‘Star Wars Theology’

Your editorial (Feb. 10), “ ‘Star Wars’ Theology,” is an unfortunate example of the “bumper-sticker” logic so common amongst the critics of the Strategic Defense Initiative.

First, you state that there is no technology to support a research effort in ballistic missile defense. Perhaps The Times editorial office was closed on 10 June 1984, when an inert re-entry vehicle was intercepted and shot down off the Pacific’s Kwajalein atoll. From 1,000 miles away, a non-nuclear and non-explosive U.S. Army device looked for, tracked, and destroyed a dummy nuclear warhead.

Further, you seem to believe that a U.S. effort to develop the means to defend itself from a preemptive nuclear attack is a “fuzzy goal.” If so, we must firmly support such fuzziness. No one, the President included, is claiming that such a program will be quick, cheap or simple. The technical challenges are certainly very great. But then, America has met great challenges before.

The Strategic Defense Initiative is a long-term formula to slowly shift the basis of our security from purely offensive weapons to a combination of offensive/defensive systems, and then, hopefully, to a largely defensive force. The first stage (which The Times seems to scoff at) would indeed be designed “to protect missiles--not people.” You see, an effective shield over our missiles will make the success of a first strike so uncertain that an enemy would never risk aggression.

As for the Strategic Defense Initiative having an adverse effect on arms control talks, the massive Soviet program to develop anti-ballistic missile systems doesn’t seem to be impacting the negotiations, so why would a reciprocal U.S. research program do so? Yet even if it did disrupt the talks, given the dismal failure of previous arms control agreements to check the buildup of nuclear weapons, we are much better off trusting our scientists to explore a defense from Soviet missiles than we would be with another paper promise from Moscow to stop building them.

Contrary to The Times’ information, various key technologies are approaching operational feasibility, which will be directly applicable to strategic defense. But if you insist that the President’s vision of a layered, defense-in-depth against nuclear missiles be called theology, then let us pray.

RAYMOND HANE III

Torrance