Physicists Cast Doubt on Feasibility of ‘Star Wars’
A blue-ribbon panel of physicists cast strong doubt Thursday on the feasibility of a “Star Wars” missile defense system based on lasers and other directed-energy weapons.
In response, proponents of President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative called the 424-page study “largely irrelevant” because it ignored more feasible, kinetic-energy weapons being sought for early deployment.
The physicists contended that it would take at least 10 years of research to determine whether it is possible to overcome the enormous obstacles to developing the directed-energy weapons that they said are “expected to play a crucial role” in President Reagan’s missile defense plan.
Development and deployment also would take so long, the 17-member panel added, that the Soviet Union would have time to fashion countermeasures. That, they said, raised questions about whether the huge cost would be worth the effort.
The panel, formed by the American Physical Society in cooperation with the Defense Department, did not address kinetic-energy weapons that are being promoted by Reagan for early deployment while research continues on the more complex directed-energy technology. Kinetic weapons are high-speed warheads that rely on force of impact, not the customary explosion, to destroy an enemy’s ballistic missiles.
Sen. Pete Wilson (R-Calif.), an advocate of early “Star Wars” deployment, protested that the physicists’ report “creates something of a straw man by dealing only with exotic technology that is not being contemplated as part of the first generation of SDI. It is largely irrelevant to the SDI being propounded now.”
Wilson, echoing the views of other “Star Wars” advocates, explained that “people who are interested in SDI in Congress and the executive branch are looking at a kinetic kill vehicle that substantially enhances our present deterrent against a Soviet nuclear first strike.”
The panel of physicists, drawn from academia, business and government, focused solely on directed-energy weapons, which include high-intensity lasers and energetic particle beams.
“All existing candidates for directed-energy weapons require improvement by a factor of at least 100 in power output and beam quality before they can be seriously considered for application in ballistic missile defense systems,” the panel concluded after an 18-month study.
The physicists also expressed concern about the feasibility of supporting components.
‘Rapid-Pace Research’
“In many areas,” the panel said, “research is progressing at a rapid pace--for example, schemes for rapid steering of optical beams and active systems for tracking (enemy missiles and decoys) with great accuracy.
“However, atmospheric effects and weather problems of ground-based systems, susceptibility of optical systems to damage, power requirements for space-based systems, decoy discrimination, launch detection and precise tracking technologies all present problems for which solutions do not now exist.”
Despite the Reagan Administration’s insistence that the defensive system would be non-nuclear, the study group said: “It may be necessary to have a nuclear reactor service every space platform.” Other power sources, it found, would probably be too bulky and inefficient.
‘Other Conventional Threats’
The panel said it probably would be much easier and cheaper for the Soviets to develop offensive countermeasures than for the United States to develop an effective missile defense.
“The survival of space-based components of directed-energy weapons is problematic, and even ground-based components would be threatened,” the panel warned. “In addition to all other conventional threats, a deployed defensive system might itself be faced with offensive directed-energy weapons.”
Calling for a thorough exploration of all possible enemy responses, the panel said that a directed-energy system “designed for today’s threats is unlikely to be adequate for the threat it will face when deployed.”
The 38,000-member American Physical Society said it decided to conduct the study to educate the public and to help resolve conflicts in the technical community over the “advisability or feasibility of a Strategic Defense Initiative.” The Reagan Administration gave the panel technical briefings and access to classified material, the society said.
Bloembergen Headed Panel
The study group was headed by Harvard Prof. Nicolaas Bloembergen and C. K. N. Patel of AT&T; Bell Laboratories and included Caltech Prof. Amnon Yariv and Andrew Sessler of Lawrence Laboratory at UC Berkeley.
The final report was reviewed by a committee headed by George E. Pake of Xerox Corp. The other five members were from Stanford University, UC Berkeley, UC San Diego and Lawrence Laboratory at Livermore.
