(7 of 10)
Conventional Forces in Europe. Although the Soviets are now hesitating, perhaps in response to Reagan's current political weakness, one test is already close to bearing fruit: Reagan's "zero-option" challenge to eliminate Soviet and American nuclear missiles from Europe. The removal of medium- and shorter-range missiles, however, would weaken the West's capacity to deter a conventional Soviet attack. Thus, the key to the Soviets' intentions, in the words of James Schlesinger, lies in how they answer the question "Are they willing to bring about an alleviation of the military threat against Western Europe?"
The Soviets claim to be. Gorbachev has called for reducing conventional arms to a level of "reasonable sufficiency." Said he: "In the European building, every apartment is entitled to protect itself against burglars, but only in such a way as not to demolish the next-door apartment." His top propagandist, Alexander Yakovlev, is even more forceful about cutting conventional forces. "We are prepared for the most radical steps along these lines," he told New Perspectives Quarterly, a California-based political journal. Encouraging words -- but in more than 13 years of negotiations with the West over mutual troop reductions, the Soviets have not agreed to remove a single soldier from Eastern Europe.
One factor that cannot be changed is geography. If Moscow simply pulls some of its tanks and troops out of Eastern Europe, this will do little to ease the long-term threat that the overwhelming Soviet numbers could pose to Western Europe. What is required is a basic change in the way the Soviet Union deploys its military forces: a shift from an offensive-force posture to one that is structured for defensive purposes. Senator Gore, who visited Moscow in June, reports that the Soviets seem willing now to discuss deployment tactics. "They offered to talk about restructuring of forces on both sides to lead to a defensive posture," he says.
Stragetic Nuclear Forces. The critical question, says Hyland, is whether Gorbachev is willing "to recognize something along the lines of our version of stability." That would require the Soviets to cut their huge arsenal of silo-busting warheads, which pose a first-strike threat that could pre-empt the ability of the U.S. to retaliate. Some Soviet officials say they have come to accept the U.S. concepts of parity and are willing to go further by cutting back to a level of "minimal deterrence." That would involve each side keeping only enough weapons to assure that it could retaliate credibly. The weapons would be deployed in a manner, such as atop single-warhead mobile missiles, that made them less of a first-strike threat.