Bush Proposes School Aid Increases of $600 Million : Dukakis Seeks Emphasis on Non-Nuclear Defense

Michael S. Dukakis, striving to establish his foreign policy credentials in advance of the fall presidential election, proposed Tuesday that the United States and its European allies shift money and scientific talent from the development of new nuclear weapons to the creation of a modern non-nuclear military force that could “fight--and win--a conventional war.”

In a speech to the prestigious Atlantic Council, the Massachusetts governor outlined a generally hard-line stance which, despite its criticism of new nuclear initiatives, frequently paralleled the defense policies of the Reagan Administration and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

“We don’t need a laundry list of new strategic systems,” said Dukakis, the anticipated Democratic presidential nominee. “We need a defense strategy that will set sensible priorities; a strategy that will put our resources where they will make a difference; a strategy that will help reduce the risk of nuclear war by reducing the risk of conventional war.”

Dukakis criticized the Reagan Administration for allowing the nation’s non-nuclear defenses to deteriorate by concentrating on exotic programs such as the rail-mobile MX missile and the “Star Wars” missile-defense program at the expense of such vital--but mundane--matters as operations, training and maintenance. He asserted that “tank commanders in Europe are running out of fuel in a half-mile.”

Dukakis said he would support modernization of nuclear systems but opposed new programs until the conventional forces have been strengthened.

He said it was necessary to divert funds from nuclear to conventional programs because “we all know that the defense budget isn’t going to increase in real terms . . . no matter how the next election turns out.” He said the next President must make tough choices on the allocation of funds.

Tank Weapons

“We don’t need MX missiles running around on railroad cars,” he said. “We need an anti-tank weapon that can stop Soviet tanks.”

Paul H. Nitze, President Reagan’s chief adviser on arms control, said Dukakis’ priorities were “dead wrong.” He said it would be a major mistake to short-change nuclear programs.

But other Administration officials applauded Dukakis’ emphasis on conventional warfare capabilities. One senior State Department official said he could support most of the points in the speech.

The address was clearly intended to preempt an effort by Vice President George Bush, the expected Republican nominee, to depict Dukakis as soft on defense. In effect, Dukakis endorsed most of the successful and popular elements of Administration foreign policy while distancing himself from measures which have proved either ineffective or unpopular.

He praised the recently ratified treaty banning intermediate-range nuclear missiles and hailed the steadfast opposition to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that he credited for Moscow’s decision to pull out its troops.

“After four summits in three years, virtually all of us acknowledge the value of regular face-to-face discussions between the leaders of the two superpowers,” he said. “And most of us now see the possibility for a new and less dangerous competition with the Soviet Union.”

Later, in response to a question, Dukakis said he has urged Reagan to continue the strategic arms reduction talks with Moscow even though the Administration is coming to a close.

“I would be very pleased to see a good agreement negotiated by the end of the year,” he said.

NATO Support

Dukakis pledged continued U.S. support for the NATO alliance. Although he called on European members of the 16-nation organization to “bear a fair share of both the economic and military burdens,” he did not join Democratic critics who have suggested cuts in U.S. contributions if the European members do not increase their own spending.

The Dukakis position on NATO finances was almost indistinguishable from the Reagan Administration’s restrained call for increased European contributions. NATO foreign ministers pledged last week to review the alliance’s financial structure but made no specific promises of change.

He called on NATO to “test the intentions” of Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev by opening negotiations with the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact on conventional arms reductions in Europe that would cut most heavily into Warsaw Pact concentrations of tanks and heavy artillery, the weapons that would be needed to spearhead an invasion force. NATO heads of government, including Reagan, voted for just such a negotiating strategy earlier this year.

In the meantime, he said, NATO must attempt to build up its own conventional warfare capacity.

“The Warsaw Pact has an enormous advantage in tanks and heavy artillery--the weapons that pose the greatest threat of an offensive strike,” Dukakis said. “And they have done far more than we have to prepare for chemical war.

“We need a strong and survivable nuclear deterrent; and we have a strong and survivable nuclear deterrent. But we continue to have serious deficiencies in our conventional forces.

“The commanders of our armed forces have repeatedly warned us of the dangers we face,” he said. “Maintenance backlogs are growing. We have serious shortfalls in airlift and sea lift; in spare parts and ammunition. In the words of one senior Air Force commander: ‘At the end of this year we are going to see airplanes without engines.’

“We don’t need SDI (strategic defense initiative--the official name for the Administration’s Star Wars program); we need CDI (‘conventional defense initiative’). We need . . . to apply advanced technology to the challenge of fighting--and winning--a conventional war.”

Toured Cutter

Later in the day, in New Bedford, Mass., Dukakis toured a Coast Guard cutter that has been pulled off anti-drug patrols for lack of money to buy fuel, and he denounced Administration cutbacks in Coast Guard funds.

“This boat will be sitting here from May until August doing nothing,” Dukakis charged. “It just doesn’t make sense.

“Somewhere in that vast budget of $1 trillion, there ought to be $100 million for the Coast Guard, which is our first line of defense,” Dukakis said. Cutbacks in anti-drug funds have been a major issue for Dukakis in recent days as he has accused the Administration--and Bush, who ran the Administration’s drug interdiction task force--of waging a “phony war” on drug use. “How can you talk about waging a war” and not provide enough money for fuel, he demanded.

New Bedford, which has one of the nation’s largest fishing fleets and therefore has large numbers of small boats moving in and out of its harbor, has in the past been a major drug smuggling center. In recent years, state and federal officials have substantially reduced smuggling there, local officials said.