it doesn't bother them as much for reasons unknown to us. Senator SYMINGTON. Are they more peaceful than we are? They didn't threaten us like we threatened Khrushchev.

Mr. PORTER. I don't think they are more peacefully inclined than we are, no, sir.

Senator SYMINGTON. Could the implication of your answer be that they are.

Mr. PORTER. No, sir.

General MICHAELIS. Mr. Chairman, you will recall they were withdrawn from Turkey about the same period of time.

Senator SYMINGTON. [Deleted.]

Senator FULBRIGHT. [Deleted.] You have been told not to answer. General MICHAELIS. That is the answer.

Senator FULBRIGHT. That is a different thing.

I have heard an answer by the former Secretary of State, that the main language was that we are peaceful, good people and only mean well to everyone and that these people are bad people and they don't mean well and might attack you. That has been the stock answer of the State Department for years. Have you abandoned it?

Mr. PORTER. I haven't learned it by rote.

Senator FULBRIGHT. We were given that answer many times by the Department of State that we should recognize that the American people are good people and nearly everybody else, especially the Russians, are bad people.

Senator SYMINGTON. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.)

POSSIBILITY OF U.S. AND NORTH KOREAN NAVAL CONFRONTATION DISCUSSED

Mr. PAUL. Coming back to the American naval presence around Korea, it was mentioned that there were [deleted] naval vessels in the Sea of Japan, General Michaelis. The Defense Department says on (page 1746) "U.S. naval vessels operating in the vicinity of Korea are not subject to substantial risk from hostile action by the North Korean Navy. Opportunities for confrontation at sea with U.S. naval forces are minimal. The North Korean Navy is essentially a coastal defense force."

Do the North Koreans have missile-carrying Komar class vessels with Styx missiles on them similar to the one that sank the Israeli destroyer Elath?

General MICHAELIS. They do.

Mr. PAUL. How many submarines?

General MICHAELIS. [Deleted.] submarines.

Mr. PAUL. Now, in light of these weapons how can we be confident that they cannot sink one of our naval vessels near Korea?

General MICHAELIS. I am not, of course, qualified to speak as a naval commander, but the approaches of a Komar class vessel toward one of our picket ships would be detected with radar. We could receive orders to scramble protective aircraft or at least the ship would be ordered to withdraw. The Komar is normally utilized fairly close to shore. Mr. PAUL. What about the submarines?

General MICHAELIS. I have no information and can only say there has been no activity from North Korean submarines, insofar as we can tell, over a period of years.

Mr. PAUL. Now page 9 of the Defense Department's statement points out that the Soviet Union first gave North Korea a submarine in 1966, so they have also received submarines more recently than that, I would gather. When since 1966 have the Soviets given the North Koreans submarines?

General MICHAELIS. I will provide the information for the record. There are [deleted] total now.

Mr. PAUL. Would you supply it for the record. It may tend to show that they have recently given them submarines. (The information referred to follows:)

NORTH KOREAN ACQUISITION OF SOVIET SUBMARINES

We do not know the exact delivery dates, but we do know that by 1967 the North Koreans had received [deleted] class submarines from the Soviet Union. We place the date of these deliveries as having occurred during 1963-1967. Mr. PAUL. My question to you or the Ambassador is why do you lieve the Soviet Union has been giving North Korea weapons like submarines and cruise missiles?

be

General MICHAELIS. This is asking me to probe into what is the intent of the U.S.S.R. I cannot answer that. They have a capability, of course, since they have ample equipment.

Mr. PAUL. Can you answer that?

Mr. PORTER. No, I cannot answer, Mr. Paul. I have no idea.

HAS JAPAN SOLD ANY MILITARY EQUIPMENT OR MATERIEL TO NORTH KOREA?

Mr. PAUL. Going on to another item, has Japan, Mr. Ambassador, sold any equipment or materiel to North Korea that has a significance for military purposes?

Mr. PORTER. Not that I know of.

Mr. PAUL. Has Japan provided North Korea with small vessels that could be used for infiltration purposes?

Mr. PORTER. Not that I am aware of.

SOUTH KOREAN REACTION TO PUEBLO INCIDENT

Mr. PAUL. I would like to turn now to a few questions with regard to the Pueblo incident and the shoot-down of the EC-121.

Mr. Ambassador, what did the South Koreans want to do after the major crises represented by the Pueblo incident, the raid on President Park's palace that occurred at about the same time, and the subsequent shoot down of the EC-121?

Mr. PORTER. Well, of course, they were in a very disturbed frame of mind, and it became necessary to start a consultation with them.

We had a variety of exchanges. They were interested in, of course, additional modernization of their forces to meet what they imagined or believed to be at the time was a mounting threat. They were interested in more, effecting a more automatic response to such actions should they occur again in the future, and I would say that those were their principal reactions.

Mr. PAUL. Were they anxious to retaliate?

Mr. PORTER. No. There was a feeling on their part that the processes of retaliation under the consultative system might take too much time in the event of a major action. They were not inclined to assure us that they would not take action, but they did assure us that they would consult with us before doing so if another North Korean originated action occurred.

DID NORTH KOREANS EXPECT RETALIATION?

Mr. PAUL. To the extent that we can tell, did the North Koreans expect retaliation by the U.S. or South Koreans following any of these incidents?

Mr. PORTER. [Deleted.] Perhaps our military colleagues might be able to clarify that.

Mr. PAUL. Could you speak to that, General?

General MICHAELIS. As you know, I was not present in the Republic of Korea at the time. [Deleted.]

(Discussion off the record.)

Senator FULBRIGHT. I wanted to ask if the General would allow me to, it is difficult for me to imagine that these people sit there under the provocation of such North Korean raids as have been publicized and never do anything.

HAVE SOUTH KOREAN FORCES EVER INVADED THE NORTH?

Does the record show, do you want to let the record stand, that you know of no instances in which the South Korean forces, either under your command or paramilitary, not under your command, have raided North Korea? Are you not aware of any instances like that?

General MICHAELIS. There is one [deleted].

Senator FULBRIGHT. But you know of only one. We got into this similar problem on Taiwan. In the beginning we were led to believe in a vague sort of way that there had been no raids, but it turned out there had been a number of raids on the coast of China by the people of Chiang Kai-shek.

I just wondered, it seems to me inconceivable with the degree of feeling that exists there, and especially as a result of the raid intending to kill the President, that they had done nothing at all. If that is the case that is all right.

I just wanted to be sure that that is not the case, and that you are very clear on what the question is.

Mr. BROWN. I believe there was one other, Senator.

Senator FULBRIGHT. This is what I mean. You keep telling about another. This is an important matter. How many more, just one more? I just wanted the record to be clear.

It is a little difficult when you look at the Middle East and other places, seeing the people are so peaceful and docile as the South Koreans are, apparently it has been going on for a long time. That is all. I wanted to be clear.

[The following information was subsequently supplied.]

INTRUSIONS BY ROK NAVY INTO NK NATIONAL WATERS

Mr. Chairman, I would like to correct the record at this point in reference to my comments on a reported incursion into North Korea by the ROK Navy. As I previously indicated, I was not present in the ROK when this action reportedly took place and I repeated information given me verbally. A check of available official records indicates there were two incidents, in recent years, that appear in official records concerning ROK Navy incursions into North Korean waters. Senator SYMINGTON. If it meets with your approval we will go until 12:30 and then reconvene at, say, 2: 25.

Mr. PORTER. Yes, sir.

SOVIET FLEET REACTION TO "PUEBLO" AND EC-121 INCIDENT

Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you.

Mr. PAUL. You mentioned in your statement that Soviet naval vessels participated in the search for the debris of the EC-121. Could you tell us whether the Soviet fleet undertook any other significant activities immediately following any one of these major crises? General MICHAELIS. [Deleted.]

Mr. PAUL. Perhaps you could supply the answer for the record. It has been said that elements of the Soviet fleet stationed themselves in front of Wonsan Harbor in connection with one of these incidents.