247. Memorandum From Twining to Gates1
JCSM–149–60
Washington, April 11,
1960
[Facsimile Page 1]
SUBJECT
- U.S. Policy in the Event of War (NSC
5904/1) (C)
1. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have reviewed the proposed amendment to NSC 5904/1, prepared by the NSC Planning Board pursuant to NSC Action No. 2057, and have been unable to
reach agreement thereon.
2. Accordingly, forwarded herewith, as Appendix “A”, are the views of the
Chief of Staff, U.S. Army, Chief of Naval Operations and Commandant of the
Marine Corps; and as Appendix “B”, the views of the Chief of Staff, U.S. Air
Force.
3. It is requested that the Joint Chiefs of Staff be advised of your decision
in this matter.
For the Joint Chiefs of Staff:
N.F.
Twining
Chairman
Joint Chiefs of Staff
Appendix A
[Facsimile Page 2]
VIEWS OF THE CHIEF OF STAFF, U.S. ARMY;
CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS; AND THE COMMANDANT OF THE MARINE
CORPS
on
US POLICY IN THE EVENT OF WAR (NSC 5904/1) (C)
1. The Chief of Staff, U.S. Army; the Chief of Naval Operations; and the
Commandant of the Marine Corps have reviewed NSC 5904/1 in light of the NSC Planning Board’s proposal.
2. a. The footnote associated with the title of
Section B was designed to eliminate from NSC 5904/1 an issue more properly resolved by
[Typeset Page 1021]
revision of
1958 Basic National Security Policy (NSC 5810/1), and to allow publication of NSC 5904/1 (17 March 1959) before
completion of the review of the then current Basic National Security
Policy. Although the deletion of the footnote to Section B of NSC 5904/1, as proposed by the Planning
Board, would not specifically clarify the definition of the type of
aggression being addressed in this section, its deletion without
replacement is, in the view of the Chief of Staff, U.S. Army; the Chief
of Naval Operations; and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, an
acceptable proposal since it is assumed that users of this document will
also have knowledge of NSC 5906/1,
which considers the various types of war. It is our recommendation that
the Planning Board proposal be accepted.
b. The Chief of Staff, U.S. Army; the Chief of
Naval Operations; and the Commandant of the Marine Corps cannot,
however, concur in any footnote, to the effect that a war with Russia is
[Facsimile Page 3]
a general
war, since nowhere in NSC 5906/1 is
general war so defined. Furthermore, such a definition is considered to
be completely unacceptable by reason of inaccuracy. Paragraph 9 of
NSC 5906/1 recognizes that we are
now engaged in a war with Russia; the cold war. The Chief of Staff, U.S.
Army; the Chief of Naval Operations; and the Commandant of the Marine
Corps do not consider that this war is comparable to the conditions they
envisaged would exist in a general war.
3. If clarification of the subject matter of Section B is considered
desirable by the National Security Council, it is suggested that
either:
a. The title of this Section be changed to
read:
“US POLICY IN THE EVENT OF CONFLICT IN WHICH SIZEABLE
FORCES OF THE USSR ARE NOT
INVOLVED.”
b. or, the following footnote be adopted:
NSC 5904/1, Page 2,
Footnote:
“This section of the policy statement addresses itself to those conflicts
in which sizeable forces of the United States and USSR are not involved. Present U.S.
policy is based upon the concept stated in paragraph 16, NSC 5906/1, that ‘conflicts occurring in
the NATO area or elsewhere involving
sizeable forces of the US and USSR
should not be construed as local aggression.’”
[Typeset Page 1022]
Appendix B
[Facsimile Page 4]
VIEWS OF THE CHIEF OF STAFF, U.S. AIR
FORCE
on
U.S. POLICY IN THE EVENT OF WAR (NSC 5904/1) (C)
1. I have reviewed the NSC Planning
Board proposal, which recommends that NSC 5904/1 not be revised at this time except for deletion
of the footnote on page 2 as an editorial change.
2. I do not agree that deletion of the entire footnote on page 2 of
NSC 5904/1 would constitute only an
editorial change. The first sentence states U.S. policy which was
current on the date it was approved (17 March 1959). The second sentence
establishes that the validity of this policy is subject to
re-examination when Basic National Security Policy was next reviewed.
That review has occurred. There was not action taken in that review
which in any way suggested that the statement of policy in the first
sentence has become invalid or that national policy in this respect has
been substantively altered. It is obvious that the second sentence is no
longer appropriate and should be deleted as an editorial change.
3. NSC 5904/1 appropriately amplifies
the broad guidance contained in current Basic Policy (NSC 5906/1) in that it provides more
definitive and more specific guidance for one area to those agencies
directly concerned. This guidance is valid, timely and substantive. To
delete the first sentence of the footnote would imply a modification of
national policy which has not occurred. In addition, its deletion would
remove useful and informative clarification specifically applicable to
guidance in this policy.
4. Therefore, I recommend that the Secretary of Defense propose to the
National Security Council that the first sentence of the footnote on
page 2 be retained and that the second sentence be deleted.
