Dangers of limited SDI

Abstract

Recent efforts to redefine the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) are mostly aimed at building support for a system to defend US land-based missiles. This is thought to be a more feasible goal than President Reagan's dream of an impregnable shield to defend the US population against ballistic missiles. But a feasible idea is not necessarily a good one. While chasing the population-defense fantasy would destroy the existing arms control regime and waste the national treasure of money and talent, defending land-based missiles would be dangerous and destabilizing. Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger held fast to the idea of population defense in January, when he told the Senate Armed Services Committee that even early deployments of SDI systems that could be developed in the near future should be the first phase of a system that would protect the continent. But such statements may reflect the administration's determination to do away with the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty more than its belief that population defense is a reasonable goal. The author notes that, to those longstanding problems of defense decision making, they must now add the pressures of SDI. Furthermore, whatever the motives of those who advocate redirecting SDI, it is clear that concernsmore » about the vulnerability of land-based missiles could be addressed in more sensible ways. 5 references.« less