Reagan to Get Options on 2 SALT Agreements

Next week President Reagan will be presented with four options on whether to end U.S. compliance with the first two strategic arms limitation agreements with the Soviet Union. Three of the options call for violating one or both accords in retaliation for Soviet violations, a senior Administration official said Thursday.

The fourth, according to the official, who spoke on the condition that he not be identified, would be to simply delay a decision until closer to the end of this year, when the second treaty (dubbed SALT II) technically expires.

The approach most favored by the bureaucracy--but not necessarily by Reagan and his top advisers--is for the United States to observe only those provisions of the accords that the Soviets also observe, the official said. Washington thus would be free to violate terms in the agreements when Moscow does.

The immediate practical effect of that approach would be to sanction the withdrawal from service, rather than the scrapping, of a 16-missile Polaris submarine to stay within limits for multiple-warhead missiles. SALT II would require dismantling the submarine.

Although the move would clearly violate the letter of the agreement, U.S. officials say, the Administration could argue that it is politically justified because, they contend, the Soviets have violated the ceiling on the total number of strategic land- and submarine-based missiles and bombers.

This option, which would keep the Polaris available for a quick return to service, has increasing appeal because of the prospect that the Pentagon budget will grow little if at all in coming years, the senior official said.

“No one in the Administration is advocating continuing business as usual,” he said. Even liberals in Congress are demanding some action in response to Soviet violations, he said.

While Reagan could choose to accept any of the options, or reject them all, top Administration officials view his decision on the accords--which form the basis of the U.S.-Soviet strategic arms control relationship--as the most important arms control issue this year. The President must report to Congress on the matter by June 1.

Any decision to retaliate against alleged Soviet violations or to abrogate either of the accords could be expected to come under severe criticism in Congress and among the North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies. Such action also could be expected to reduce prospects for the U.S.-Soviet arms talks at Geneva, which seek new controls on offensive and space weapons.

Besides handing Moscow a significant propaganda advantage, officials say, a decision to break out of the arms control agreements also could doom the chances of Dutch deployment of new U.S. cruise missiles this fall, increase congressional opposition to the President’s space defense program and abort the waning hopes for a U.S.-Soviet summit this year.

SALT I was signed in 1972 and technically expired after five years, but U.S. and Soviet officials both said they would continue complying with its provisions while efforts to agree on a second accord proceeded.

SALT II was signed in 1979 but was never ratified by the Senate. The Reagan Administration called it “fatally flawed” but promised not to undercut its provisions as long as the Soviets did the same. Moscow offered the same assurances.

Continued U.S. compliance with the pacts has become controversial because of the Administration’s repeated charges of Soviet violations of SALT II. Among the complaints have been that the Soviets are in the process of deploying two new intercontinental missiles, the SSX-24 and the SSX-25, when the agreement permits only one new model.

In addition, SALT II formally expires at the end of this year--a deadline that will require a new Administration statement on compliance. The Soviets already have “signaled a willingness to continue with this policy of ‘interim restraint,’ ” the senior official said, but the United States, angry at alleged Soviet cheating, is assessing its position.

He said that these four options are going to the President:

--Delay the decision until closer to the Dec. 31 SALT II expiration date. Aside from the uncertainty that this would cause, the Administration could be forced to face the problem in September, when the Trident submarine Alaska begins sea trials. Its 24 missiles will raise the number of U.S. multiple-warhead missiles to 1,214--or 14 more than the limit of 1,200 permitted by SALT II--unless a Polaris submarine with 16 missiles is withdrawn from service.

--Abide by those provisions the Soviets obey, but violate those the Soviets violate. For instance, the United States believes that the Soviets now have a total of 2,514 bombers and missiles, or 10 more than they had when SALT II was signed. The United States could break the pact’s multiple-warhead missile limit in a game of nuclear tit-for-tat. Similarly, it could deploy the Midgetman missile to counter the Soviet SSX-25, which the Administration calls a violation of SALT II.

--Comply with SALT I, which the Soviets have not violated, but stop complying with SALT II.

--Stop complying with both, since both technically will have expired by the end of the year.