Changes in Soviet Union

Dov Zakheim’s column (“U.S. Aid to Perestroika Could Make Soviet Economy Lean--and Military Mean, “ Op-Ed Page, June 29) concludes that we should “avoid paying more than lip service to friend Gorbachev’s commendable concern about his economy.” However, his analysis contains at least two serious errors.

First, he assumes that perestroika will enable the Soviets to field a better military, but that the Soviet society will not change in other ways. Yet the advent of computer networks, open dialogue (such as we have seen at the Party Congress), and other aspects of glasnost , bring with them great possibilities of a more benign Soviet foreign policy and reductions in Soviet military spending in favor of consumer goods production.

Second, Zakheim does not take account of the risks we run by continuing our attitude of confrontation towards the Soviets. Two of those risks are: 1) the possibility of a nuclear war, which would mean the end of civilization, and 2) the tremendous cost to the U.S. in maintaining our current level of military spending--a cost evident in our budget and trade deficits, homelessness, loss of competitiveness, etc.

No, we should pay more than lip service to the changes now occurring in the Soviet Union, for they bring the possibility of a new era in superpower relations. President Reagan is right to encourage those changes.

JOSEPH C. KRESSE JR.

Santa Monica