End of the Big Buildup

When he was elected in 1980, Ronald Reagan warned that the U.S. was facing a security threat from the Soviet Union so great that only a massive infusion of funds could possibly check it. In the ensuing years, he and Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger saw to it that a fundamental component of the Reagan Revolution was a military buildup unrivaled in peacetime history. Suddenly, because of exigencies on the home front, that is coming to a halt. Reagan's surprising acquiescence raises a critical question: Will the budget freeze unleash all the dangers that he has warned against?

"This is not encouraging for people interested in the national security," a subdued Weinberger said from his vacation home in Maine after the Senate vote. Earlier this year he testified that a freeze on the defense budget would cause a "delay of about three or four years in the present schedule of the B-1 . . . and mean a 38% reduction of tactical aircraft, a 50% reduction in Army and Air Force helicopters."

Others are less worried about the Pentagon's ability to cope. "The Commander in Chief thought it was all right," noted Robert Dole. Most major weapons systems, like the B-1B bomber, are too far into production to be cut significantly. "They have basically got the buildup already structured and will be able to carry on most of the existing programs," says Stephen Daggett of the Center for Defense Information, a liberal Washington group. Most likely to face elimination are those on the verge of making the transition from development to production. Among them: the Sergeant York battlefield air defense gun (DIVAD) and the advanced medium-range air-to-air missile (AMRAAM), both of which have been plagued by testing and cost problems.

Rather than eliminate most weapons, the Pentagon will probably stretch out production runs, which will end up being more expensive in the long term. In addition, research and development, which has blossomed under the Reagan spigot, may come under fire, perhaps even threatening the future of the Star Wars initiative. As in past years, training, spare parts and operations may suffer most because cuts in these areas are less visible than the abandonment of entire weapons systems. Says former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger: "We will see a decline in readiness." Pentagon officials hope that Congress will be flexible in imposing the freeze. "All we hope is that it's balanced," says Assistant Defense Secretary Lawrence Korb. "If they funded airplanes before, we want them to fund pilots and runways now. Don't buy guns without buying ammunition."

"We'll cut the things that hurt us the least, not the things we need the most," Weinberger said. But he is hoping for, and seems to be counting on, a supplemental appropriation later this year. Under the freeze, Weinberger said, "we'd have to give up a lot of very useful things. With the supplemental, we could put it all back."