January-February - Air Defense Artillery

Crystal-Ball Department
0:E\\'S A:'\D CO~I~IE~T
In response to numerous ~equests from people it: the
kl tor information on the future of the Coast Artdlery
CAll"Ps, \"e offer the following as the best guesses:
A subcommittee of the Senate l\ lilitary Affairs Committe('
i~ now drafting a bill with the aid of an Admiral and a
neral to establish a single Department of ~ational Dense.
A bill will probably be reported out of committee
February which is expected to confom1 to the Presint's
pre-Christmas message. It should secure prompt
ssaoe bv the Senate. Earlv in Februarv the I-louse Comitte~
o~ Executive Expenditures will begin hearings on
10 bills. one to establish a single Department and the other
establish three separate departments. one each for Army.
Na\ \', and Air.
I~dications arc that after considerable debate in the
House the bill for a single Department will pass some time
ibis spring.
It is believed the opinion of the majority of oflicers that
11K' Coast Artillery Corps and the Field Artillery will be
('!)l11binedinto one Artillery branch.
Plans are being considered in the reorganization of the
National Guard for approximately 72,000 AAA troops and
5.000 Ilarbor Defense troops.
In the reorganization of the Ofllcers' Heserve Corps plans
or approximately 6,000 AA1\ oHicers and 45.000 AAA
nlisted men are being considered.
Based on the above figures we believe that approximately
1.000 Hegular Army Coast Artillery officers will be required
as instructors for the National Guard and approximately
the same number for the Officers' Reserve Corps. This
means that within the next few months there should be a
demand for all officers with antiaircraft experience. Retrc:,her
courses probably will be necessary for officers who
~\ e not had active dutv with troops within the last few
'lears.
Circular 300, \\1.0. 3 October 1945, authorizes activan
of Coast Artillery HOTC units at the same twenty-five
ooI1egesand universtties that had Coast Artillery units bee
the war. An effort will be made to publish in the next
ue of the JOURNAL the designations of these units. the
thorized strength of each unit, number of instructors, and
yother information that is available.
r
Universal Military Training
r
One of the most ridiculous arguments against universal
litary training is that the principle is somehow a copy of
ropean svstems-that it is un-American. On the contrary
'ersal ~ilitary training is as American as Valley Forg~
rktown.
r
An Act of Congress dated S ~ lay 1792 laid down the
principle that e\'eC)' citizen of mili,tary age had th~ duty and
oblioation to train in peacetime lor national defense. The
Act ~\'ent even further. It contemplated military sen'ice on
the part of the citizens upon call for any purpose that Congress
might decide was a proper use of its powers under the
Constitution.
The early plans for the militia were mo:t ambitious: they
called for. in the case of Virginia alone, 8'.000 men. Other
states had paper armies in proportion.
In fact, according to Col. W. A. Graham, USA (Ret),
on whose recent pamphlet most of this article is based. the
\'en' ambition of the
•
There were too many
militia prooram caused its failure .
0 I
men to be trained wit 10ut a great
disruption of the national life. The older members of the
militia, especially. would have left too great a gap in the
normal life of the communities to be borne in peacetime.
Hecoonizino the danoers of trvino to train t:> 0 (:) ~ b
\Vashington. Steuben, Knox. and Hamilton
too many men. ,/
all opposed the
all-inclusive feature of the Act. but Congress overruled
them. These earh' war leaders insisted that militarv training
be confined to t1{e younger men ..
The volunteer system has proved inadequate in every
major war in which the United States has been engaged.
Conscription, with its inevitable injustices and inequities,
has been called to the rescue each time. Hasty training of
huge numbers of men around a pitifully small core of Regular
troops has resulted in near-tragedy many times.
The present plans for universal military training differ
from the plan of 1792 in that the numbers to be trained
are within reason, training will be concentrated on the
\'outh of the country (as our earlv military leaders desired),
~nd that training will be conducted under the Federal government
instead of under the states.
The compelling reason and justification for universal
military training is the national security. No other justification
is necessary: no other reason need be advanced.
Many opponents of universal military training confuse
"training" with "service," which indicates a lack of understanding.
"Training" differs from "service" in precisely the
same manner and degree as attending law school differs
from practicing law.
The use of the term "conscription" to describe compulsory
military training is both misleading and inaccurate.
Conscription is forced military service. The word had never
been employed in an)' other sense, whether in America or
elsewhere. l'vlilitary service means active duty in the Army
or Navy, subject to the orders of commanding officers to
move against an enemy if need be, and if need be to do or
die in combat. Training means no such thing; it means
simply that the men who undergo it shall be instructed as
pupils, not employed as practitioners of the military art.
They will not constitute "a huge peacetime Army"; they will
not perform military sen'ice compulsory or otherwise: they
will not be subjects of a system of "peacetime conscription."
During the period of training they will not be servicemen
at all.
The tempo of warfare is quickening all the time. Oceans
are no longer barriers to im'asion, but highways. ne airplane
and rocket bomb have brou~ht the world closer and
ha\'e made time shorter. There will be little or no time. in
79