Does The Times expect to be taken seriously when it publishes advisory articles on foreign and defense matters written by an English professor? Prof. Scott Johnson's article (Editorial Pages, May 7) on "Star Wars," was very cleverly done, especially his use of Camelot to draw an analogy. But clever, cute writing is no substitute for realistic and objective analysis.
The good professor never addressed the alternative to a missile defense system. Is mutually assured destruction a better and more intelligent alternative? The reasoning by Johnson forecloses any options other than unilateral disarmament or accepting the Soviet version of their intentions, which they claim are peaceful. Therefore, we need not proceed with either new offensive or defensive weapons.
If the Soviet intentions are so genteel, why do the people of Afghanistan suffer so terribly at the hands of Russia's military? Why is it that Poland's Solidarity is being severely repressed by a regime put into power by the Soviets?
Johnson's article reflected a woeful naivete, matching The Times, in placing his article on the Editorial Pages, where presumably authoritative articles dissect current affairs.