Presidential Aspirants Split Over Defense

None of this year’s Republican presidential hopefuls stand as squarely against arms control agreements with the Soviets as the right wing of their party, nor as forcefully in favor of increased military spending as President Reagan, a Times survey of the major presidential aspirants shows.

And as for the Democratic contenders, while they are clearly more enthusiastic proponents of arms agreements than the Republicans, their positions also reflect the party’s gradual shift away from utopian solutions to the nuclear arms race. Unlike a generation ago, when many Democrats called for “disarmament,” for example, the current crop of hopefuls is merely endorsing “arms control.”

Divided on Party Lines

But while aspirants of the two parties appear to be converging on arms control, they remain split over some other critical national security issues.

Thus, in response to the Times survey, every Democratic hopeful came out against the space-based missile defense system that Reagan calls his Strategic Defense Initiative, while every Republican declared himself in favor of it.

Some important differences emerged between aspirants of the same party. Among Republicans, for example, former Secretary of State and Army Gen. Alexander M. Haig Jr. flatly opposed the Administration’s policy of escorting tankers in the Persian Gulf, while Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas did not endorse it outright.

And among Democrats, Sen. Albert Gore Jr. of Tennessee was closer to the Administration than to his fellow Democrats on nuclear testing, defense spending and the Persian Gulf tanker escort. He emerged as the clear maverick of the Democratic herd.

The hopefuls outlined their views earlier this month in responses to a Times questionnaire on seven sets of issues. Their positions on the six other groups of issues--Central America, fiscal policy, trade, AIDS, domestic spending programs and the social issues--will be published in subsequent installments of this series.

Of the 13 major contenders now seeking or considering seeking their party’s nomination, only the Rev. Pat Robertson failed to take positions on most of the national security issues surveyed by The Times. In a brief response to The Times’ questions, his headquarters said he is “currently finalizing policy statements” on arms control. The Republican aspirant’s responses on other questions were too general to be examined in detail.

The responses by hopefuls of both parties reflect a nationwide shift of public opinion away from the hard-line defense posture adopted by Reagan, who has referred to the Soviet Union as an “evil empire.”

Reagan’s 1980 election marked the peak of a decade-long trend toward public support of greater defense expenditures after the Vietnam War. His predecessor, Jimmy Carter, was elected after promising a $5-billion cut in military spending, but Carter was never able to carry out his pledge.

Reagan promised to rebuild U.S. strength, but he also attacked the State Department for putting too much trust in arms control negotiations. He charged that naive American diplomats had been outfoxed by wily Soviet negotiators who cheated on arms agreements, and he promised to begin a new arms buildup that would give the United States a “margin of safety” over the Soviets.

But now, as Reagan moves toward a new arms agreement with Moscow and his third summit with a Soviet leader, none of the Republicans in the 1988 race could avoid a positive nod toward arms control.

New York Rep. Jack Kemp, the most conservative of the leading GOP contenders, told The Times that the U.S. stance in arms control talks “should be guided by realism and a firm understanding of the nature of the totalitarian adversary.” But at the same time, he added that “the United States must pursue agreements with the Soviet Union that serve to strengthen the United States and protect our citizens.”

Among the Democratic hopefuls, stopping new weapons technologies has become a popular new goal. Illinois Sen. Paul Simon said he wants to “stop the introduction of new, destabilizing weapon designs,” and Massachusetts Gov. Michael S. Dukakis wants to “halt development of new, exotic destabilizing technologies.”

Strategic Defense Initiative: Republican contenders unanimously favored SDI, which is popularly known as “Star Wars,” and some of them supported the program even more vigorously than Reagan.

SDI, for which the White House has asked $5.8 billion for next year, now consists of research and some testing of an anti-missile defense system. Some research is based on established technology such as rocketry and radar, while the most promising work aims at developing laser and other exotic beam weapons that would be stationed in space.

Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger and other enthusiasts for the program want early deployment of SDI components that use conventional technology, with exotic weapons to be added later. But the White House has followed the advice of the State Department so far by refusing to endorse an accelerated effort.

Deployment of any SDI system in space would violate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, considered the cornerstone of the U.S.-Soviet arms control relationship. The Administration claims that the treaty permits space-based testing and development of SDI if the anti-missile system is based on exotic technology, although congressional Democrats have challenged this view.

Vice President George Bush endorsed the official Administration line by supporting SDI research and testing “as permitted by the ABM treaty. We are also trying to move our research and testing programs forward,” he added, “so that we can make an informed decision on SDI deployment in the early 1990s.”

Dole “strongly” supported the “vigorous pursuit” of SDI research, development and testing. He claimed that SDI has already yielded “enormous dividends, in bringing the Soviets back to serious arms control negotiations and in technological terms.” The Soviets, who have attacked SDI bitterly, have agreed in principle to a treaty that would slash both superpowers’ offensive nuclear forces in half if SDI is curbed, but SDI’s contribution to the Soviets’ return to the bargaining table is open to debate.

As for putting an SDI system into operation, Dole said: “We should undertake phased deployment of an SDI system as soon as it makes strategic and economic sense.”

Kemp, the most extreme of the Republican aspirants on SDI, has made support for SDI deployment--even before research is completed--a major plank in his platform.

“If elected, I will declare a projected timetable for SDI deployment to ensure that the first phase (based largely on conventional technologies) is deployed by 1994,” Kemp said in response to the questionnaire. “I will continue vigorous research and development efforts on the follow-on phases of strategic defenses (exotic weapons) with a plan to deploy them as soon as they are available.”

Democrats, by contrast, typically opposed deployment of SDI and favored reducing Reagan’s proposed levels of spending on research. Dukakis, for example, would cut back the research to pre-Reagan levels, and Simon would support only “certain small aspects of the research” now under way.

Nuclear testing: The only aspirant with a novel position was Gore. He broke with the other Democratic contenders by opposing a test ban but differed from the Republicans by advocating a short-term moratorium followed by a treaty that would permit “the minimum number of tests needed to ensure that the existing weapons on which we still rely for deterrence work.”

In this, he recognized the value of curbing tests as a way to inhibit weapons development. Every new missile and bomber needs new types of warheads and bombs that must be tested; without tests or with limits on their number and size, fewer new weapons would be deployed, it is argued.

At the same time, Gore’s position rests on the view that some tests of nuclear weapons are necessary to check the reliability of devices that might be degraded or made unsafe by long storage periods. That view has been challenged, however, most recently by a study at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory concluding that the weapons work as intended.

Defense spending: Only one Republican, former Delaware Gov. Pierre S. (Pete) du Pont IV, favored defense spending cuts, and he would limit them to the MX program. At the same time, none of the Republicans favored increases.

Among the Democrats, all favored cuts except Gore, who called for the defense budget to be “held steady for some period of time.” Defense spending cuts to reduce budget deficits and make room for more social spending has been a Democratic goal for much of the Reagan Administration. Typically, the Democrats would curb or eliminate nuclear missiles and bombers as well as space weapons.

Dukakis risked self-contradiction in his response on defense spending. He would make “significant” cuts in military funds, he said, and added: “My aim as President will be to reduce the relative importance of nuclear programs in the military budget, and to ensure strong conventional preparedness.”

However, nuclear weapons are far cheaper than conventional, or non-nuclear, forces. Reducing U.S. dependence on nuclear weapons and increasing conventional strength would make defense spending cuts extremely difficult to achieve.

Persian Gulf: The freshest national security issue facing the hopefuls is the Administration’s decision to let Kuwaiti tankers sail under the American flag with U.S. warships escorting them through the Persian Gulf, one of the battlegrounds of the Iran-Iraq war.

Only Haig among the Republican aspirants opposed the Administration policy. He explained that the United States itself could become hostage to dubious friends in the Middle East.

“American interests are served best by a policy of strict neutrality,” said the former supreme commander of NATO forces in Europe and veteran of numerous strategic issue debates. “Diplomatic efforts centered at the United Nations are the way to settle that conflict. I oppose adamantly a policy of ‘tilting’ to one side or the other. I don’t want Kuwaiti or Iraqi flags flying over American foreign policy in that critical region.”

Dole, strongly supporting the principle that the United States has major interests in the gulf, said: “We ought to be part of an international regime to provide security for tankers.” But he did not endorse the Administration’s initial go-it-alone policy.

Among the Democrats, a minority--Dukakis, the Rev. Jesse Jackson and Colorado Rep. Patricia Schroeder, (who has yet to declare her candidacy but is expected to enter the race)--unequivocally opposed the Reagan policy. Most of the others grudgingly said the United States has a role to play in the gulf and sought allied help in the escort effort. Only Gore had supported the reflagging decision when it was made, and he said the United States would lose credibility if it withdrew in the face of Iranian threats to U.S. ships.

CANDIDATES AND THE ISSUES: NATIONAL SECURITY

REPUBLICANS

Vice President George Bush Q. Would you undertake research, testing and deployment of the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars)? A. Yes on research and testing, decide in early 1990s on deployment. Q. Under what policy guidelines would your Administration pursue new agreements with the Soviet Union on arms control? A. Deep cuts to equal levels, verifiable agreements that enhance U.S. security. Q. Would you exchange SDI for deep cuts of 50% in long-range offensive weapons? A. No. Q. Would you support an immediate ban on nuclear weapons testing? A. No response. Q. Would you reduce U.S. defense spending? If so, by how much? Which programs? A. First, detailed review to ensure wise spending; but “much can be done” to eliminate waste. Q. Do you believe U.S. warships should be escorting oil tankers in the Persian Gulf? A. Yes.

Kansas Sen. Bob Dole Q. Would you undertake research, testing and deployment of the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars)? A. Yes on research and testing, deploy when it makes strategic and economic sense. Q. Under what policy guidelines would your Administration pursue new agreements with the Soviet Union on arms control? A. Talk from position of strength; be creative and open-minded. Q. Would you exchange SDI for deep cuts of 50% in long-range offensive weapons? A. Reasonable goal. Q. Would you support an immediate ban on nuclear weapons testing? A. No. Q. Would you reduce U.S. defense spending? If so, by how much? Which programs? A. “Closely scrutinize” budget first. Q. Do you believe U.S. warships should be escorting oil tankers in the Persian Gulf? A. Yes, as part of “international regime.”

Former Delaware Gov. Pierre S. (Pete) du Pont IV Q. Would you undertake research, testing and deployment of the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars)? A. Yes on all counts. Q. Under what policy guidelines would your Administration pursue new agreements with the Soviet Union on arms control? A. U.S. national security as first priority; fully verifiable agreement. Q. Would you exchange SDI for deep cuts of 50% in long-range offensive weapons? A. No. Q. Would you support an immediate ban on nuclear weapons testing? A. No. Q. Would you reduce U.S. defense spending? If so, by how much? Which programs? A. Yes, by $7 billion, by eliminating MX missile. Q. Do you believe U.S. warships should be escorting oil tankers in the Persian Gulf? A. Yes.

Former Secretary of State, Alexander Haig Jr. Q. Would you undertake research, testing and deployment of the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars)? A. Yes on research and testing. Too soon to say on deployment. Q. Under what policy guidelines would your Administration pursue new agreements with the Soviet Union on arms control? A. Aim to strengthen deterrence; top priority is reducing surprise-attack weapons. Q. Would you exchange SDI for deep cuts of 50% in long-range offensive weapons? A. No. Q. Would you support an immediate ban on nuclear weapons testing? A. No response. Q. Would you reduce U.S. defense spending? If so, by how much? Which programs? A. No. Q. Do you believe U.S. warships should be escorting oil tankers in the Persian Gulf? A. No.

New York Rep. Jack Kemp Q. Would you undertake research, testing and deployment of the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars)? A. Yes on research and testing. Deploy first phase by 1994. Q. Under what policy guidelines would your Administration pursue new agreements with the Soviet Union on arms control? A. Be realistic and understand nature of totalitarianism; defense has first priority. Q. Would you exchange SDI for deep cuts of 50% in long-range offensive weapons? A. No. Q. Would you support an immediate ban on nuclear weapons testing? A. No. Q. Would you reduce U.S. defense spending? If so, by how much? Which programs? A. No. Q. Do you believe U.S. warships should be escorting oil tankers in the Persian Gulf? A. Yes.

Rev. Pat Robertson Q. Would you undertake research, testing and deployment of the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars)? A. Yes on all counts. Q. Under what policy guidelines would your Administration pursue new agreements with the Soviet Union on arms control? A. No response. Q. Would you exchange SDI for deep cuts of 50% in long-range offensive weapons? A. No. Q. Would you support an immediate ban on nuclear weapons testing? A. No response. Q. Would you reduce U.S. defense spending? If so, by how much? Which programs? A. Unclear; but cites past wasteful spending. Q. Do you believe U.S. warships should be escorting oil tankers in the Persian Gulf? A. No response. DEMOCRATS

Former Arizona Gov. Bruce Babbitt Q. Would you undertake research, testing and deployment of the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars)? A. Research only. Q. Under what policy guidelines would your Administration pursue new agreements with the Soviet Union on arms control? A. To enhance U.S. security and reduce the risk of war; strengthen the ABM treaty, and ban anti-satellite (ASAT) tests. Q. Would you exchange SDI for deep cuts of 50% in long-range offensive weapons? A. Yes. Q. Would you support an immediate ban on nuclear weapons testing? A. Yes. Q. Would you reduce U.S. defense spending? If so, by how much? Which programs? A. Yes, by $20 billion, by cutting MX and SDI programs; criticizes too many new “showcase” weapons, not enough emphasis on “readiness” with existing weapons. Q. Do you believe U.S. warships should be escorting oil tankers in the Persian Gulf? A. Not specific, but says U.S. has “role to play” there.

Massachusetts Gov. Michael S. Dukakis Q. Would you undertake research, testing and deployment of the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars)? A. Research only at pre-Reagan levels. Q. Under what policy guidelines would your Administration pursue new agreements with the Soviet Union on arms control? A. Maintain a strong deterrence; focus on limiting surprise attack weapons; insist on stringent verification and compliance provisions; stop exotic new weapons technology; halt proliferation of nuclear weapons to other nations; reduce risk of accidental war; ban missile tests. Q. Would you exchange SDI for deep cuts of 50% in long-range offensive weapons? A. Not specific but implicitly yes. Q. Would you support an immediate ban on nuclear weapons testing? A. Not specific but implicitly yes. Q. Would you reduce U.S. defense spending? If so, by how much? Which programs? A. Yes; “significant” cuts that would reduce the emphasis on nuclear weapons, ensure strong conventional preparedness. Q. Do you believe U.S. warships should be escorting oil tankers in the Persian Gulf? A. No.

Missouri Rep. Richard Gephardt Q. Would you undertake research, testing and deployment of the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars)? A. Research only, at lower levels. Q. Under what policy guidelines would your Administration pursue new agreements with the Soviet Union on arms control? A. Reduce risk of nuclear war, seek moratorium on tests of missiles and warheads. Q. Would you exchange SDI for deep cuts of 50% in long-range offensive weapons? A. No response. Q. Would you support an immediate ban on nuclear weapons testing? A. Yes, at 1 kiloton range and above. Q. Would you reduce U.S. defense spending? If so, by how much? Which programs? A. Opposes increases overall; would eliminate ASAT program, cut funds for additional MX missiles, retire the B-52 bombers. Q. Do you believe U.S. warships should be escorting oil tankers in the Persian Gulf? A. Not specific, but maybe as part of international force.

Tennessee Sen. Albert Gore Jr. Q. Would you undertake research, testing and deployment of the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars)? A. Research only. Q. Under what policy guidelines would your Administration pursue new agreements with the Soviet Union on arms control? A. Strictly adhere to ABM treaty, move from multiple- to single-warhead missiles. Q. Would you exchange SDI for deep cuts of 50% in long-range offensive weapons? A. Sees “great deal of merit” in idea. Q. Would you support an immediate ban on nuclear weapons testing? A. No. Favors moratorium for a limited time, and a treaty that would permit “a minimum number” of tests. Q. Would you reduce U.S. defense spending? If so, by how much? Which programs? A. No, hold steady (“zero real growth”) without increases except for inflation. Q. Do you believe U.S. warships should be escorting oil tankers in the Persian Gulf? A. Not specific but implicitly yes; supports reflagging Kuwaiti tankers.

Rev. Jesse Jackson Q. Would you undertake research, testing and deployment of the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars)? A. Research only, at far lower levels. Q. Under what policy guidelines would your Administration pursue new agreements with the Soviet Union on arms control? A. Comply with SALT II and ABM treaties; negotiate offensive weapon reductions; halt proliferation to other nations. Q. Would you exchange SDI for deep cuts of 50% in long-range offensive weapons? A. Yes. Q. Would you support an immediate ban on nuclear weapons testing? A. Yes. Q. Would you reduce U.S. defense spending? If so, by how much? Which programs? A. Yes, by $20.1 billion, by eliminating additional MX missiles, Trident missile submarines, sea-launched cruise missiles, and new single-warhead Midgetman; also would reduce funds for surface ships and carrier-based aircraft. Q. Do you believe U.S. warships should be escorting oil tankers in the Persian Gulf? A. No.

Colorado Rep. Patricia Schroeder Q. Would you undertake research, testing and deployment of the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars)? A. Limited research only. Q. Under what policy guidelines would your Administration pursue new agreements with the Soviet Union on arms control? A. Reduce nuclear and chemical weapons. Q. Would you exchange SDI for deep cuts of 50% in long-range offensive weapons? A. No response. Q. Would you support an immediate ban on nuclear weapons testing? A. Yes. Q. Would you reduce U.S. defense spending? If so, by how much? Which programs? A. Yes, by $25 billion (i.e., to $265 billion vs. Administration’s request for $290 billion). Would eliminate additional MX missiles, Trident II missiles, cruise missiles, chemical and biological weapons, and ASAT weapons. Q. Do you believe U.S. warships should be escorting oil tankers in the Persian Gulf? A. No.

Illinois Sen. Paul Simon Q. Would you undertake research, testing and deployment of the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars)? A. Research only, at smaller levels. Q. Under what policy guidelines would your Administration pursue new agreements with the Soviet Union on arms control? A. End arms race, stop new destabilizing weapons, stop ASAT tests. Q. Would you exchange SDI for deep cuts of 50% in long-range offensive weapons? A. Yes. Q. Would you support an immediate ban on nuclear weapons testing? A. Yes. Q. Would you reduce U.S. defense spending? If so, by how much? Which programs? A. Yes, by $7 billion, by ending MX program. Q. Do you believe U.S. warships should be escorting oil tankers in the Persian Gulf? A. Not specific, but implicitly no; suggests allied naval patrol.