Reflections on the Moral Debate over the Strategic Defense Initiative

Abstract

The moral debate over the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) has run its course in a surprisingly short period of time. The debate began less than six years ago when President Reagan initiated the SDI by setting forth a noble moral vision for the role of strategic defenses. The end of the debate has been signaled by the recent news report that the Pentagon is now promoting the SDI for its capacity to destroy Soviet satellites.1 This concludes the moral debate on an unfortunate note. The history of the SDI is a tale of moral decline. Because the debate, if not the program itself, is at an end, this is an appropriate time to reflect on what it has taught us. There are three lessons to be drawn from the moral debate. The first is the somewhat surprising lesson that morality counts in the area of military policy. The second lesson is less surprising. It is that the fundamental moral problem posed by nuclear weapons remains intractable. The third lesson is that, despite claims to the contrary, there is nothing morally special about the SDI defenses in comparison with other strategic weapons systems.