Star Wars: Pro and Con

The seed for Sunday night's clash over space weapons was planted-almost casually in March 1983. Partly as a way of selling his proposed $2 trillion, five-year military buildup, President Reagan called on U.S. scientists to "give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete." This would be done by erecting, in effect, an impregnable missileproof bubble over America. Enemy ICBMs would be zapped by a wizardly array of defensive weapons well before they entered U.S. skies. The idea quickly became known as Reagan's Star Wars plan.

To many Americans, the notion of a space-based strategic defense had an appealing logic. For decades, each of the two superpowers had relied on the threat of massive retaliation to discourage nuclear attack. Proponents of Reagan's plan argued that a true defense was more plausible and moral.

Buoyed by Reagan's support, Pentagon planners rushed to strengthen a small exploratory research program. Congress, prodded by eager defense contractors and military-minded scientists, voted to spend nearly $ 1 billion on research and development last year and $ 1.4 billion in the current fiscal year. The Defense Department indicated that deployment alone could cost upwards of $400 billion and estimated that it might take 30 years to complete such a system.

Numerous critics, including many scientists, arms-control experts and even some military officers argue that: 1) There is no technology in sight that would ensure a leakproof system, and any holes at all would permit an enemy to wreak massive destruction on the U.S.; 2) Any serious attempt to erect such a defense would inevitably destabilize the roughly balanced nuclear equation, since the other side would counter with its own defensive system and enlarge its offensive forces to overcome the opponent's umbrella. Furthermore, deployment and even certain types of tests would violate the main arms-control treaty that is now in force: the SALT I antiballistic-missile agreement of 1972. America's European allies understandably fear that the U.S. might take refuge behind its defensive nuclear shield and no longer provide a credible deterrent against Soviet nuclear attack or blackmail.

During the debate, as he has in the past, Reagan proposed "sharing" defensive technology with the Soviets. The idea is that if only one side has the ability to build such a system, the other might feel pressure to launch a surprise attack before it was fully deployed. In addition, a defensive system would increase a country's offensive capability by allowing it to launch a strike with less fear of retaliation. Mondale emphasized the objection that sharing the knowledge involved in an antimissile defense and providing a "demonstration" of whatever system the U.S. develops would necessarily compromise America's clear superiority in scientific knowledge about computer systems, laser technology and other fields, which the Soviets would find extremely useful in building more threatening offensive weapons.

Perhaps the best argument for moving tentatively forward with Star Wars is that any such new weapons systems constitute bargaining chips when dealing with the Soviets. The best argument against: they could never be as effective as they would have to be--in this case 100%.