U.S. Presents New Arms Plan at Geneva Talks : ‘Star Wars’ Blocks Any Accord, Soviets Warn

President Reagan’s new arms control proposal for a 50% reduction in nuclear weapons was presented here Friday to Soviet arms negotiators, and the Soviets immediately warned that there could be no deal on weapons cuts without a halt in the U.S. Strategic Defense Initiative program.

But the Soviet negotiators readily agreed to an American request to extend this round of talks, which were due to recess with the Friday session, by nearly a week so that the Reagan proposal can be studied.

Ambassador Max M. Kampelman, the leader of the U.S. negotiating team, wants full and detailed discussions of all aspects of the American plan so that the groundwork can be laid for some kind of “interim agreement” to be approved at the Nov. 19-20 summit here between President Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev. That agreement would, in turn, guide future talks here.

In Moscow, the official Soviet news agency Tass said Friday that Reagan’s new arms control offer seeks unfair and one-sided reductions and appears to be little more than “an old commodity in a new wrapping.”

“There are grounds to draw a conclusion that Washington’s old aim of gaining one-sided advantages at the negotiating table has not undergone any changes,” wrote Tass military specialist Vladimir Bogachev.

Earlier, a letter from Reagan to Gorbachev outlining the proposal was delivered Friday by U.S. ambassador to Moscow Arthur A. Hartman. Hartman turned over the letter to Foreign Minister Eduard A. Shevardnadze, who promised that it would be studied carefully, according to a high-ranking U.S. source in Moscow.

Reagan wanted to give the Soviet leadership a partial explanation of the new proposals before Secretary of State George P. Shultz arrives in Moscow Monday for two days of pre-summit talks with Shevardnadze and Gorbachev, the source said.

The Geneva arms talks started in March and achieved little in the first two rounds, but in the current round, both sides have come forth with major proposals for sizable cuts in offensive nuclear weapons.

2 Versions of 50% Reduction

Each side now has its own version of a 50% reduction proposal on the table. The proposals differ in the “mix” of cuts that would be imposed in all of the various delivery systems--bombers, cruise missiles, submarine-launched missiles, intermediate-range missiles and intercontinental ballistic missiles.

The Soviet proposal would put tight limits on both U.S. intercontinental missiles and medium-range missiles deployed in Europe, while leaving Moscow’s own medium-range arsenal intact. The U.S. proposal would cut more deeply than the Soviets suggested into both sides’ land-based ICBMs, which the Reagan Administration considers the most dangerous weapons because their accuracy and speed make it possible to launch a surprise attack.

But at least some broad parameters now appear to be in place, with the possibility that the forthcoming summit might be able to produce something similar to the Vladivostok agreement of November, 1974, between President Gerald R. Ford and Soviet leader Leonid I. Brezhnev that fixed the parameters of what eventually became the SALT II agreement of 1979.

However, even before Kampelman arrived at the Soviet mission here Friday to present the new American outline, the chief Soviet negotiator, Viktor P. Karpov, told reporters that the United States would have to yield on the Strategic Defense Initiative, the space-based missile defense research program commonly known as “Star Wars.”

The Soviets have sought to ban all “space-strike weapons” and hobble the “Star Wars” program, but President Reagan has declared that “Star Wars” research is not a bargaining chip. On Thursday, U.S. Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger said that trading away SDI would amount to “a mutual suicide pact.”

SDI the ‘Main Obstacle’

“SDI is a main obstacle to deep reductions in nuclear weapons,” Karpov said, “and that is why we propose the ban on all space strike weapons.”

He said the Soviets would “listen attentively” to the new American proposal, but as to prospects for progress before the summit, “it is up to the Americans.”

Asked about the possibility of a separate agreement to ban anti-satellite weapons systems, Karpov said that this is an “important part” of space strike weapons, but it might be possible to achieve an ASAT accord separate from an agreement banning the SDI program. Both sides, he noted, have the means to verify such an agreement.

The Tass commentary also complained that the new U.S. proposal does not address space-based weapons systems. “Without solving the question of preventing militarization of outer space, it is simply senseless to speak of any limitations or reductions in nuclear arms,” Tass said.

“Taking into account all the other nuclear systems, the aggregate number of warheads will be much larger after cutbacks effected according to the U.S. scheme, “ the Tass commentator said.

Gorbachev’s Accusation

Meanwhile, in an apparent reply to Reagan’s United Nations speech on regional conflicts, Gorbachev accused the the President of trying to avoid discussion of arms control. Speaking at a state dinner in Moscow for Ethiopian leader Mengistu Haile Mariam, Gorbachev spoke sharply but did not mention Reagan by name.

But he charged that the United States is trying to evade discussion of how to stop the arms race and instead was seeking to upset a “military balance” between the two superpowers.

“I can say with full responsibility that the Soviet Union is for keeping the arms race out of space and for coming to terms with the United States on reciprocal cuts in the nuclear armaments . . . on the basis of equality and equal security,” Gorbachev said.

“Such is our will and such is our position for the forthcoming Soviet-American summit meeting in Geneva,” he added.

As usual, there was no press briefing in Geneva after the two-hour negotiating session. The U.S. and Soviet negotiators, who are carrying on three separate sets of talks, will meet again on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday to deal with the details of the American proposals on strategic weapons, intermediate-range weapons and defensive and space-based weapons. The negotiators from all three sets of talks will then convene for a final session on Thursday, Nov. 7.

Difference in ‘Sub-Limits’

The main difference between the Soviet and American proposals lies in the “sub-limits” imposed on different kinds of weapons. With the present level of strategic warheads at about 12,000 on each side, both Moscow and Washington are proposing a cut to 6,000.

The Soviet proposal, however, would put the medium-range U.S. Pershing 2 and cruise missiles being deployed in Western Europe in the “strategic” category because they could hit the Soviet Union. But the Soviets would leave their medium-range SS-20 missiles outside this ceiling, because they are targeted on Western Europe and cannot reach the United States.

The American proposal would divide the 6,000 strategic warhead ceiling into 4,500 for ballistic missiles, and 1,500 for warheads launched from bombers or air-launched cruise missiles.

Washington also proposed that no more than 50% of each nation’s nuclear warheads be deployed on ICBMs--for a total of 3,000--as opposed to the 60% ceiling the Soviets offered, which would allow each side 3,600 ICBM warheads.

Both the Soviets and the Americans are promoting a freeze on medium-range weapons in Western Europe, but they count them differently. The Reagan plan calls for limiting these to 140, roughly the number of ground-launched cruise missiles and Pershing 2 missiles to be deployed by the United States by the end of 1985. The United States would continue its policy of not counting British and French forces in the balance.

British, French Included

The Soviet proposal would freeze the Soviet force of three-warhead SS-20 missiles in Europe at 243 and, in return, have the United States restrict its force to 120 single-warhead missiles. The British and French missiles would be counted on the American side, leaving both sides with total warhead strength of 729.

Despite the new U.S. proposal, a senior Western diplomat in Moscow said the differences between the Soviet and American positions were so great that “a big breakthrough” was not possible at Geneva.

But “some common elements are emerging” in the arms negotiations, the diplomat said, and the two leaders may be able to give Geneva negotiatiors “a little push” toward a future agreement.

“Something is moving a little bit,” the diplomat said of Soviet-American pre-summit talks.

Don Cook reported this story from Geneva and William J. Eaton from Moscow.