Soviets to Cut Tactical Nuclear Arms in Europe

In the first such specific pledge by either superpower, the Soviet Union said Thursday that it will withdraw some tactical nuclear weapons from Central Europe along with the troops and tanks that it had previously promised to pull out.

The announcement, which is expected to fuel debate within the U.S.-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization over plans to modernize its short-range nuclear missiles, was made in Vienna by Foreign Minister Eduard A. Shevardnadze, addressing the final session of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. The text of his speech was distributed in full here by the official news agency, Tass.

The Soviet foreign minister, elaborating on military cutbacks first announced by President Mikhail S. Gorbachev at the United Nations in New York last month, said: “While striving for the declared fundamental goal--to end any foreign military presence and bases on the territories of other countries--the Soviet Union will withdraw units with all their armaments, including tactical nuclear systems, from Central Europe.”

Gorbachev had said his country would unilaterally pull 50,000 troops and 5,000 tanks out of Eastern Europe within two years, but Shevardnadze’s was the first mention that the cutback included nuclear weaponry.

Short-range or tactical--sometimes also called battlefield nuclear weapons--have a range of up to 300 miles and include nuclear-tipped artillery shells as well as missiles. They are not covered under terms of the 1987 Soviet-American agreement to eliminate ground-launched intermediate-range nuclear weapons--those with ranges of 300 to 3,400 miles--worldwide. Nor are they part of the ongoing strategic arms reduction talks, which deal with intercontinental ballistic missiles, missiles launched by long-range submarines and aircraft, and long-range aircraft that carry nuclear bombs.

State Department spokesman Charles Redman in Washington and a North Atlantic Treaty Organization spokesman in Brussels welcomed Shevardnadze’s announcement Thursday. But both also noted that the Soviets have not yet supplied details of the type and quantity of weapons to be removed and that NATO unilaterally has already been cutting the size of its nuclear stockpile in Europe.

‘Peace Offensive’

While Shevardnadze did not reveal how many tactical nuclear weapons would be involved, or how many would remain in Warsaw Pact arsenals, his comments maintained the momentum of a Kremlin “peace offensive” that has appeared to leave the West scrambling to regain the moral high ground.

Gorbachev also announced a planned 500,000-man cut in the Soviet military at last month’s U.N. meeting, and on Wednesday he said the defense budget is to be reduced by 14.2%.

The Soviet leader has said that he wants to cut military spending to help solve serious economic problems at home, particularly shortages of food and other consumer goods.

Although the military cuts announced so far are unilateral, the Kremlin is clearly looking for some response from the West. And that was certainly true of Shevardnadze’s statements Thursday.

Noting that “the tactical nuclear weapons issue is being actively debated,” the Soviet official stressed that Moscow “is not modernizing its tactical nuclear missiles.”

“We unequivocally proceed from the premise that nuclear missile modernization is a step backward, not forward,” he said, and he proposed that “talks on these weapons be started.”

NATO Commitment Sought

His remarks were seen as aimed at NATO generally and West Germany in particular. The United States and Britain are pushing for an alliance commitment to produce a new short-range nuclear missile to replace the aging Lance missiles based in West Germany. But the Germans are resisting, particularly in light of the overall reduction of East-West tensions since Gorbachev came to power.

A NATO official in Brussels quoted by the Reuters news agency called Shevardnadze’s statement a “propaganda gambit. . . . It seems aimed at our work (on modernization) which they know we have been looking at, and is intended to create more problems in Germany.”

Redman, in Washington, made it clear that NATO will continue its modernization plans.

“Of course, NATO will continue to retain in Europe those up-to-date forces and the minimum number of nuclear weapons needed to maintain a strategy of deterrence,” he said.

NATO maintains that it needs tactical nuclear weapons to counter an overwhelming superiority in conventional (non-nuclear) weaponry enjoyed by Warsaw Pact forces in Europe. As long as that imbalance lasts, NATO argues, it needs modern, short-range nuclear weapons as a last resort to stop an otherwise indefensible, all-out East Bloc ground assault. It refers to the nuclear option as “flexible response.”

According to a NATO assessment of the European balance of forces published last November, the Warsaw Pact enjoys a 3-2 advantage in manpower, a 3-1 advantage in battle tanks and artillery, and a 2-1 advantage in combat aircraft.

There is considerable debate over the figures even in the West, and the Soviets contend that they are at best misleading. Shevardnadze told the Vienna conference Thursday that “by the end of January, the Soviet Union and its allies will make public their numerical data on troops and armaments of the sides in Europe.”

A previous set of negotiations known as the Mutual and Balanced Forces Reduction talks remained stalled for most of their 15-year duration over disagreement on the basic numbers of forces on each side. But in Vienna this week, the foreign ministers of all 35 participating countries signed an accord that includes provision for new talks between the 16 NATO members and the seven Warsaw Pact countries aimed at reducing conventional weapons and troop levels across the continent. These talks are slated to begin March 9.

With earlier failures clearly in mind, Shevardnadze warned Thursday that while “we do not ignore the importance of initial data, . . . figures should not become an obstacle to politics. Long and fruitless discussions on categories of armaments and methods for counting troops may clog up the talks.”

He proposed that the two sides coordinate “mutually acceptable quantitative ‘ceilings’ on troops and armaments of the sides.”

“In present conditions,” he added, “we shall also be able to coordinate verification measures which will give full confidence that the established limits on troops and armaments are observed.”

Stephen Ledogar, the chief U.S. negotiator named for the March talks, called Shevardnadze’s speech “upbeat,” but he also rejected the idea of any freeze in NATO’s tactical missile modernization plan.

The NATO spokesman in Brussels said that if Moscow’s decision to withdraw tactical nuclear weapons “signals that, in this field also, the Soviets are now beginning to realize that their potential far exceeds legitimate requirements, we can only find such steps encouraging.”

Redman noted, as did the NATO spokesman, that “The Soviet Union . . . is following NATO’s lead. Since 1979, NATO has unilaterally reduced the size of its nuclear stockpile in Europe by 2,400 warheads. Today, NATO’s stockpile of nuclear weapons is at its lowest level in 20 years. To date, NATO’s unilateral reductions have not been matched by the Soviet Union, which maintains a larger number of modern nuclear systems in Europe than does NATO.”

Concerning Wednesday’s announcement by Gorbachev about the planned reduction in the Soviet defense budget, Redman noted that the Kremlin’s defense budget has never been revealed and said “a percentage of what--we don’t know what the starting point is.”

Nevertheless, he said, “We welcome the announcement that, of the 10,000 tanks to be reduced, 5,000 will be ‘physically liquidated,’ with the remainder to be converted to other uses. Likewise, we note with interest Gorbachev’s clarification regarding the removal of 5,300 of the most modern tanks in the Soviet arsenal within the overall reduction.”

Thursday’s closing session of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe ended 27 months of what the Soviet foreign minister described as “intense, at times dramatic, and yet unprecedentedly purposeful and democratic” East-West dialogue. The 35-nation accord that was the result puts forth a sweeping definition of human rights to be protected, including freer travel and religious practice, environmental protection, and economic cooperation.

“The Vienna accord is a landmark on the way to a fundamentally new Europe,” Shevardnadze said. The meeting, he added, “shook the ‘Iron Curtain,’ loosening its rusted joints, piercing still more holes in it, and enhancing its corrosion. It warmed the Cold War channel with the swell of new currents. Europe may only welcome this.”

Times staff writer Norman Kempster, in Washington, contributed to this article.