U.S. Won’t Revamp Nuclear Arms Policies : National security: Clinton agrees not to accelerate reductions in forces, stockpiles due to Russia’s instability. Critics call stance ‘Cold War lite.’

President Clinton has decided to continue the nation’s current nuclear weapons policies essentially unchanged, despite earlier suggestions by some officials that he might cut U.S. nuclear forces more sharply, the Pentagon said Thursday.

The decision, which the President made last Friday at a meeting with his national security advisers, follows the recommendations of a yearlong Pentagon review aimed at hammering out a new role for nuclear weapons in the wake of the Cold War.

Initially, senior Administration officials had suggested that the study, begun by former Defense Secretary Les Aspin, call on the Administration to radically revamp the nation’s nuclear forces, reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal and possibly pledge not to be the first to launch a nuclear strike.

However, Aspin’s successor, William J. Perry, argued that the current instability in Russia--which raises the possibility that a totalitarian government might one day resume power--still is too great to permit the United States to reduce its arsenal more quickly.

Clinton’s decision essentially postpones indefinitely any new nuclear arms-reduction talks with Moscow beyond the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties I and II, which already have been negotiated. START II still has not been ratified either by Russia or the United States.

At the same time, however, the policy would provide a hedge against whatever transpires in Russia by allowing Washington either to speed up its arms-reduction efforts, or recall some warheads from reserves.

White House officials speeded up the study so that the decision would be completed in time for the summit meeting Clinton is to hold Tuesday and Wednesday with Russian President Boris N. Yeltsin. Arms-control issues are high on the agenda.

Unclear for the moment was what impact the Administration’s refusal to reduce the U.S. arsenal further would have in the push to win renewal of the international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in March.

Third World countries have warned that they plan to insist that the current nuclear powers take additional steps to reduce their nuclear armaments before they will support a renewal. Extending--and possibly strengthening--the treaty is one of Clinton’s key goals.

Arms-control advocates reacted sharply to the President’s decision. The Natural Resources Defense Council issued a statement branding the policy “Cold War lite.” If Clinton really fears Russian instability, it said, he should speed up weapons destruction, not slow it.

But Perry insisted that the policy is on target, asserting that it was only prudent to provide some hedges in the face of current uncertainties. He added that Moscow was visibly behind schedule in reducing its nuclear arsenal.

Here are the major elements of Clinton’s decision:

* Reduction of U.S. nuclear weapons will continue on its current schedule, with Washington cutting its 6,000-warhead arsenal to about 3,500 under the START II treaty--enough to destroy some 2,500 Russian targets.

* The nation will continue its nuclear “triad,” in which some nuclear warheads are carried by bombers, submarines and intercontinental ballistic missiles. Some analysts had suggested that the Administration destroy all its land-based missiles because they are so vulnerable.

* The strategic nuclear force will be reduced at the current pace. The study calls for retaining 14 Trident submarines, four fewer than present levels, 66 B-52 bombers instead of the 94 planned, and 450 to 500 of the 600 Minuteman III missiles with single warheads now on hand.

* The United States will continue to refuse to pledge that it will not be the first to launch a nuclear strike, even though Moscow has announced a no-first-use policy. The Pentagon argued that the uncertainty serves as a deterrent to would-be aggressors.

Administration officials said the proposals for more radical reductions, advocated by Aspin’s staff and by some members of the National Security Council, were rejected by military leaders, who campaigned vigorously to head off any significant cutbacks.

And Pentagon officials said Perry himself moved to alter an earlier version of the plan in order to increase the number of warheads that the United States would retain. There were no immediate details on what the lower figure would have mandated.