A Slimmed-Down NATO Taking Shape : Military: Gen. Galvin says it is time to discard alliance’s oldest and most hallowed concepts.

While European leaders of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization grope for a new strategy in the post-Cold War period, the alliance’s military commander, Gen. John R. Galvin, is providing some guidelines for such a doctrine.

At a recent seminar of diplomats, soldiers and academics at the Konrad Adenauer Foundation in this Bonn suburb, Galvin spelled out his vision of a new, slimmed-down NATO force for the years to come.

The white-haired, four-star U.S. general indicated that some of NATO’s oldest and most hallowed concepts, having served their purpose, are on the way out.

These include “flexible response,” which envisioned possible early use of tactical nuclear weapons, if needed, against a Soviet mass attack; and “forward defense,” which called for positioning troops as far east as possible in what used to be West Germany.

Galvin said he believes that NATO’s nuclear deterrent will suffice with a “greatly reduced stockpile” because there will be a much longer “nuclear threshold,” particularly after new conventional arms cuts in Europe.

And “forward defense,” previously insisted upon by West Germans because of domestic political considerations, will no longer be needed because of the buffer zone created by changing political conditions in Eastern Europe.

While the new doctrine has not yet been agreed upon by NATO’s 16 member nations or even formulated by its planners, Galvin suggested that an educated guess indicates much of what the new strategy will be. The main changes include:

* Greatly reducing troop strength in Europe among all allies, particularly those stationed in Germany, possibly cutting U.S. forces in Germany to a single corps of ground troops, with backup logistic and air support.

* Developing a more mobile force among the thinned-out units in order to cover the same area. This would mean troops would not be stationed right up against the German-Polish border but in a more central location.

* Reducing the number of headquarters units, though Galvin said such command and control elements are an essential component of the integrated military structure of NATO.

* Placing only limited reliance on short-range, battlefield nuclear weapons, possibly phasing them out almost entirely eventually.

* Bringing in chemical weapons only in case of an emergency buildup by a potential enemy force.

* Cutting large-scale maneuvers and low-flying training missions by jet fighters to a minimum in order to spare the citizenry.

* Forming more multinational units, even though, because of differing languages and equipment, their value remains to be tested.

* Emphasizing further arms cuts that could be negotiated between NATO and the Soviet Union, with NATO continually adapting its tactics to such reductions.

However, Galvin, who has held his post for more than three years, emphasized to questioning Germans that this is no time to consider dismantling NATO, which, he said, has served its members well for more than 40 years.

“There is no substitute for NATO’s integrated military structure,” he said, indicating that such a system is unique in the post-World War II world.

But he acknowledged that the current crisis in the Persian Gulf has focused military and public attention, particularly in the United States, outside the borders of NATO members.

In the United States, he noted, some critics have said that NATO members should have provided more forces for service in the gulf region. Galvin said that after the crisis is over, NATO members will discuss whether the alliance should consider out-of-area action when the vital interests of its members are involved.