"Salt Ii Is Finito"

By Jacob V. Lamar Jr

The first reactions were ho-hum, noting that the glass was, depending on the perspective, either half empty or half full. What Ronald Reagan announced on Tuesday confirmed weeks of leaks: the U.S. would stay in compliance with the SALT II treaty for the moment by dismantling two Poseidon missile-firing submarines to make way for a newly launched Trident sub, but it would also continue equipping B-52 bombers with cruise missiles at a pace that will break the treaty's limits by year's end. It looked like a typical something-for- both-doves-and-hawks move, leaving in doubt which was more important: the continued compliance or the pending violation.

But by week's end it became obvious that the Administration was virtually declaring SALT dead--killed, it claimed, by repeated Soviet violations. Reagan's rhetoric, and follow-up comments by Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and Secretary of State George Shultz, indicated that last week's announcement amounted to a major shift in U.S. policy. It was a change that incurred the wrath of many of America's NATO allies as well as the Soviet Union, and may have hurt chances of a second Reagan-Gorbachev summit this year.

After more than five years of adhering to a treaty that the Senate has never ratified and that Reagan the Candidate called "fatally flawed," hard- liners in the Administration have just about won their battle to render the accord null and void. In his announcement last week, Reagan stressed that the Poseidons were being dismantled primarily because they are old and inefficient and would cost too much to refurbish. Accusing the Soviets of committing a pattern of treaty violations, Reagan said that once the number of cruise missiles on B-52 bombers puts the U.S. over the SALT II limits (probably by December), there will be no compensating reduction to observe the treaty.

Reagan did leave a crack in the door for reconsideration, saying that between now and the time the U.S. exceeds the limit, the U.S.S.R. could "take the constructive steps necessary to alter the current situation." But that hardly encouraged advocates of compliance. One official involved in arms control policy described Reagan as "fed up" with the arguments over adherence to the treaty. "The debate is over," said he. "He's made his decision and that's it. SALT II is finito."

The day after Reagan's declaration, Weinberger told reporters who accompanied him to West Point for a commencement address that "we are no longer bound by that flawed agreement." On NBC-TV's Today show he stated that the U.S. will take whatever steps it feels necessary for national security, and never mind what the treaty says. Said he: "Our security requirements will be the primary, indeed, the only concern. Whether you're technically in compliance (with SALT) or not is a totally irrelevant factor."

Shultz, though he has long been an advocate of sticking with SALT II, was blunt. At a meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Halifax, N.S., he described the agreement, which would have expired in 1985, as "obsolete, unratified and being violated." He stressed that the Administration is interested in drastic reductions in nuclear arsenals and said that from now on the U.S. will decide its arms policy on Soviet behavior, including human rights violations and actions in Afghanistan, Nicaragua and Cambodia.

Shultz's remarks were not well received by the allies. In a welcoming speech, Canada's Minister of External Affairs Joe Clark dispensed with diplomatic circumlocution, calling President Reagan's decision "a profoundly disturbing development." The three-hour closed-door session that followed was described as a "lively exchange." British Foreign Secretary Sir Geoffrey Howe told participants, "We believe that SALT II provides the basis for a good agreement, and we would very much regret it if the Americans felt obliged to break it." Shultz argued, to no avail. The room was unanimously, and strenuously, against him.

The Soviets denounced the U.S. policy shift, and suggested that the treaty renunciation undermines the prospects for another summit. A government statement dismissed Reagan's charges of Soviet transgressions as "unfounded from beginning to end. There have not been and are no such violations." The Soviets also promised to respond to any U.S. arms buildup: "The American side should have no illusions that it will obtain military advantages for itself at the expense of others."

Abandoning SALT II would, in fact, pose some serious dangers to the U.S., because the Soviets are in a far better position to "break out" of the ceilings with a rapid increase in their arsenals. The Administration claims that Moscow has committed violations; however, the Soviets have also dismantled hundreds of older nuclear delivery systems in accordance with the limits set by the treaty. At a press conference last week, Paul Warnke, a former arms control negotiator, and Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense in the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations, warned that the Soviets could take very dangerous steps in short order if they no longer felt at all bound to SALT II. Among them: digging new silos for additional missiles, replacing single warhead missiles with MIRVed ones and adding more warheads to already MIRVed missiles like the mammoth SS-18s (that now hold 10 warheads in accordance with SALT II).

Although the Administration is aware of that scenario, it contends that both sides may continue to observe what Shultz called "a de facto form of mutual restraint." Nevertheless, Reagan maintains that only a dramatic change in Soviet behavior would cause him to alter his new stand. Could a significant turnaround in Soviet policy actually be on the horizon? "We do not expect that," says a U.S. official. "Not in compliance, not in modernization, not in negotiation."

With reporting by Johanna McGeary and Barrett Seaman/Washington