Convinced that fewer men with better weapons can equal the fire power of World War II's sprawling armies, the Defense Department has asked for budget paring draft reductions in the next fiscal year. Ordinarily draft cuts are welcome, especially around colleges. But the saving of men and money that Secretary Wilson hopes to make are at best a gamble. That atomic weapons will provide better defense is something only a battle can decide. And by that time it may be too late.

Military manpower cuts are more than a matter of national concern; they can undermine the whole structure of Western defenses. With fifteen of our twenty-three Army and Marine divisions already abroad, the proposed reductions will demand a careful reallocation of forces. Troops will be brought home to defend the continental United States, with the hope that European armies will be able to fill in the gaps. The uniformed GI with his rifle has been the symbol of security for Western Europe. His loss as a psychological support cannot be easily made up.

Many observers have wondered how effective our atomic punch actually is. There are obvious practical limitations to Mr. Wilson's new approach to defense. No striking force of any substantial size, trained in the use of atomic weapons, yet exists. Aside from a few experimental units, the services continue to rely on more conventional explosives.

Moreover, the atomic arms are weapons of total war. Present tactics rule out their use in smaller, localized conflicts like that in Korea. Baby A-bombs were available for use in Korea. But they were not used because atomic retaliation on a larger scale loomed as an inevitable result. In the event of another localized out-break, in Korea again, or in Indo-China or Malaya, the need will once more be for foot-soldiers with conventional weapons, and not for atomic missiles.

The Pentagon's new approach to defense is designed to permit tax cuts. But gambling for a balanced budget with manpower cuts and A-bombs is precarious business. Until a large scale atomic defense becomes practical, the services will have to keep their manpower strength at its present level. The Administration may find the proposed tax reductions unfeasible; there are no bargains in security. But if the cost is high, it is still within the price range of the richest nation in the world.