THE DEBATE OVER SDI

THE POLICY:

On March 23, 1983, President Ronald Reagan made a speech on national defense. He shocked the nation with his proposal to initiate research on a space-based strategic defense system which could render nuclear weapons obsolete. This was called the Strategic Defence Initiative, or SDI. SDI was an alternative to Ònuclear-freezeÓ, and in fact the freeze movement, begun by millions of Americans in reaction to ReaganÕs military build-up, collapsed. The initiative also interfered with the military logic of ÒMutual Assured DestructionÓ (MAD) on which the nuclear race was founded. MAD assured that the US must be able to have enough nuclear weapons to destroy all cities in the USSR, for they had enough to destroy all cities in the US. If SDI worked, MAD would be rendered obsolete, for the US could protect its cities without destroying all of the USSRÕs. Most newspapers and journals did not support ReaganÕs SDI (chidingly called ÒStar WarsÓ), criticizing the plan as an attempt to militarize space and avoid the cessation of nuclear build-up.


THE LEFT vs THE RIGHT

St. Louis Post-Dispatch
March 23, 1983
ÒA Star Wars DefenseÓ

This article, in a usually pro-Reagan paper, argues that ReaganÕs SDI is Ònoble rhetoric,Ó Òhis address was an intensely political one, intended to sell to the American people his extravagant military buildup.Ó
The article goes on to argue that SDI is Òone of the most dangerous, ill-considered defense propositions that any president has ever put before the nation.Ó
The author exerts that Reagan, with SDI, is proposing to escalate the arms race in space. ÒThe Reagan plan would cost untold billions, involve a research and development effort that would rival the scope of the Manhattan Project (and provide less assurance of success) and, in the end, leave the America no more secure than it is now.Ó
The author contends that if ReaganÕs plan does work, the chance of nuclear war between the superpowers would be increased; for the Soviets may think that with an effective space defense, the US could launch a first-strike. If the Soviets launch and all-out ballistic missile attack, or a cruise missile strike, the US would be extremely vulnerable, with no assurance of protection.
All in all, the author projects that SDI is an indicator that Reagan is Òholding out the pie-in-the-sky prospect of nuclear immunity as an excuse to spend trillions in the next few years on the Pentagon...Ó The conclusion argues that, ÒNeither the people nor Congress should be fooled. The Reagan military program is excessive and must be cut back. His proposal to militarize space must be seen for the reckless new step in the arms race that it is.Ó

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
June/July 1983
ÒOnward and Upward with Space DefenseÓ

This Bulletin article published a number of testimonies dealing with the SDI debate from scientists, Reagan administration spokespeople, and editors.
Former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency Daniel O. Graham is quoted from the Wall Street Journal, April 8, 1983:
Graham contends that Reagan cannot wait for a technological consensus to form inside the government. By that time, the Soviets will buy the technology from the US or Europe using Internation Monetary Fund credits and build their own. Reagan should use current technology to develope a defense system...
Harold Brown, former US Secretary of Defense, warned against technology that could create a ÒFortress AmericaÓ:
Brown warns that because Òa single weapon can destroy a city of hundreds of thousands,Ó that Òonly a perfect defense (which, moreover, works perfectly the first time) will suffice.Ó
Brown argues that the prospects for finding a technical solution to the preservation of modern society seems Òvery poor.Ó Furthermore, the Òeffort to attain such technical solutions could itself be quite dangerous if it created an illusion that such a solution has been achieved or is likely to be.Ó
Washington Post, March 27, 1983
Director of the Stanford Linear Accelerator at Stanford University Wolfgang K.H. Panofsky was quoted in the San Jose Mercury News on April 7, 1983 as saying:
ÒThe problem is that you cannot coerce technology by a policy decision.Ó Panofsky pointed out that with the initial move to build nuclear weapons and make the trip to the moon, Òexhaustive and careful studies indicating these projects to be feasibleÓ predeceded the executive decisions to go through with the efforts.
The scientist points out that no study has indicated the feasibility of a Òmassive, impenetrable defenseÓ system; furthermore, Òthe risk [of nuclear war] will not be ameliorated but will only be increased if we add yet another layer of weaponry, rather than reducing what we already have...Ó
In conclusion, Panofsky points to yet another risk of ReaganÕs SDI. He argues that, in the event that an effective defense shield surrounding the US is achieved, Òthen this could support the view that nuclear war fighting under the cover of that umbrella might become acceptable. For all these reasons, I consider the presidential initiative to be ill-advised.Ó
Kurt Gottfried, a physicist at Cornell University, was quoted in the Los Angeles Times on April 13, 1983 as saying:
Ò...we are neglecting the imminent and real threat of nuclear proliferation to chase after an unattainable defense in the unforseeable future.Ó The physicist notes that ReaganÕs SDI is based on Òscience fictionÓ, goes against the ABM Treaty, and would require a whole new arsenal to defend Òlaser battle stationsÓ in space.

ÒPEACE AND NATIONAL SECURITYÓ ADDRESS
March 23, 1983
By Ronald Reagan

In this speech, President Reagan expresses concern over the logic of the arms race. He points out that, to date, all initiatives have been to stregnthen the offensive capabilities, retaliation and mutual threat, of the US to address the military stregnth of the USSR.
ÒWould it not be better to save lives than to avenge them? Are we not capable of demonstrating our peaceful intentions by applying all our abilities and our ingenuity to achieving a truly lasting stability? I think we are- indeed, we must!Ó
Reagan proposed to the American people that the US Òembark on a program to counter the awesome Soviet missile threat with measures that are defensive.Ó He proposed a defense system that could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles Òbefore they reached our own soil or that of our allies..Ó
The President asked the nation: ÒBut is it not worth every investment necessary to free the world from the threat of nuclear war?Ó
The thrust of the PresidentÕs speech is as follows: Ò... I clearly recognize that defensive systems have limitations and raise certain problems... But with these considerations firmly in mind, I call upon the scientific community who have us nuclear weapons to turn their great talents to the cause of mankind and world peace; to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.Ó

Manchester (New Hampshire) Union Leader
March 25, 1983
ÒWhy Not Try Survival?Ó

The Union Leader heralds President Reagan for replacing Mutual Assured Destruction with what they deem ÒMutual Assured Survival.Ó The paper quotes columnist Phyllis Schlafly as saying that because SDI wonÕt kill a single human being, there is nothing for the pacifists to be agitated about.
The article goes on to criticize pacifists and scientists who are against SDI. The Union Leader argues that the fear that Òthe Russians would feel threatened [if the US developes the capability to shoot down Soviet-launched ICBMs] and perhaps launch a preemptive strike against us [the US]Ó is absurd.
The article maintains that scientists and technicians were ÒmaintainingÓ the feasibility of SDI 20 years ago, and that this information was stiffled by the Ònews censorship policies pursued by much of the liberal news media.Ó
The Union Leader contends that if the US continues to rely on the Òtwin follies of nuclear freeze and peace-through-weakness,Ó the nation will Òblunder into nuclear war.Ó
ÒThe Great Communicator made a strong case for the proposed shift in U.S. policy from reliance on retaliation to prevention...Ó

National Review
April 15, 1983
ÒStar WarsÓ

The National Review contends that if nuclear war is Òapocalyptic,Ó then defense against it should be good news. The authors argue that if the initiative were made by a democrat, it would be Òhailed as courageous, progressive, humane, pioneering.Ó
The article goes on to point out that space is already the scene of extensive military activity by the superpowers. Technology must move forward, and the Soviets have already experimented with missile defense systems, they argue.
ÒIt would take a bold prophet to guarantee that no such defense is feasible.Ó
The article concludes by stating that with SDI, Reagan has moved toward saving lives and cities. It is this political move that infuriated his critics, Òand their instinctive suspicion of any proposal that would enhance American power and security.Ó

Crossfire homepage

Defense Policy Page

Defense Policy Page