Nunn Asks Reagan to Drop Zero-Missile Offer

The Democratic Party’s leading spokesman on defense issues, Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia, Thursday night called on President Reagan to withdraw what Nunn portrayed as an ill-conceived U.S. offer made at the Iceland summit to eliminate all ballistic missiles by 1996.

In a statement severely criticizing the President’s negotiating performance in Reykjavik, Nunn argued that the offer made by the United States would seriously undermine the defense of America and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization--giving the Soviets an enormous offensive advantage.

“I think it is obvious that this proposal has not been thought through adequately,” he said. “I am relieved that the superpowers did not reach an agreement along these lines. I think we must act immediately to pull our zero ballistic missile proposal off the table before the Soviets accept it.”

Reflects Democrats’ Anger

The statement was uncharacteristically harsh for Nunn, who normally shrinks from partisanship on arms control issues. It reflected widespread anger among Democrats in Congress that Reagan blamed them in a speech Wednesday for undercutting his position in U.S.-Soviet relations--even though they agreed last week not to challenge him on arms control policy.

The senator’s decision to speak out also made it clear that Reagan could not depend on support from Democrats in his dealings with the Soviets if he continues to use arms control and the Strategic Defense Initiative as campaign issues.

Nunn, who is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee and has frequently been mentioned as a possible 1988 presidential candidate, said he is extremely disturbed that the President and his top aides were apparently confused about the details of the offer they made in talks with Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev.

On some occasions the President and his aides have reported that they proposed elimination of all ballistic missiles, Nunn noted, and on other occasions they have portrayed it as an offer to eliminate all strategic nuclear arms. He also indicated that he was surprised that Reagan had made such an offer without consulting the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Lists Dangers

Nunn argued that even the lesser proposal for the elimination of all ballistic missiles would be dangerous for these reasons:

--Because the Soviets have a formidable air defense and the United States has virtually none, America would be more vulnerable to a bomber attack than the Soviet Union.

--Because the Soviets and the Warsaw Pact have an “overwhelming” advantage in conventional forces, NATO would be left vulnerable to a conventional attack.

--As a result, the West would be forced to rely almost entirely on short-range nuclear artillery shells and aircraft-delivered tactical nuclear bombs for its defense.

“I believe that the goal of a total elimination of nuclear weapons is a laudable objective,” Nunn said. “I too can dream of a day in which the world is freed from the nuclear menace. However, there are significant conditions precedent to going to zero strategic nuclear weapons.”