NATO Allies Agree on Need to Update A-Arms : But No Timetable Is Set for Modernization of Short-Range Weapons at Close of 2-Day Summit

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization on Thursday submerged a simmering controversy over modernizing its nuclear weapons and concluded a summit conference that President Reagan said demonstrated the alliance’s commitment “to move forward to meet our defense requirements” even as it seeks to improve relations with the Soviet Union.

The 16 leaders of the NATO nations agreed that the Western arsenal must include a mix of “effective nuclear and conventional forces, which will continue to be kept up to date where necessary.”

But their statement set no date for the modernization, which is intended to improve the range and accuracy of the alliance’s aging short-range nuclear weapons.

‘We Won’t Give It Away’

Reagan, in a statement he read to reporters at NATO headquarters before heading home to Washington, said he promised the allies that the United States will not trade away “the credibility of our deterrent . . . at the negotiating table, and we won’t give it away through neglect.”

The Soviet Union’s massive military presence in Europe is the most direct threat to security and stability in Europe, Reagan said, reiterating a point he stressed the previous day. “The alliance has given its needs a lot of thought, knows what it wants to do and has programs that it has committed to carry out,” the President said.

The state of the alliance is excellent, he added, sounding slightly hoarse, apparently because of a cold that had troubled him before he left Washington on Tuesday morning.

The President’s allies, although endorsing his plan for a spring summit meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev, distanced themselves from the anti-nuclear rhetoric that marked Reagan’s earlier meetings with the Kremlin leadership. (Analysis on Page 17.)

After the summit meeting, the first such NATO gathering in nearly six years, Reagan conferred briefly, and separately, with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of Britain and Prime Minister Wilfried Martens of Belgium.

During a photo session at the start of the meeting with Thatcher, he appeared confused when a reporter asked if he was pleased with the meeting’s final statement.

Baker’s Reminder

“Haven’t seen it yet,” he said, only to have White House Chief of Staff Howard H. Baker Jr. remind him, “No, we saw it last night.”

“Oh,” Reagan said, and Baker put in, “No problems, and it’s very good.”

“Very good. No problems,” the President said, echoing his senior aide.

At the heart of the dispute over modernization of the nuclear forces in Western Europe is the question of the overall structure of NATO defenses, both conventional and nuclear.

As a result of the U.S.-Soviet agreement eliminating the superpowers’ medium-range nuclear weapons--those with a range of 300 to 3,400 miles--concern has been growing in Europe, particularly in West Germany, over the future of short-range weapons.

As the West and the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact powers rely increasingly on short-range weapons for their nuclear forces in Europe, Germans are expressing fear that the weapons deployed by East and West alike are targeted largely on Germany.

Despite the vague wording of the final statement, Thatcher said there would be no delay in modernizing the weapons, although no specific timetable has been set.

“Everyone in that room recognized that you do not deter with obsolete weapons,” Thatcher said at a news conference. “Everyone was agreed that to deter you have to modernize. It doesn’t matter whether we say ‘modernize’ or ‘up to date.’ Everyone accepts the need to modernize.

“The difference of view, I think, was how far you put it in a communique. But I believe that people know that the important thing is to have a sure defense. That is what this communique means and don’t underestimate it.”

‘Very Moving Experience’

Secretary of State George P. Shultz, in an apparently emotional moment, told reporters that he found the meeting “a very moving experience.”

“People were talking extemporaneously,” he said. “Some of these words, when you use them, they sometimes sound a little corny, but this was the real thing. Here is freedom on display--associating together, consulting heavily, struggling to do the things we must do, reinforcing each other, but knowing what this is all about, to enhance our security, to secure our freedom. So it really felt good.”

The two-day meeting took place as the European members of NATO were coming under increasing pressure to raise their share of the cost of maintaining the alliance.

Two members of Congress, House Budget Committee Chairman William H. Gray III (D-Pa.) and Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.), criticized the European allies, at a congressional hearing earlier in the week in Washington, for failing to boost their contributions at a time when the United States is trying to trim its military expenditures.

Shultz, in his news conference here, agreed that “Europe should pick up more of the share,” while adding that the United States should also increase its commitment to NATO.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the overall U.S. defense commitment amounted to 6.7% of the gross national product in 1986, while the NATO allies committed an average of 3.3% to overall defense.

Mitterrand’s Urging

In another area of East-West relations, President Francois Mitterrand of France urged members of the alliance to use “both strength and flexibility” in their dealings with Gorbachev, according to French sources.

Perhaps prompted by Thatcher’s tough talk about Gorbachev on Wednesday, Mitterrand said the NATO allies should recognize that “the Soviet Union was in a historic transition” and “for the first time had a generation in power without direct experience in the (Bolshevik) revolution.”

Times staff writer Stanley Meisler contributed to this story.