of trained personnel. The Joint Chiefs of Staff could not agree, however, on specific steps for maintaining these adequate numbers. Admiral Arleigh A. Burke, who had replaced Admiral Carney as Chief of Naval Operations on 17 August 1955, was the only member to support all the increases proposed by the other Services. General Twining favored the Marine Corps and Navy increases but opposed the Army expansion to support the DEW Line. General Maxwell D. Taylor, who had succeeded General Ridgway as Army Chief of Staff on 30 June 1955, agreed to the Navy proposals but opposed the Marine Corps plan to add 12,000 men to maintain combat effectiveness. General Shepherd sided with General Twining in opposing Army expansion to support the DEW Line; he favored the Navy and Air Force proposals.

Admiral Radford opposed all the Service recommendations for additional personnel. He concurred in the view of the communist danger expressed by his colleagues and conceded that there might be valid military reasons for modest personnel increases. But he maintained that the proposed increases were so small as to have a negligible effect on US national security and therefore recommended against seeking them at that time. Because of the unsettled state of affairs in the Far East, however, he believed that a final decision should be deferred for a few months. Meanwhile, the currently approved personnel strengths of the Services should be used for developing the initial budget estimates for FY 1957. Secretary Wilson accepted Admiral Radford's recommendation and, on 7 October, authorized the Services to use currently approved end strengths for FY 1956 as the end strengths for FY 1957 in initial budget planning.19

President Eisenhower made the final decision on force levels for FY 1957 on 5 December 1955. He approved as "authorized personnel ceilings" the original request of the Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps and made a modest increase in the figure originally requested by the Army. This increase resulted from the shift of an airfield construction function from the Air Force to the Army, along with the 7,500 spaces needed to support it, without making a corresponding cut in the Air Force personnel authorization. Accordingly, the authorized personnel ceilings for FY 1957 were as follows:

These figures were only ceiling authorizations. Any actual increase over the personnel programs approved for FY 1956 was still to be justified in detail and approved by the Secretary of Defense. The reason for this double set of personnel ceilings, as explained by President Eisenhower in his budget message to Congress, was to permit flexibility in planning and operations. The force structure to be supported, however, was the one recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.20

Congressional Action on the FY 1957 Program

The military budget for FY 1957 recommended to Congress by President Eisenhower listed a total of $34,147,850,000 in new obligational authority, an increase of about $2,250,000,000 over the amount appropriated by Congress for FY 1956. In requesting this appropriation, the President made clearer his intentions regarding military manpower. The funds requested were to provide for a 30 June 1957 strength of 1,045,300 Army; 678,200 Navy; 936,000 Air Force; 205,735 Marine Corps. As compared to the previously announced ceiling authorization for FY 1957, this was notably less for the Army and Air Force, somewhat higher for the Navy, and unchanged for the Marine Corps. The Service figures totaled 2,865,258, which was slightly below the 2,881,000 personnel congressional appropriations for FY 1956 had been designed to support. (See Table 2.)

Congress appropriated $34,698,523,000—an amount about $550,600,000 in excess of the funds requested. In making this appropriation, Congress provided specifically for the requested FY 1957 end personnel strengths and also $800,000,000 in excess of the executive branch request for the production of B-52 aircraft. As in the previous year, this extra military funding resulted from the testimony of a military witness. Under questioning before the Senate Appropriations Committee, General Curtis LeMay, Commander in Chief, Strategic Air Command, had stated that his original appropriation request for this item had been reduced by Air Force authorities in Washington. He testified that he continued to believe his original request was necessary, particularly in light of the latest intelligence indicating an unanticipated increase in Soviet strategic capabilities. The resulting congressional action that increased the funding of a military program above the amount requested by the executive branch differed from the similar action on the FY 1956 budget in one notable respect. For FY 1956, Congress had restored a force goal originally requested by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. For FY 1957, Congress accelerated a program desired by a subordinate commander but not endorsed by the Chief of Staff, Air Force, and hence not supported, even initially, by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.21

Force Levels for FY 1958

'n preparing the Defense Department budget estimates for FY 1958, Secretary a one used to produce

requests for 1956 and 1957. For the two earlier years, he had asked the Joint Chiefs of Staff to recommend personnel ceilings and force structures for all Services in detail. But for 1958 he asked merely for a JCS guidance statement that could serve as the basis for the determination of the size, nature, composition, and deployment of US military forces. Detailed recommendations came from the separate Services and were coordinated in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

The Secretary made his request as part of the broader requirement he had placed on the Joint Chiefs of Staff on 27 January 1956 for a general review of US

* The JCS recommended only that "force levels not be decreased from present programs." Sources:

a Memo, JCS to SecDef, "Forces and Manning Levels for FY 1956," 19 Aug 54.

b Memo, SecDef to SecArmy, SecNav, and SecAF, "Approved End Strengths for Fiscal Year 1956," 6 Jan 55.

<"Department of Defense Appropriations for 1957," Report of H. Com on Appropriations, 84th Cong, 2d sess, 1956, p. 8.

dJCS 1800/241, 13 Sep 55.

Hearings, Department of Defense Appropriations for 1957, Defense Subcom of H. Com on Appropriations, 84th Cong, 2d sess, 1956, pp. 3, 420, 643, 838.

"Department of Defense Appropriations for 1958," Report of H. Com on Appropriations, 85th Cong, 1st sess, p. 11.

& Memo, SecDef to SecArmy, SecNav, and SecAF, "Personnel Strengths FY 1957 and FY 1958," 16 Nov 56.

military programs. The intent was to extend the original New Look the Joint Chiefs of Staff had taken, in 1953, for the period 1954-1957; the new exercise would cover fiscal years 1958 and 1959. In making this review, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were to take account of certain factors that the Secretary indicated would remain valid during this period: "a sound U.S. economy continues to be a necessary part of the fundamental values and institutions we seek to protect"; US military forces would employ atomic weapons from the outset of general war and whenever it was of military advantage to do so in hostilities of lesser scope. The Secretary requested the Joint Chiefs of Staff to prepare an outline military strategy, in addition to furnishing guidance on the size and composition of US forces.22

The Joint Chiefs of Staff prepared their answer at a conference at Ramey Air Force Base, Puerto Rico, held during the early part of March. On 12 March they informed Secretary Wilson that they had reviewed current military strategy and posture and concluded that "our basic military programs remain generally valid and... will, so far as can be forecast at this time, continue to be valid through the period 1958-1960." Current military programs would continue to represent the minimum US military forces required for national security. To maintain these forces, however, would become increasingly expensive because of the steppedup missile program, the increased cost of new equipment and weapon systems, and the probable requirement to procure both more rapidly. The Joint Chiefs of Staff estimated annual military expenditure during the period 1958-1960 at about

$38 to 40 billion, an increase of some $3 to 5 billion over the current annual expenditure level of about $35.5 billion.23

Secretary Wilson made no formal reply to the Joint Chiefs of Staff concerning these recommendations, nor did he mention them when presenting the military budget to the NSC on 22 March 1956. It is probable, however, that he recognized the unlikelihood of holding Defense Department expenditures within the amounts spent in the previous two years. It seemed inescapable that the increasing costs of new weapons and research and development would require larger funds than in the past.

By early summer, the prospective increase in defense costs appeared to be far in excess of the $3 billion or so anticipated by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in March. In June 1956, during the preparation of JSOP-60, a tabulation of the separate Service estimates of the modernized D-day forces to be supported revealed the total cost would amount to $47.1 billion in FY 1958, $47.9 billion in FY 1959, and $47.8 billion in FY 1960. Expenditures of this magnitude were unacceptable to the Eisenhower administration, and the Secretary of Defense immediately returned the plan to the Joint Chiefs of Staff for revision within specific dollar ceilings. The Joint Chiefs of Staff were to use for planning purposes both in obligations and expenditures for the Department of Defense Military programs, the following amounts: FY 1958, $38 billion; FY 1959, $39 billion; FY 1960, $40 billion. These figures, the Secretary of Defense pointed out, were the ones the Joint Chiefs of Staff had informed him as recently as March would be adequate to maintain current force levels and deployments.24

Secretary Wilson did not make any further formal request for the views of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on force levels for FY 1958. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, however, reaffirmed their position of 12 March when they informed the Secretary in a memorandum on 15 November 1956 that, in light of the current international situation, military programs should continue to be based upon essentially the current force levels and personnel strengths as far as the preparation of the FY 1958 budget was concerned. The Joint Chiefs of Staff added that any marked deterioration of the world situation might make increases necessary in certain programs.25

The Secretary's answer came the next day in the form of an information copy of a memorandum to the Service Secretaries advising them that beginning and end strengths for FY 1958 would be 2,795,000 men. This represented a reduction of about 70,000 from the authorization for FY 1957.26

On 2 December 1956, Secretary Wilson, Admiral Radford, the Service Secretaries, and the Assistant Secretaries of Defense (Comptroller) and (ISA) made an oral presentation of the US military program for FY 1958 to the National Security Council. After discussion, the NSC agreed that the program was consistent with national security policy objectives. The FY 1958 military budget, as presented to Congress, called for appropriations of $36,128,000,000—a figure that fell somewhat below the guideline established by the Secretary of Defense in June but exceeded the appropriation for FY 1957 by nearly $1,500,000,000.27

With this sum, the administration planned to support armed forces totaling 2,800,000 men-a number that exceeded the 2,795,000 announced by the Secretary of Defense on 16 November because of a 5,000-man addition to the Air

Force. The figures for each Service, compared to those for the previous year, were as follows:

In terms of force structure, the Air Force and Army, which would absorb virtually the entire personnel reduction, were also to suffer a cutback in major combat units. The Navy, while reducing the total number of ships in commission, would maintain a greater number of combatant ships. The Marine Corps force structure remained unchanged.

In defense of this program, Secretary Wilson explained to Congress that the reduction in manpower and units would be offset by the fact that the new and more costly weapons had a much greater combat capability than the ones they were replacing. A B-52 carrying the latest types of nuclear weapons, for instance, had vastly greater combat power than a B-36 armed with the older types. The reduction in Air Force wings would result partly from the elimination of fighter wings from the Strategic Air Command, the Secretary said. The range and speed of the newer jet bombers were to be employed for penetrating to enemy targets in tactics that did not involve escort operations.28