'SDI-Lite': Old Wine in New Skins

President Ronald Reagan's concept of a space shield that would render nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete was always a technological will-o'-the-wisp in the eyes of most credible scientists. But that hasn't made the Strategic Defense Initiative, or "Star Wars," go away; the program has quietly received multibillion dollar budgets each year, despite continued congressional and public skepticism about its feasibility.

In late January the Bush administration -- with the hopes of giving the Star Wars program a renewed lease on life -- announced a new goal for the effort. In a clear attempt to cash in on the public perception of the success of the Patriot missiles in the Gulf war, the government proclaimed that the new Star Wars objective is to develop a system capable of protecting the United States and its military forces against a "limited" attack of fewer than 100 missiles.

For some expert observers, however, the "new" Star Wars is just old wine in new skins. Peter Clausen, director of research for the Union of Concerned Scientists, maintains that despite its repackaging, the limited-objective system is "basically a down-sized version of the misplaced approach that SDI has been pursuing for years."

And despite the shrunken goal, the cost has risen dramatically. Bush is seeking a 65 percent increase in next year's SDI budget to $5.2 billion. Why the sudden confidence that Congress will refund this lemon-in-the-sky program, especially in light of the shrinking budget pie? The answer is another legacy of the Gulf war.

IN THE EYES OF SDI cheerleaders, Patriots knocking down Scuds has become an argument for Star Wars. White House Press Secretary Marlin Fitzwater said of the Patriot, "Its success does give us another degree of optimism about pursuing those kinds of technologies." Sen. Arlen Specter (R.-Pa), a longtime Star Wars booster, said, "It shows it can work. It's a real shot in the arm for SDI."

Other observers, however, are convinced that the Patriot-ic argument is not really a military or technical one, but rather is a case of sheer political opportunism. "President Bush is trying to exploit the success of the Patriots to promote a program that has very little to do with Patriots," explained UCS media director Eileen Quinn. Former defense secretary Harold Brown said that linking the Patriots with Star Wars "is just partisan nonsense."

What would have happened, for example, if the Scuds were replaced with nuclear-tipped missiles? The allied barracks destroyed would have been a whole city annihilated. Modern ballistic missiles can be equipped with multiple maneuvering warheads, decoy re-entry vehicles and electronic devices to counter defenses -- and they arrive at about 10,000 mph.

WITH STAR WARS on the ropes, its supporters needed a new rationale to justify the continued expenditure of billions of dollars on a program that seemed obsolete with the demise of the Cold War. SDI officials in the recent past have disparaged limited or theater defenses in favor of the global space-based systems, and since 1984 only 5 percent of the $23 billion spent on SDI has been for systems designed for Scud-like tactical threats. Just last year Congress had to override administration objections in order to create a "Theater Missile Defense Initiative."

With bills pending in Congress that would transfer Patriot-type programs from the SDI office to the Army or the new theater initiative, the Star Wars program was threatened with extinction -- and its backers adeptly changed their tune. The Pentagon is now attempting to sell the new "SDI-Lite" as protection against attack by a Third World nation or terrorist group. Such an attack, however, is unlikely to come via a ballistic missile -- Clausen maintains that most Third World countries aren't likely to develop the sophisticated technology of a ballistic missile that could reach the United States for 50 years. Rather, a cruder delivery vehicle would more likely be used: a truck, a plane, or a boat-methods the $40 billion defense program wouldn't be able to stop.

The alleged change in Star Wars' purpose does not appear to be much more than a fund-raising smokescreen: The real long-term goal of SDI remains space-based weapons. A Defense Department news release promised that, if Congress provides the funds, the SDI office will "provide options to begin deployment by the late 1990s of ballistic missile defenses for the American people."

UCS' Clausen says that SDI advocates seem to have a "fixation" with space weapons. "It's an obsession they can't get rid of," Clausen told Sojourners. "They take anything that comes along to try and justify it."

The Star Wars techno-shield, mythical or not, would provide one kind of protection: Deployment of such a system would eliminate the need, in the minds of many, to address the causes of conflict around the world. If technology makes you secure, there is no need for diplomacy. As columnist Mary McGrory wrote, "The Persian Gulf war, which was a piece of cake for our troops, could make war a seductive alternative to the tedious, repetitive work of diplomacy."

But real security will never come from stockpiling weapons -- whether they are termed offensive or defensive. In scripture, we are taught that the path to security is by necessity paved with justice and fairness. History has shown that weapons of mass destruction are not safe in human hands, as prone to conflict as we are. Only when such weapons are finally outlawed and the root causes of war are addressed -- and the quixotic quest for techno-security abandoned -- will the world begin to resolve its inevitable conflicts without resort to massive violence.

Jim Rice is editor of Sojourners.