NATO to Seek Cuts in Soviet Tanks, Artillery : Reagan Calls These Arms ‘Greatest Threat to Peace’

The leaders of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization agreed Wednesday to demand, in new East-West negotiations, sharp reductions in Soviet tanks and artillery in Europe, which according to President Reagan “pose the greatest threat to peace.”

At the same time, the 16 leaders, at their first summit meeting since 1982, agreed that despite Reagan’s oft-stated goal of eventually eliminating the superpowers’ nuclear arsenals, European defense efforts “for the foreseeable future” will require nuclear as well as conventional weapons.

Reagan, declaring that he had “never seen such harmony and togetherness” in the alliance, said after the first of two days of meetings here that the agreement on the negotiating posture represents “a major step forward for the alliance.”

‘Massive Military Presence’

“The most direct threat to our security and to stability in Europe lies in the Soviet Union’s massive military presence at a level far exceeding its defense needs,” Reagan said in a statement he read to reporters at the Chateau Stuyvenberg, a former royal residence turned over to the President for his visit.

But despite the show of unity, a tough and determined speech by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher made it clear that there are deep divisions within the alliance’s leadership.

While many of the 16 leaders were congratulating themselves for agreeing on policy for conventional arms control, Thatcher made a forceful but probably futile plea that the alliance also issue a ringing affirmation of plans to modernize its short-range nuclear forces.

“There is no reason,” British officials quoted her as telling the other 15 leaders at a closed meeting, “to be backward in our determination to modernize our short-range missiles.”

Thatcher spoke out after West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, according to German sources, told the group that “no individual decisions about modernizing individual weapons systems should be made at this conference.”

Kohl, worried about German public opinion that seems to find attractive a proposal by Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev to eliminate all short-range missiles, is expected to prevail at the meeting here and to persuade most of the leaders to include no mention of modernizing weapons in their final declaration.

A further discordant note was sounded when President Francois Mitterrand, the first French president to attend a full NATO summit meeting since President Charles de Gaulle pulled France out of the alliance’s military command in 1966, reminded the leaders that France still rejects the NATO policy of a flexible response to any Soviet military attack. Mitterrand is a strong believer in the idea that only the threat of massive nuclear counterattack can deter aggression.

But despite a series of recent speeches and interviews in which he opposed modernization, Mitterrand did not mention the subject in his declaration here.

Speech Called Vigorous

It was Thatcher’s speech that attracted the most attention and comment. A French official described it as “vigorous.” British officials, in summarizing her speech, hinted that the British, despite her rhetoric, might bow to what seems inevitable and agree to avoid any mention of modernization in the final declaration.

But the British insisted that they still want the NATO leaders to include a statement making it clear that they intend to improve the missiles in some way. However, NATO officials say that whatever the wording of the communique, modernization will be determined by future East-West developments rather than what is decided here.

Thatcher said that despite all the peaceful gestures by Gorbachev, “the evidence shows no sign of a slowdown of Soviet modernization of conventional and nuclear forces since Gorbachev took over.”

She said the Soviet Union is planning to replace all its strategic missiles, has built 650 improved jet fighters in the last 10 years, is launching a new submarine every 37 days and has set up more than 90 new space launchers in the last year. Also, she said, the Soviet Union is modernizing its short-range nuclear missiles.

Soviets ‘Understand Strength’

Thatcher, according to the officials, said that the Soviets “understand and respect strength” and that “the defense of our own interests do not harm our relations with them.” She warned that she does not want “our society’s desire for peace to be exploited against us.”

Kohl, according to German officials, did not disagree with Thatcher on the general thrust of her nuclear policy, although he did oppose mention of modernization. But there was an obvious difference in tone.

Kohl said he is against the Soviet proposals for the elimination of short-range nuclear missiles and for the denuclearization of Europe. He said NATO “must have a global concept before going into discussions” on these issues. He said negotiations about a reduction in conventional forces and in chemical weapons are “all part of a package.”

For 15 years NATO and the Warsaw Pact have been engaged in talks aimed at reducing levels of conventional armaments along the East-West dividing line. But U.S. officials expressed optimism Wednesday that new talks, expected to begin in the autumn, will be more successful because they are to take up the broad scope of forces across the European Continent.

Tanks and Artillery

A senior U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the agreement reached by the NATO leaders represents progress because it includes specific elements in a negotiating position and because it refers specifically to “equipment that has an offensive, ground-gaining capability,” meaning tanks and artillery.

According to the respected International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, the Warsaw Pact nations have 52,200 main battle tanks and NATO has 22,200. But the number of Western tanks includes some based in the United States, and the numbers deployed by both sides between the Atlantic and the Ural Mountains, the eastern boundary of Europe, may be lower. According to the institute, the Warsaw Pact’s artillery outnumbers NATO’s by 37,000 to 11,100.

Some experts argue that the numbers tell only part of the story. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has maintained that the balance is evened by the obsolescence of some Soviet Bloc equipment and the technological superiority of Western weapons.

Greater Potential

Still, military experts have said the Soviets have a greater potential than the West for a swift-moving surprise attack, based on their advantage in tanks and artillery, on supply lines shorter than NATO’s, which reach across the Atlantic, and on the presence of 36 Soviet, East German and Czech divisions along the East-West border, compared with 27 British, American, West German and French divisions.

A statement issued by the NATO leaders said that “the conventional imbalance remains at the core of Europe’s security concerns.”

The statement said that in the negotiations, the Atlantic Alliance will seek to reach East-West force levels that would eliminate attack and large-scale offensive action as feasible options.

To accomplish this goal, the statement said, NATO would seek “the elimination from Europe of tens of thousands of Warsaw Pact weapons . . . among them tanks and artillery pieces.”

‘Unacceptable Risk’

But it said that although achieving equal levels of conventional forces would move both sides toward greater stability, “only the nuclear element can confront a potential aggressor with an unacceptable risk.”

“For the foreseeable future,” it said, “deterrence will continue to require an adequate mix of nuclear as well as conventional forces.”

Thus the Atlantic Alliance appeared to link inseparably the future efforts to reduce conventional forces to the revitalized U.S.-Soviet negotiations intended to cut by 50% the superpowers’ arsenals of long-range, or strategic, nuclear weapons.

Times staff writer Stanley Meisler contributed to this article.