SALT's Price

An arms buildup?

Fireworks had been expected in the Senate's SALT II hearings as they shifted last week from the generally sympathetic Foreign Relations Committee to the Armed Services Committee. Not only is the Armed Services panel more familiar with the weaponry covered by SALT, but also a number of committee members have been outspoken critics of the accord. Yet the treaty had smooth sailing last week, except for occasional heated exchanges sparked by Senator Henry ("Scoop") Jackson, the powerful Democrat from the state of Washington, who is a leading SALT foe.

While grilling Defense Secretary Harold Brown, Jackson charged that the Administration had failed to comply with a law that he had sponsored in 1972. It requests that future arms agreements set equal levels for the strategic forces of both the U.S. and U.S.S.R. Because SALT II allows the Soviets to have more powerful missiles than the U.S., argued Jackson, there would be no equality under the pact. Said he to Brown: "A team of giants and a team of dwarfs might have equal numbers of players, but they are hardly equal." To which the Secretary retorted: "If the dwarfs are just as strong and agile and able as the giants, that's not an unequal equation."

Brown's piercing rejoinder was typical of his performance at the Senate hearings, where he has emerged as the most effective SALT seller. While Brown has urged approval of the accord, he stressed that U.S. military forces must be bolstered to offset Moscow's continuing arms buildup. That SALT II would be no substitute for accelerated U.S. defense spending was argued even more strongly by five other witnesses, the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Chairman David Jones warned the Committee against "the risk that SALT II could be allowed to become a tranquilizer to the American people." Said he: "If the nation accepts the SALT II agreement, it does so with a full understanding that we will be required to undertake a series of important strategic modernization programs."

Recently retired NATO Commander Alexander Haig Jr. seconded this. Said he: "The global balance of power is viewed in Europe as shifting against us, and we can no longer ignore it." During a break in the hearing, Haig disclosed that "as of today, I could not go along with SALT II." While expressing firm doubts about the pact, he indicated that he might accept it if its ratification would mark "the turnaround of a perceived period of drift in U.S. leadership" and a commitment for a larger strategic arms budget.

Treaty backers found some small hope in Haig's vague statement. They were even more cheered by an unexpectedly early signal from Senator Sam Nunn. The Georgia Democrat announced that he would vote for SALT II if annual defense spending were boosted about 5% (after inflation) for the next five years. Said he: "In the absence of such a commitment, the SALT II treaty will become nothing more than an instrument for registering emerging Soviet military superiority."

Because Nunn is a respected defense expert whose opinion is certain to influence several undecided Senators, the White House has regarded his backing as essential for the pact's approval. Administration aides indicated privately that they were prepared to negotiate with the Georgian, though accepting his terms risks angering some doves.

As the third week of Senate SALT hearings ended, a consensus seemed to be emerging among a key group of Senators, ranging from moderate left to moderate right. They seem willing to endorse the accord, as long as the Administration goes along with increased defense spending to ensure that the nation will preserve its strategic deterrent.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.