‘SDI Is Not for Don Quixote’
Gray’s article on SDI is so full of airy generalities it’s difficult to come to grips with it. But he tips his hand when he says that “The all-purpose claim that strategic defense would be destabilizing is increasingly acknowledged by the critics to be improbable, unless the Soviet Union unilaterally deploys new defenses in addition to its huge strategic offensive arsenal.”
What does he mean “unilaterally” if we’re the ones who start the new cycle? Does he really think they would not develop their own SDI if we do?
The clear purpose of SDI is not defense, but a shield that would give us first-strike capability. No country clearly targeted as “the enemy” could be expected to remain passive under such circumstances. That is why SDI is destabilizing. That is why we had an Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, which we must now cancel unilaterally to develop SDI. When are we going to stop this madness?
ERNST JACOBI
Malibu
Start your day right
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
