 The World's Honored Watch is Longin. Longin watches have won ten World's Fair Grand Prizes, twenty-eight gold medals, and more honors for accuracy than any other timepiece. Longin, the world's most honored watch, is made and guaranteed by the Longin Whittenall Watch Company. It's time for the Longin Chronoscope, a television journal of the vital events of the hour, brought to you three times weekly. A presentation of the Longin Whittenall Watch Company, maker of Longin, the world's most honored watch, and Whittenall, distinguished companion to the world-honored Longin. Good evening, this is Frank Knight. May I introduce our co-editors for this edition of the Longin Chronoscope? Mr. Frazier Hunt, famous American journalist, magazine writer and commentator, and Mr. William Bradford Huey, editor of the American Mercury. Our distinguished guest for this evening is General Bonner Fellows, famed strategist and psychological warfare leader. In this spontaneous and unrehearsed discussion, the opinions are necessarily those of the speakers. Fellowes, those of us who were in the Pacific, of course, remember that you were General MacArthur's planning officer, isn't that correct, sir? That's correct, yes. And you are known now as a critic of some of our war planning. Is that correct? That is correct, yes. Now, sir, what do you think is the essential problem of our country now defensively? We must defend, we must be strong militarily, but we must fit that to our pocketbook, and we must also have that defense reflect the genius of America. We can no longer match our enemy and manpower. We must substitute brains and genius. Are we opposed now, or our potential enemies now have more men than we have? We are out manned now. Enormously, and the last time we outnumbered our enemy about seven to one, we and our allies. And it's your theory then that we have to have, we have to plan accordingly. We have to plan not to oppose the enemy with manpower. That is correct. We can't oppose them with manpower because Moscow dominates 800 millions of population. The NATO powers and ourselves are 300 million. We're on the short end of an 8 to 3 ratio in manpower. Well, General Fellowes, are we getting and planning for a real and genuine and adequate defense now? Mr. Hunt, I think we're not. We're in very bad shape in Korea. We're outnumbered on the ground and we're outnumbered in the air. Our program to hold Stalin out of Russia and Europe if he should attack is wholly inadequate. We plan and hope to have in two or three years 60 Allied divisions. Stalin already has 200. He has 60 satellite divisions between the Red Army and our troops in Europe. So that there is no way I see that you could call our program adequate. Well, how much is it costing us now? The annual budget? The budget this year, fiscal year 52, the year which ends June 30, 52, is now 75 billions of dollars appropriated for our military plus our foreign aid. I thought it was 60 billions, I would say. 60 billion for the military and 7.5 billion for an aid and then 5.5 special weapons, atomic energy for the military, two more billion. It's total 75 already and that doesn't include the war in Korea. That hasn't been figured in. Of course, sir. You recognize and you can see that we must spend a lot of money in the world as it is now. Unfortunately, yes. The safeguard of this nation. So the argument then is over just how the money shall be spent, isn't it? There are two things, yes. How the money shall be spent and I think it's wrong for a long-range program which depends on deficit spending. Is it your view that we are now spending too much money? Yes, sir. And how do you propose to save money from what we are now spending? I'd like to say that the government calculates they'll collect about 62 billion dollars in taxes. If we spend as much as has already been appropriated for military and foreign aid, we're 12 billion in the red, merely in the military spending. Well, now everybody's talking about economy and willing to cut, and they're always speaking of the domestic economy. How about this sacred cow of military budget? Is it a sacred cow? Haven't we a right to question it? Is it something that we don't dare even ask about? Why, Mr. Hunt, that sacred cow of the military ought to be slaughtered. Well, that's... You can never give the militarists all they want. Well, how can we say not slaughtered but just cut it down a little bit? Well, we have three branches, Army, Navy, and Air Force. The chiefs are loyal to these branches. They should be, and each naturally wants all he can get. That leads to splitting the budget roughly three ways. It doesn't give us enough for anyone, and as a result, we're spending ourselves to death, and we still don't have security. Our listeners, of course, are generally familiar with the term balanced defense, which was first introduced by Mr. Forstall. Now, what is meant by a balanced defense is the term is now used, sir. As the term is now used, Mr. Huey, the chiefs would tell you that they must have enough money to perform their responsibilities, to fulfill them. But each chief interprets his responsibility as a major role in the war, so he wants all he can get. Well, now, is that balanced? Does that mean if we have three dollars out of every three dollars, we spend one dollar for the Air Force, one for the Navy, one for the Army? It's worked out roughly that way to date, yes, sir. And your proposal is that we upset that balance? Yes. My proposal is this, that the Red Army is so large and fighting on its home territory, its home ground has winter and distance on its side and manpower inexhaustible, that we shouldn't try to match that on the ground in Europe. We're told that we're not matching it, but we really are if we intend to oppose it. So I would pare down on the Army because we can't win the war on the ground. All right. Now, one, number one, you would cut down on the Army. I would cut down on the Army. Number two, sir. The Navy is greater than all the navies of the world. The enemy has no fleet except submarines. Therefore, the Navy can be pared down, and I'd have the Army and the Navy support the Air Force. Supply the bases, defend the bases, and the Air Force built strong enough to dominate the sky over Russia. And once you get that, there won't be any war. Well, how much will that save if you do that? The Air Force needs about 30 billions of dollars for three or four years to build American air supremacy over Russia. Each year? Each year. Well, how much, how much should the Army and the Navy have? That would be raising the Air Force roughly about 7 billion annually. The Army has 21 billion this year, the Navy 16, because the Navy already has its bases. The Air Force has more money for bases than the ground forces have more money for bases than the Navy. So you could cut the Army down, say, to 12 or 14 divisions. They're planning 33. We now have nothing like 14 divisions. 12 is actually, I think, the number. So that if you held the Army down to a supporting role for the Air Force, you could cut it in two, in two or three years. And how much would you cut the Navy, sir? I'd cut the Navy in half. It's in being already. I just have it operating, and I develop submarine, anti-submarine techniques. And you would at least double the present Air Force expenditure then? No, the present Air Force expenditure. This year is 23 billion. It needs only seven more for three or four years to build air suppression. So your balance then would be out of every five dollars. We'd spend about three dollars for the Air Force and a dollar for the Army and the Navy. Two for the Army and the Navy. I would balance my force against the enemy. I'd avoid his strength and build a force to strike his weakness, which is his industry, well within the country. Would that give us a real air supremacy then? I'm told that it will give us air supremacy. The Russian has certain definite limitations on his air program, and we can outbuild him with our industry and our genius. So with this new plan of strategy, and that's what it is, a great overall strategy, we would have, we would save possibly a third of what we're spending now and have what might be called a guaranteed defense. Within three years we'll save a third. I believe within three years we could have a military budget 40 or 45 billion. That would be sound, it would deter war. If war should come it enables to win. It would be much more effective than this. It would be extending our allies more aid. Because if we don't have supremacy of the air, even if we had more than 60 divisions in Europe, we'd be defeated. Well then, General, I believe then that you've made these points. That you think that it is possible now for us to reduce our expenditures almost in half, and you would do it by drastically reducing the Army, drastically reducing the Navy, and by increasing the Air Force. And you would depend on our Air Force then and our other aerial weapons to safeguard this nation. I would. Today it's conceded by all leaders that the only real war deterrent is air power. I see. Well thank you very much for being with us, sir, and I hope you can be with us again. The editorial board for this edition of the Laun Jean Chronoscope was Mr. Frazier Hunt and Mr. William Bradford Huey. Our distinguished guest was General Bonner Fellows. This year, as for years past, the biggest sports event of the day, the World Series will be timed by Laun Jean Watches. And at the Polo Grounds and at the Yankee Stadium, there may be seen the famous Laun Jean Clock, which is official timing for all sports events at these great arenas. And all umpires of both the national and the American leagues use Laun Jean Watches exclusively for timing all the baseball games, including the World Series. Now, how important is timing to baseball? I put this question to National League umpire Jaco Conlon recently at the Polo Grounds in New York, and he said... All timing of baseball games is very important. Take for instance, with a count 3 and 2 on the batter, and the pitcher refuses to throw the ball. After a warning from the umpire, 20 seconds' time has elapsed, and he still refuses to pitch, he can call a ball. Therefore, when I say critical, it could be 3 then on base 3 and 2 on the hitter and it would be changed the ball game right there. Yes, time is important in baseball, and that's why for the World Series, as well as for championship sports in every field, the official watch is the world's most honored watch. The reason? The greater accuracy and dependability of Laun Jean Watches proven in scientific tests by the great observatories, proven in the day-to-day practical experience of millions of discriminating men and women all over the world. Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch. Premier product of the Laun Jean but nor watch company. The only watch in history to win ten World's Fair Grand Prizes, 28 gold medals, and so many honors for accuracy in all fields of precise timing. This is Frank Knight reminding you that our program is brought to you three times weekly, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. So won't you join us again Friday evening at this same time for the Laun Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the vital events of the hour, broadcast on behalf of Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch, and with nor distinguished companions of the world honored Laun Jean, sold and serviced from coast to coast by more than 4,000 leading jurors who proudly display the emblem agency for Laun Jean with nor watch. This is the CBS television network.