Posted on March 7th 1986
SDI: A Viable Defense
By Alex Linder
[ The following is from a forum thread posting. ]
[opinion published in Pomona College's The Student Life, Friday, March 7, 1986]
SDI: A Viable Defense
By Alex Linder
Saying that nuclear weapons could be rendered "impotent and obsolete," President Reagan first brought the concept of a space-based defense against nuclear weapons to public attention in a nationally televised speech three years ago this month. Since that time there has been much debate over the strategic and political implications of such a defense, alongside more fundamental questions regarding workability and cost. The preponderance of evidence, however, shows that "Star Wars" is not only physically feasible and cost effective but strategically imperative.
To understand why the implementation of a space shield is instrumental to the defense of the United States, one must look at the present alignment of forces between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. The U.S. relies on a strategic triad of land-based Minuteman missiles, B-52 bombers and Trident and Poseidon submarines. Under the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, the United States and the U.S.S.R. foreswore radar defenses of their cities and military installations and instead relied upon second-strike capability, or retaliation, to defend themselves and deter attacks. Thus, the ABM treaty essentially institutionalized the theory of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD).
The problem for the United States came as the Soviets began to develop an alarming first-strike capability over the rest of the decade and continuing into the 1980s. What with the "silo-busting" SS-18s of the so-called "fourth generation," the U.S.S.R. gained the ability to destroy and estimated 90-95 percent of the U.S. ICBM force. When this fact is taken in conjunction with the existence of massive Soviet air defenses, it becomes obvious that nearly two-thirds of the American strategic triad would be useless after a Soviet sneak attack. In fact, it is generally conceded that submarines at sea (as opposed to those in port) would be the only section of the triad to emerge unscathed from a Soviet first strike. And the Soviets, you may rest assured, are hard at work developing their anti-sub capabilities.
The upshot of this discussion is that an Ameriacn president would be left with no viable alternatives after a Russian first strike. The president would be left with three equally repugnant options: 1) launch on warning -- this would result in World War III, 2) order U.S. subs to fire on Russian cities (subs are incapable of destroying hardened military installations), which would result in little more than mutual suicide, 3) do nothing, which would leave the U.S. subject to nuclear coercion.
The answer to the strategic dilemma American currently faces is to abandon the ABM Treaty (which the Soviets have already violated by building a radar base in Krasnoyorsk, Siberia) and proceed full speed ahead with development and deployment of a space-based defensive system.
What, it will be asked, is the current state of "Star Wars" technology? According to Robert Jastrow, author of How to Make Nuclear Weapons Obsolete, "the technologies that are already in hand will allow us to put into place in the early 1990s, a simple but highly effective defense at a cost of roughly $60 billion." The defense Jastrow envisions consists of satellites containing "smart rocks" (101-pound non-nuclear projectiles) which they fire at Soviet missiles during their booster stage of flight. The second layer of this defense involves the shooting down of Russian missiles as they begin to descend toward earth at the end of their flight. That phase is called the terminal defense, and it makes use of small heat-seeking interceptors similar to "smart rocks." But this two-stage defense is only the beginning. "Star Wars" supporters envision what will eventually be a four-stage defense replete with lasers or possible particle-beam weapons that will be 80 percent effective on every level, resulting in a 99.8 percent success rate in stopping incoming missiles.
One of the major arguments against Star Wars is that unless it works perfectly it is useless, since if only one bomb got through it could cause tremendous damage. This argument is countered by pointing out that the main intent of "Star Wars" is to prevent a war. It has a great chance of succeeding because the Russian first-strike capability would be greatly weakened by a large surviving American retaliatory force.
Others say that American deployment of "Star Wars" would result in a pre-emptive Soviet attack. That argument, however, assumes that the Soviets would have no space shield of their own. In fact, in Jastrow's words, "the Soviets are working as hard as they can on their own missile defense program and have been for more than a decade." Hence, the Soviets already have a head start on the U.S.
Two final arguments frequently voiced by "Star Wars" opponents are that 1) the Soviets could overwhelm the space shield by merely flooding the atmosphere with decoys, and 2) they could build rockets with a fast-burn booster that would save the booster from some of our defenses. The problem with the first argument is that decoys are lighter and grow colder faster than the real warheads. U.S. satellites can pick up the differences in heat and thus concentrate on killing the real warheads. The second argument is refuted by pointing out that fast-burn boosters are less reliable because they tend to explode due to over-acceleration, they carry a smaller payload, and the "bus" is still susceptible to particle-beam weapons. Also it would cost the U.S.S.R. around $500 billion to replace all their old missiles with fast-burn boosters.
All in all, "Star Wars" is greatly needed by the United States to counter the Soviets' present first-strike ability. Instead of relying on perpetual Soviet rationality as a way of avoiding World War, "Star Wars" offers a viable, physical defense that may eventually be perfected, thus leading to a world in which nuclear weapons truly are "obsolete."//