From a speech yesterday by Rep. Les Aspin (D-Wis.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee:

The INF {intermediate-range nuclear forces} Treaty is essentially a done deal. I have my considerable doubts about it, but at this point more than simple nay-saying is called for. We now need to ask -- ahead of time -- where do we go from here?

One, for the INF deal to make sense, both sides have to abide by the SALT II limits on strategic weapons. Otherwise the Soviets can easily and legally circumvent the INF deal with their strategic systems. And the superpowers should move speedily toward a START agreement of reductions in the strategic arsenals by 50 percent.

Two, no more nuclear arms control for theater nuclear weapons and no more significant theater nuclear modernization. At this stage, this is the wrong place to focus our priorities.

Three, we can no longer ignore the disparity of conventional forces in Europe. The brunt of our energies should be spent creating conventional stability to deter Soviet aggression. Conventional stability should be the priority of our efforts.

Four, there are unilateral measures, relatively cheap, that we need to initiate in order to strengthen conventional stability. We should study and implement those I have recommended, and other measures toward this goal.

Five, there is a place for conventional arms control to augment our unilateral steps in creating conventional stability. It would be a profound mistake to rely upon conventional arms control as the solution, but it may help supplement our actions if successful. Our focus should be on reducing the Soviet tank threat, and cuts must be asymmetrical in our favor.