In the united states in the 1990’s, cuts in defense spending have been proposed because -

The United States could reduce its defense budget from $305 billion to $160 billion in the next 10 years without undermining its global commitments or its posture in arms control negotiations with the Soviets, according to a study to be published next month by the Brookings Institution. The study's author, MIT professor emeritus William W. Kaufmann, a defense analyst who wrote or contributed to military force posture statements for defense secretaries from Robert S. McNamara to Harold Brown, said in an interview that his plan could save about $500 billion in 10 years. Kaufmann's 100-page study, commissioned last April, may take on greater significance as an early policy blueprint at a time when the Bush administration and Congress begin seeking big reductions in military spending in the 1990s. {Wall Street reacted to new talk of defense cuts yesterday by sharply reducing the value of the stocks of major defense contractors. Details on Page C1.} Former Reagan administration defense official Lawrence J. Korb also said yesterday that the Bush administration urgently needs a well-thought-out plan to contract the armed forces "in recognition of the political-fiscal realities" in a changing world. Brown, defense secretary under President Jimmy Carter, said annual U.S. defense spending could drop to $160 billion in 10 years "if the political situation remains stable." "My concern," he added, "is that they will do it in three years." Kaufmann said an advance copy of his study has been provided to officials in the Office of Management and Budget, where Director Richard G. Darman is said by Pentagon officials to be pressing for even greater cuts in military spending. Bush administration officials, including Defense Secretary Richard B. Cheney, are now stating publicly that political disintegration in Eastern Europe's Warsaw Pact military alliance has brought the threat of East-West confrontation to an all-time low. Cheney said last week that he is recommending that the administration make substantial cuts in the 1991 defense budget, but he refused to disclose any details. Various sources have estimated the cuts at between $10 billion and $20 billion. The 1991 budget proposal will go to the White House for final decision next month and will be submitted to Congress in January. Fiscal 1991 begins Oct. 1. Congress has authorized a $305 billion spending plan for fiscal 1990. In addition, Cheney has told Pentagon comptroller Sean O'Keefe to instruct the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines to prepare budget cuts that would allow the Pentagon budget to shrink 2 percent per year in the three fiscal years 1992-1994, according to senior defense officials. The Bush administration's five-year defense spending plan, presented to Congress earlier this year, called for an average increase in defense spending of slightly less than 2 percent a year. Some officials have said that the difference between Bush's five-year plan and the budget targets being set by Cheney's comptroller amount to a reduction of $180 billion from what the military services were counting on as growth. Cuts of the size proposed by O'Keefe would hold defense outlays to a level slightly below current spending. Cheney met for more than four hours yesterday with the chiefs of the military services, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, Gen. Colin L. Powell, civilian secretaries and Pentagon budget officials. The session represented the final formal opportunity for the armed services to appeal specific reductions in their budgets before they go to the president. In his study, Kaufmann noted that U.S. defense budgets have been declining since 1985, but, he added, "a good deal more can be taken out of defense without any damage to current defense commitments." "A first step in this direction," he continued, "would be to halt the rush to produce a next generation of weapons that is now in the acquisition pipeline -- at a cumulative cost of more than $117 billion." Among Kaufmann's major recommendations for the first five years of his plan are:Army: Cut one active-duty division in the United States and keep present force levels in Europe until a conventional-forces reduction agreement is signed with the Soviets. Postpone high-technology battlefield weapons development. Air Force: Scale back the B-2 "stealth" force to 13 bombers and conduct rigorous testing. Cancel the new C-17 cargo plane and buy more C-5B transports. Defer production of the Advanced Tactical Aircraft; cut back the F-15E fighter jet and build some B-1B bombers to carry air-launched cruise missiles. Navy: Eliminate two of the 14 aircraft carrier battle groups. Cancel the SSN-21 attack submarine program and substitute more 688-class boats. Postpone the Navy's Advanced Tactical Fighter and drastically reduce production of new destroyers, amphibious ships and the AMRAAM missile. Marines: Defer production of the V-22 tilt-prop Osprey transport. Strategic programs: Cancel the MX Rail Garrison strategic missile and the Midgetman missile and focus on maintaining a survivable strategic deterrent based on Trident ballistic-missile submarines; continue a limited number of B-1B bombers and B-52s carrying air-launched cruise missiles; build a limited number of B-2 bombers and maintain land-based Minuteman III missiles. Meanwhile, cancel the new-generation D-5 Trident II missile. Cheney, in an interview last week, said he had not yet seen Kaufmann's study, a copy of which was provided to The Washington Post. But speaking of cutting the defense budget in half over 10 years, he said, "I don't think so. I think that is far too low." "The fact is that part of our requirements are driven by Soviet capabilities," Cheney continued, "but by no means is that the only thing we have to worrry about. We are a global power with global interests and global responsibilities."