Opponents of SDI (Ronald Reagan’s proposal to build a Strategic Defense Initiative) are fond of saying it is worthless because “SDI cannot provide 100 percent protection against nuclear missiles. If the Soviets fire their missile force against us, some missiles are bound to get through and would kill millions of people.”
Even if that statement were true, it is no argument against building SDI because the most likely scenario is that only one missile would be fired at us, not a thousand. Against an attack by one or two nuclear missiles, SDI could provide 100 percent protection.
The oft-repeated cliché that “a nuclear war is unwinnable” is predicated on the unprovable assumption that any nuclear war would be an all-out nuclear war. However, a limited nuclear attack by the Soviets against us is more probable because it could enable the Soviets to win by forcing our surrender without massive destruction.
Scientific progress in missile technology has increased the ability to hit a specific target more accurately. Targets can be chosen for their military significance, such as land-based ICBMs in their silos, and for the most part, those are not near big cities.
Let’s consider some possible scenarios. If the Soviets decide to dump their entire arsenal on us in a massive surprise attack, they would have good reason to believe that any U.S. President would order massive retaliation. That would set up the scenario of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD).
If, on the other hand, the Soviets fire just one missile, targeted on our Minuteman missile sites, and perhaps on just one U.S. city, this would set up a very different chain of events.
With the Russian missile streaking toward a U.S. target and due to hit within 30 minutes, Mikhail Gorbachev calls Ronald Reagan on the Hot Line and says, “A Big One is on the way as a demonstration of what we can and will do, so I call on you to surrender now or we will destroy your country.” What would our President do? What could he do?
If the President responded with massive retaliation, that would surely compel the Soviets to respond in kind. This would indeed fulfill the prophecy of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD).
Suppose the President made a limited, tit-for-tat response. He could select and destroy a comparable Soviet target and hope that both sides would say, “That’s that; now let’s talk this over.”
Would the President actually push the button for a limited strike in the face of the predictable clamor from Congress and the media shouting their fear of escalation and that nuclear war is not worth such a gamble?
Even if our President had the will to order “fire,” he would have to consider the possibility that the already-deployed Soviet SDI would be adequate to defend against one or two missiles (even though it might not be leakproof against a massive U.S. retaliation). The more our President increased the probabilities of getting through the holes in a leaky Soviet SDI, the more he would increase the probabilities that the Soviets would react with a massive MAD response anyway.
Is it unthinkable that the Soviets would use mass murder of civilians as a tool to force U.S. surrender? The Soviets have a long record of killings and the number of Afghan victims, even in the Gorbachev glasnost era, is already one million.
Our President’s third option is just as ominous. He could try to work out the best negotiated surrender he could persuade the Kremlin to accept.
As the potential aggressor, the Soviets can plan and wait for a window of opportunity in our political circumstances when there may be a wavering of resolve on the part of whoever sits in the Oval Office. As the potential victim, America must protect itself against every eventuality.
There is one solution to this dilemma: build SDI now. It would not need to be able to shoot down thousands of incoming warheads with no leakage. It would need to address the more likely possibility of defending us against one or a few incoming warheads.
A U.S.-SDI system would also be an effective shield against a missile launched against us by accident, by terrorists, or by a third country. Just consider this additional scenario. Our President answers the Hot Line and Gorbachev solemnly says, “Mr. President, we’ve had a computer malfunction and one of our missiles will impact on New York City in 25 minutes. We’re terribly sorry; it was an accident; we will help you clean up the damage.”
Dare we leave our nation with no defenses and no options? That is the overriding issue in the 1988 Presidential election.
