U.S. STILL LEADS SOVIET IN AIR POWER

HANSON BALDWIN, military analyst of the NEW YORK TIMES:

WHAT do we know about the Soviet Air Force? In the broadest sense, air power is the product of a host of factors --geographical position, bases, oil and fuel production, aluminum capacity, industrial capabilities, technical know-how, design and engineering skill, and planes, missiles, weapons, electronics, air crews and ground experts. In most, though not all of these factors, the United States has a decided edge. Soviet Russia has a lot of planes; some estimates are as high as 35,000 to 48,000 military aircraft, more than half of them in storage, reserve, or support roles. But some acute observers believe these figures are "padded" and include many obsolescent World War II types. In any case, our total military aircraft inventory numbers about 39,000 planes and helicopters, and more than 31,000 of these of all services are classified as "active." Intelligence estimates generally credit the Russians with an operating force of about 18,000 to 22,000 planes.

The best qualitative yardstick so far available was the Korean War. Initially we were rudely surprised by the Soviet MIG-15, which, at altitudes above 28,000 to 30,000 feet, had flying characteristics superior to our aircraft. But, like the Jap Zero of World War II, it was not a better fighting machine. The "kill" statistics, even if liberally discounted, were overwhelming in our favor. Greater pilot skill accounted for much of this but not all of it. We have other yardsticks. We,know, as General Alfred M. Gruenther, NATO's Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, has stated, that the Russians are not capable today of stopping the B-47. We think we have better bombsights and better electronics and, of course, more nuclear weapons. In summary, this writer would agree with General Gruenther that U.S. air power is still qualitatively superior.

Any summary of the quantitative comparison of U.S. and Soviet air power would stress: Russian superiority in current numerical production of military aircraft (though not necessarily in airframe weight); Soviet superiority in numbers of fighter, fighter-interceptor, fighter-bomber and light-bomber types; U.S. superiority in ship-based naval air power (the Russians have none); U.S. superiority in numbers of long-range jet medium bombers (the B-47, of which more than1,000 have been produced); U.S. superiority--or at least approximate equality--in numbers of heavy jet medium bombers (the B-52 type); U.S. superiority in modern troop carriers and military transport and cargo craft. But comfortable comparisons of current situations are not enough. For Soviet air power has made great strides over the whole course of the last decade, possibly --though by no means certainly--greater than our own.

The threat of Soviet air power cannot be dismissed with an oversimplified "numbers game." The growth of Soviet air power must be outmatched by our own developments. If we are to match the qualitative-quantitative progress in Soviet/ air power without cutting bone, muscle and sinew in our Army and Navy, the hope for a balanced budget may eventually have to be abandoned.

STEVENSON MAY NOT BE STRONGEST CANDIDATE

DOROTHY SCHIFF, owner of the Fair-Dealing NEW YORK POST, in her weekly publisher's letter:

IT is obvious that Harriman will be a presidential candidate if Stevenson isn't. The latest indication was that last month Gov. Harriman joined Sen. Humphrey in buttering up the Hearst newspapers. "Ave" appointed Hearst Corporation President and McCarthy's great pal, Richard Berlin, to the Saratoga Springs Commission. The job is unimportant and unpaid, but there is some honor attached to it. Words fail me to express my dismay and disgust at such hypocrisy. Has Harriman so quickly forgotten what happened to Franklin D. Roosevelt Jr. when he lost his liberal support by playing up to its enemies? As for Adlai. he is intellectually far superior to any other candidate, but the reiteration of his uncertainty concerning his plans reminds me too much of the hit song Jenny. Jenny had no difficulty making up her mind--with unexpectedly dramatic circumstances!

Many of his friends say that Stevenson is worried about the possibility of going down in history as the man twice defeated by Eisenhower. This is understandable, but even such an eventuality would be nobler than retreat before imagined defeat. Probably there are other less selfish considerations. Because Adlai has way above average intelligence, he is not complacent. He is well aware of the immensity of the problems confronting a President. He doubts whether he or any man has sufficient ability to perform the function of Chief Executive. He thinks it is presumptuous for anyone to insist that he is the man who can. A very liberal friend of mine, experienced in politics on the national level, no longer thinks Stevenson would be the strongest candidate. This friend is convinced that Sen. Symington has more vote appeal than anyone else. Sen. Kefauver still has a following. But he is anathema to the bosses and probably could not be nominated. I hear Sen. Lyndon Johnson has Presidential ambitions. And there are others.

JUVENILE GANGS FULFILL A NEED

Novelist JOHN STEINBECK in the SATURDAY REVIEW:

THE daily papers are full of it. Bad kids. Burglary. Rape. Murder. The kids run in gangs. The Scarlet Cavaliers. The Shining Knights. They manufacture pistols, carry switchknives and use them. They are loyal to nothing except the gang. They rarely tell on each other. The reason for all this might be larger than children. In feudal law everyone was responsible for something. Every, member of the family was responsible for every other member. In the village this same responsibility obtained. If a child committed a crime his whole family was affected, even punished, and even if his father and mother were not punished they were dishonored. But the reverse was also true. The group took honor from an honorable deed of one of its members. Everyone belonged to something, something powerful.

Now we are prone to consider such mutual responsibilities as savage and barbaric. But what have we substituted? Perhaps we have a longing for it. Maybe delinquency stems from just exactly this. The kids, not finding it at home and apparently needing it, build gangs to which they give their loyalty and their courage. They fight for one another, lie for one another, even kill for one another. Could this not be because it is the only thing they have? The ends of a delinquent gang may be wrong but there are virtues too. Virtues which find no exercise anywhere else. There is a terrible need in people to be responsible. Certain units in the armed forces use this need to build heroic groups of which each member is a passionate unit. The kid gang protects its own and each member protects the gang. The family was once a thing like that. The kid gangs do dreadful things but the dreadful things require courage, sometimes pain, and a kind of dedication. The same virtues turned in another direction would be called heroic. The kid refusing to sing to the cops is a delinquent. The same kid refusing information to a military enemy is a hero. If this loss of inter-responsibility is one of the main causes of our difficulty, and if it is to be restored, it cannot be soft or tender. People need responsibility. They resist assuming it, but they cannot get along without it. Man is a double thing--a group animal and at the same time an individual. And he cannot successfully be the second until he has fulfilled the first.

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