SDI

I recently linked to an article which discussed the need to move ahead with anti-missile technology. A reader raised several objections to devoting resources SDI, or the Strategic Defense Initiative. Since the issues which he brought up are ones most commonly encountered when debating with opponents of a missile defense I thought I would address them here.

Enemies will develop ways to counter an ABM system

It is true that the development of any military technology will spur development of technologies designed to counter the advantage offered by the new tech. However this alone is not an argument against developing new technologies. The invention of the airplane led to the development of anti-aircraft guns and surface to air missiles, yet no one would seriously consider eliminating the airplane from the inventories of the world’s military establishments.

The machine gun was developed to counter the infantry charge and the tank was developed to counter the machine gun. The history of warfare, as every other field of human endeavor, is one of constant innovation.

Another issue related to this is that it is simply not possible to stop research and development into missile defense systems. Our naval surface ships, especially the aircraft carrier, represent the Navy’s primary conventional force projection resource and are responsible for protecting our sea lines of communication. Each carrier represents a multi-billion dollar investment and holds over 6000 highly trained sailors. One of the primary threats they face is from missile attack. To not develop an effective anti-missile system to protect our surface fleet crosses over into criminal negligence.

A sea skimming cruise missile is a harder target to hit than an ICBM reentry vehicle. When an ICBM finishes its boost phase its course in cast in stone (the “B” stands for Ballistic, after all). A cruise missile is maneuverable and they are growing “smarter” all the time. Any technology we develop to knock down a sea skimmer will also apply to an ABM system.

It is sometimes said that a nation can simply build so many missiles that they would swamp any ABM system. This is what Gorbachev threatened to do when Reagan first proposed an ABM system. The answer to this is to note the fact that the Soviets looked at the cost of trying to swamp an effective ABM network and promptly surrendered. The fact is that building ICBM’s is expensive and building the nuclear warheads to arm them with is even more expensive. There is also the question of where to get the fissionable material if you are a nation like Iran or North Korea which have no domestic supply.

Developing an ABM system would be extremely expensive

This is true, but irrelevant. How much more would it cost to lose New York City or Los Angeles? How much did the 9/11 recession cost the American economy? Expense is relative. From the time JFK proposed going to the moon in “this decade” to the splashdown of the last Apollo capsule we spent billions on space, but American women spent more on cosmetics. It is unlikely that the price tag for a functioning ABM system would cost as much as America spent on fast food in the 1990’s.

There is also the fact that developing an ABM system would be a technology driver. The aforementioned space program produced myriad spin-offs. If you’re reading this you are benefiting from one of them. The microprocessor revolution was kicked off by NASA’s need to fit as much computing power into as small a space as possible. As of the middle 1980’s the lunar program had returned over 17 times as much money to the American economy as it took in tax dollars to fund it. And the counter is still going.

Another advantage of spending the money on a ballistic missile defense system is that it would serve to starve other, far more destructive, government programs for funds. Do we really need to delve into all the ways that the social welfare spending which was supposed to elevate America’s Black community has instead harmed it? The five trillion dollars that we have spent on the war on poverty has just bought us more poverty and destroyed the Black family in the bargain.

Everything from environmental regulations which hamstring business and deny private citizens the use of their private property, all the while returning negligible (if any) benefits to the ecosystem and endangered species laws which only encourage property owners to “shoot, shovel and shut up” are just some of the joy that our tax dollars spread.

Sucking the cash out of counterproductive sinkholes like this and putting it into an effort which will at minimum advance the scientific and technical state of the art and just might save the lives of 10 million Americans seems like a damn good deal to me.

But I’m just a hillbilly.