Conventional Arms Costly, Safer--Shultz

Secretary of State George P. Shultz said today the United States would face a sharp increase in its defense budget if there is a shift to reliance on conventional forces for deterrence.

But he defended the Reagan Administration’s proposal to move away from nuclear weapons as the nation’s principal form of discouraging an enemy attack.

Under questioning at a National Press Club luncheon, Shultz called conventional forces a “safer form of deterrence.”

“We would have to make up our minds to spend more money,” Shultz said. “But you can’t tell me that an economy that’s already at $4 1/2 trillion and is moving toward $5 trillion can’t afford far more than $300 billion for our defense and national security.”

Arms Imbalances

Alternatively, Shultz said that during the period in which nuclear weapons would be phased out under proposals the two superpowers are considering, imbalances in conventional forces could be corrected through negotiations.

In Central Europe, the Soviets and their Warsaw Pact allies have a strong edge over NATO allies in such areas as troop strength and numbers of tanks.

President Reagan, campaigning in North Dakota, said today that agreeing to a Soviet demand to curb development of “Star Wars” would be akin to having given up the use of radar in the World War II fight against the Nazis.