by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright July 11, 2000
All Rights Reserved.

he most fearsome of these threats," said President Carter debating Ronald Reagan in 1980, "is if one of these nations that practice terrorism as a policy gets their hands on nuclear weapons." Advocating non-proliferation, Carter continued the 50 year-old U.S. policy, begun with President Truman, to stop the spread of atomic weapons. Little did Carter know that only 3 years later, Reagan would propose the Strategic Defense Initiative [SDI] also known as 'Star Wars'—a brilliant strategic plan to create a space-based nuclear shield rendering atomic weapons obsolete. To Reagan and his defense secretary Casper Weinberger, SDI pulled the rug out from the arms race and robbed the U.S.S.R. of its nuclear dominance. Trumping the Soviets, the U.S. would once again assert its military superiority. While critics doubted the plan, Reagan gained the upper hand negotiating more favorable nuclear arms reduction. Sure, some in congress questioned SDI’s feasibility, but few doubted the powerful psychological edge—and leverage—gained over the Soviet Union.

       After years of détente—or strategic retreat as it became known—and living with the horror of mutual assured destruction [MAD], all arms control agreements would finally take a back seat to SDI. No longer would the U.S. be Finlandized or impotent with the rest of the West under persistent Soviet threats of nuclear aggression. Though the plan roiled the Kremlin, Reagan remained determined to give the U.S. more bargaining clout with arms control. Caving in to Soviet demands, the U.S. was badly out-negotiated for most of the Cold War. While many Sovietologists and national defense experts argued that Russia was defensive-minded, others pointed to Soviet-sponsored revolution in Eastern Europe and the third world as proof of their real intentions. Referring to the Soviets as 'the evil empire,' Reagan believed the Soviets were bent on worldwide domination. Many saw Reagan’s 1980 landslide over Jimmy Carter as a mandate to restore American power. When Iran sacked the U.S. embassy and took hostages, Americans woke up to a different kind of threat—terrorism.

       By 1983, it was abundantly clear that the Soviets only responded to superior strength. Armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, they had no incentive to negotiate meaningful arms reduction. With the defense budget already mushrooming, SDI was considered the best—and most cost-effective—way to end the arms race. With their own economy disintegrating, the Soviets were no longer in a position to dictate the terms. Placed on the back burner, SDI enabled arms control negotiators to persuade the Soviets to end the arms race. As the Berlin Wall collapsed on November 9, 1989, carving up the former Soviet Union was a far greater challenge than largely symbolic arms control treaties. Resuscitating SDI now means more than gaining a strategic advantage over the former Soviet Union. It involves preserving—beyond any doubt—America’s scientific and technological superiority. Despite recent setbacks with SDI, accepting failure is not an option.

       Already the Russians are making noise. Reacting to the SDI’s most recent glitch, [the system] "will not be able to secure protection of the U.S. territory, and attempts to deploy such a system will be an empty waste of money," said Gen. Vladimir Yakoviev, commander of Russian strategic forces. Joining the doom-and-gloom chorus, "It’s hard to see how they can recommend a deployment decision of a missile system that doesn’t work," remarked Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), demonstrating surprising impatience for the most sophisticated military project ever attempted. Pushing the best brains to the limit, those at the Pentagon showed more optimism. "The technology is ready; it’s the Clinton policy that isn’t ready," commented retired Navy Vice Adm. J.D. Williams a missile defense advocate at the Coalition to Defend America Now. Even Robert J. Oppenheimer—lead physicist in the military’s top secret 'Manhattan Project'—knew that developing nuclear bombs was replete with bumps in the road. Why should it be any different with SDI?

       After sitting on the fence for the past 8 years, it’s curious that the Clinton administration is now resuscitating what looked like a dead dog. Hedging bets about the Pentagon’s recent setback, a Gore spokesman remarked, "It is important that we not prejudge [the Pentagon’s] analysis . . . " suggesting that Gore wouldn’t hazard his own views about SDI. Jumping into the fray, Texas Gov. George W. Bush said, "he remains confident that, given the right leadership, America can develop an effective defense system . . ." Apart from the political ramifications, SDI still holds credibility among military experts who aren’t willing to throw in the towel. "This [the botched missile interceptor experiment] shows we need to crawl before we can run," said Luke Warren, an arms control advocate with the Council for a Livable World. While some people put the Pentagon’s most recent disappointment in perspective, others fail to see the symbolic significance of SDI. With the civilian space program stagnating, and recent failures with NASA’s Mar’s Surveyor, pulling the plug on SDI would send a devastating message to technology-crazed Americans.

       Technology holds the future. To abandon its great expectations is to invite depressing mediocrity into America’s living room. When there’s the political will, insurmountable obstacles can be overcome by showing tenacity and commitment. With the 'brave new world' of third-world terrorism on the scene, developing space-age weapons systems only measures the best that technology has to offer. No one expects perfection when you’re breaking new ground. Calling for an end to SDI only emboldens America’s enemies by showing them that the U.S. lacks the resolve to conquer difficult obstacles. Mission Impossible reminds all Americans that there are no limits on human ingenuity and determination. Accepting failure only reinforces cynics into believing that America’s best days are behind her. "The republic is a dream," said the poet Carl Sandberg, refusing to accept the mediocrity of the present, and attesting to the reality that the best laid plans begin in fantasy. As the elections draw near, most Americans aren’t interested in facing artificial limits imposed by small-minded people—there’s no room for cynics. Whoever sheds these limits and dares to be great will be heading to the White House.

About the Author

John M. Curtis is editor of OnlineColumnist.com and columnist for The Los Angeles Daily Journal. He’s director of a Los Angeles think tank specializing in human behavior, health care, political research and media consultation. He’s the author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2000 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.