There’s So Much We Clearly Don’t Need : Defense: By responding intelligently and positively with well-planned reductions, we can guide and shape changes to our benefit.

Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney has made it official--the Soviet threat to Europe is shrinking. His welcome, if belated, affirmation of this fact was followed by his statement that the military budget has to have cuts in it if it is to be realistic.

At a time when Congress has just approved the largest U.S. military budget of all time, $305 billion for 1990, these are wise words. But they raise a critical question. What cuts can be taken in order to save money without jeopardizing the security of the United States and its allies?

Fortunately, there seem to be no shortage of constructive options for substantial reductions in both conventional and nuclear forces. The negotiations on Conventional Forces in Europe, now going on in Vienna, offer assured prospects for major cuts in Warsaw Pact strength. These cuts would be in addition to the unilateral Soviet withdrawal of 50,000 troops and 5,000 tanks already under way in accordance with Soviet President Mikhail S. Gorbachev’s promise at the United Nations last year.

In the earlier “wait and see” phase, when President Bush and Cheney were expressing doubts about Soviet actions and intentions, U.S. sights were set on maximum reductions in Atlantic Alliance forces in the 10% range. This target seemed overly cautious. Now with the political structure of the Warsaw Pact rapidly weakening, deeper cuts appear entirely prudent.

Ten years ago, when I was director of military operations for U.S. Forces, Europe, I used to wonder how any Soviet marshal could confidently plan an attack on NATO knowing that all of his reinforcements and supplies would have to move forward along railroads and highways in Poland, Czechoslovakia and East Germany. Certainly he had to consider the possibility even then that extensive defections and sabotage were entirely possible in those nations. Now no military leader could rationally plan sustained offensive Soviet military operations in Western Europe. Still, the United States is spending as much as $150 billion a year for forces to defend against just such an attack. Phased reductions of up to half of our NATO-committed units could produce savings on the order of $50 billion a year by the end of the 1990s, with no loss of security for NATO.

Equal opportunities for savings exist in the nuclear field. The strategic arms reduction talks are well advanced in Geneva. Agreement to eliminate thousands of nuclear warheads could be reached in 1990.

The United States now aims about 12,000 strategic (long-range) nuclear weapons at the Soviet Union, and the Soviets aim about 11,000 similar weapons at us. START would cut those totals to about 7,000 to 8,000 on both sides, still far more than are needed for mutual nuclear deterrence but a step in the right direction. With major reductions in prospect, it makes absolutely no military or economic sense to be spending hundreds of billions on new nuclear missiles and bombers. Early termination of programs to build new offensive nuclear war-fighting systems (which we could never use without committing suicide) is the best possible way to take cuts and increase national security simultaneously. Savings of at least $25 billion a year could be achieved.

Other targets for major cuts are troop levels and conventional weapons designed to support a strategy that requires U.S. forces to be ready to fight any time, anywhere in the world. We no longer need 500,000 military men and women on 385 bases overseas for our defense, or defense of our allies. Reduction in those numbers from Korea and Japan as well as Europe is already overdue. Total savings in the force projection programs could save another $25 billion each year.

One more program should be eliminated immediately for political and military reasons. This is the manufacture of binary chemical weapons. It makes no sense for President Bush to call for the elimination of all chemical weapons on Earth at the same time the United States is the only nation actually producing modern chemical weapons. Savings would be only about $100 million a year, but U.S. leadership is essential to remove this inhumane weapon from military arsenals.

Yes, Secretary Cheney is correct when he says that real changes are taking place. They produce both opportunity and danger. If Washington responds intelligently and positively with well-planned reductions, we can guide and shape those changes to our benefit and save $100 billion a year in the process. Continuing to waste money on unneeded weapons will only add to the national debt, weaken our economy and reduce long-term national security.