Weapons Experts React Favorably

President Bush’s sweeping plan to reduce nuclear weapons in the U.S. and Soviet arsenals drew generally favorable reviews Saturday from arms-control specialists and scholars, but there were some criticisms, too.

While Bush’s decision to scrap short-range nuclear weapons in Europe drew overwhelming praise, some critics said he should have seized the chance to propose far deeper cuts in long-range weapons as well.

A leading American expert also said the President’s plan for trimming the number of missiles with multiple warheads was flawed because it would require the Soviet Union to make far greater reductions than the United States and thus would be unacceptable to Moscow.

But the specialists agreed that Bush seized the right moment to recognize new military realities in Europe and vastly changed Soviet conditions that could make a major breakthrough possible without years of tedious arms-control negotiations.

“The plan is far more momentous with regard to tactical (short-range) weapons,” said Edward L. Warner III, an arms-control expert with the RAND Corp. “It could set the stage for mutual destruction of tens of thousands of nuclear weapons on both sides.”

Surprisingly, none of the specialists interviewed by The Times raised concerns that the President might be disarming unilaterally or taking undue risks at a time when few dare to predict the long-term stability of the Soviet government.

Noting that the President could reverse course in the event of a new crisis, Warner said: “In all these areas we hedged our bets.”

Richard N. Perle, a former assistant secretary of defense with a reputation as a hard-liner toward the Soviets, praised Bush’s plan as reasonably balanced.

“It’s quite an extraordinary move--the single largest unilateral reduction in nuclear weapons since we dropped the atomic bombs on Japan,” Perle said. “I think it’s a good move. If it isn’t reciprocated, there obviously will be second thoughts about it.”

Paul C. Warnke, chief arms negotiator during the Jimmy Carter Administration, described Bush’s proposals as sound policy that is appropriate for the aftermath of the Cold War.

“It’s a very useful move, but it doesn’t cost us a damn thing,” Warnke said, noting that destruction of tactical battlefield missiles would reassure Europe, while the Soviet counterparts to those missiles pose no threat to this country because of their short range.

Similarly, he said the withdrawal of all nuclear-tipped missiles from surface ships and submarines would not put the United States at a disadvantage, and Soviet reciprocity could be verified easily.

But Warnke said the President’s proposal to eliminate multiple warheads from land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles would require the Soviet Union to make far larger reductions than the United States did.

“If we’re serious about eliminating the (multiple-warhead) missiles, we have to throw something else in,” Warnke said.

Criticism of Bush’s plan came from several specialists who said the United States and Soviet Union both have far too many strategic weapons and could reduce the present combined total of 19,000 to far lower levels.

“President Bush was right. We have a historic opportunity. But it’s not clear that he used it,” said Lee Feinstein, assistant director for research of the Arms Control Assn.

The reduction of long-range weapons below the number negotiated in the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, will be relatively limited, Feinstein said.

Jonathan Dean, arms-control adviser for the Union of Concerned Scientists, said Bush’s plan properly took account of opportunities following the failed coup in the Soviet Union and the additional risk that Soviet nuclear weapons may slip out of control.

“But we think we should go down to 1,000 to 2,000 warheads (for each country),” Dean said. He also said the President failed to address the rising danger from nuclear proliferation.

Kurt Gottfriend, a professor of physics at Cornell University, said the President’s plan was a very important turning point in the history of arms control.

But he said the proposal to reduce multiple warheads would require the Soviets to eliminate three warheads for every one the United States would give up, adding: “This isn’t going to fly.”

Other specialists said this plan had been around for a decade or more without winning Soviet acceptance, so it might be negotiable only as part of a larger package of arms-reduction agreements.

Robin Ranger, an independent arms-control consultant for the Pentagon and the Canadian Defense Ministry, credited the President with advancing a new arms-control strategy by offering to cut nuclear weapons first, provided that the Soviet Union reciprocates.

“In very broad-brush terms, it’s a truly far-reaching, statesmanlike initiative,” Ranger said.

At the same time, he suggested that Bush’s renewed advocacy of the B-2 Stealth bomber is more difficult to justify, adding: “It’s hard to think of a mission for the B-2 that would be worth the cost.” The B-2 is now priced at $865 million each.

Feinstein made a similar point, noting that the President’s proposal would do little to cut the $291-billion U.S. defense budget, a record spending level for peacetime. “Where are the savings?” he asked.

Rep. Les Aspin (D-Wis.), chairman of the House Armed Services committee, praised Bush’s plan but said it would not lower defense outlays very much because the weapons already have been acquired.

“I think that the tension between the amount spent on defense and on domestic programs will still be there,” Aspin said on a televised interview program, CNN Special Report.

Vanishing Warheads

America’s tactical land-based nuclear weapons will be scrapped on three continents.

In United States

1 battalion (31 Lance Battlefield Support Missile launchers)

99 battalions (1,842 M109 Self-Propelled 155mm Howitzer or M198 Medium Towed 155 Medium Howitzer guns)

36 battalions (468 M110A2 Self-Propelled 8-inch Howitzer guns)

In Europe

5 battalions (40 Lance Battlefield Support Missile launchers)

15 battalions (360 M109 Self-Propelled 155mm Howitzer or M198 Medium Towed 155 Medium Howitzer guns)

12 battalions (288 M110A2 Self-Propelled 8-inch Howitzer guns)

In South Korea

1 battalion (2 Lance Battlefield Support Missile launchers)

3 battalions (72 M109 Self-Propelled 155mm Howitzer or M198 Medium Towed 155 Medium Howitzer guns)

1 battalion (24 M110A2 Self-Propelled 8-inch Howitzer guns)