(2 of 11)
Reagan's video-game vision of satellites and other weapons that might some day zap enemy missiles with lasers or particle beams and the drama surrounding his unexpected announcement were partly a political ploy to change the context of the debate over defense spending. But if his space-age plan proceeds, or even if the suggestion of a shift in strategy is taken seriously, the implications are staggering. Indeed, as Reagan said, "we are launching an effort which holds the promise of changing the course of human history." Not since 1972, when the antiballistic missile (ABM) treaty was signed as part of the SALT I accords, has the U.S. or U.S.S.R. actively taken steps to set up a defense against nuclear attack.
Embarking on an effort to build shields rather than swords was a characteristic Reagan gesture—a clear and simple assertion from his gut challenging the accepted wisdom that defensive systems are "destabilizing." His notion that missiles could be knocked out in space had a wistful though dangerous appeal; it suggested that the nation could be defended without earthly sacrifice and bloodshed.
As with many of the President's uncomplicated-sounding proposals, the idea of space-age missile defenses masks a swarm of complexities. It raises the specter of an arms race in space, which ultimately could be more expensive and dangerous than the one taking place on earth. In a prompt and strong reaction, Soviet Leader Yuri Andropov personally warned: "Should this conception be converted into reality, this would actually open the flood gates of a runaway race of all types of strategic arms, both offensive and defensive." Even more ominous, the development of a missile defense system could undermine the very foundation of strategic stability, namely, the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), which has often been modified, but never abandoned. Under this concept each side is deterred from using its weapons by the fear of cataclysmic retaliation (see following story).
The recognition that defensive systems could upset the nuclear balance was the propelling force behind the 1972 ABM treaty, the only arms-control pact that binds the two superpowers. It declares: "Each party undertakes not to develop, test, or deploy ABM systems or components which are seabased, air-based, space-based, or mobile-land-based." The Administration says that merely undertaking research into such a project does not violate the treaty. Indeed, the Soviets have been spending perhaps as much as five times the U.S. amount on laser technologies and weapons, although they apparently have not developed such devices for knocking out missiles. Over the past decade, the U.S. has tested lasers against relatively slow-flying drones and antitank missiles. The results were mixed, but good enough to show the concept's potential.