Office of the Historian

40. Memorandum From the President’s Special Assistant for National Security Affairs (Bundy) to the President’s Adviser on Disarmament (McCloy)0

Washington, July 13, 1961.

I enclose a copy of a CIA analysis of the increase in the Soviet military budget. It shows that there may be more sound than fury in Khrushchev’s announcement, but the figure of a 35% increase to be used over the next six months nevertheless makes a strong talking point on our side.1

The Department of Defense currently estimates that additional military expenditures attributable to this Administration will total about 700 million dollars in FY ‘61, and about 700 million dollars in FY ‘62. This makes an increase of about 1-3/4% in a total expenditure of about $43-44 billion dollars in each year. Even if we should now respond to Khrushchev’s challenge by a substantial additional request for funds, the figures would not be comparable in percentage to what he himself has indicated.

The bald language of Khrushchev’s reference to military budgeting is as follows:

“In these conditions is it right for us to continue the unilateral reduction of our Armed Forces? Taking into account the existing situation, the Soviet Government has been compelled to issue a temporary directive to the Ministry of Defense, pending a special order, instructing it to suspend the reduction in the Armed Forces planned for 1961. In connection with the increase in NATO member states’ military budgets the Soviet Government has decided to increase defense allocations for the current year 3,144,000,000 rubles, which raises total military expenditure in 1961 to 12,399,000,000 rubles.”

McGeorge Bundy2
  1. Source: Kennedy Library, National Security Files, Departments and Agencies Series, ACDA, General 7/61-6/62. Secret.↩
  2. The attachment has not been found. In a brief memorandum to Bundy dated July 10, Kennedy wrote in part: “What about the disarmament talks of McCloy, should we break them off using the recent Soviet increases as our argument and ask that the matter be taken to the UN? Stevenson thinks that the UN emphasis on disarmament is most important.” (Ibid., ACDA, Disarmament General, 7/2/61-7/10/61)↩
  3. Printed from a copy that bears this typed signature.↩