How Many Eggs for the Star Wars Basket?

To date, the 1988 presidential campaign has been dominated by such not-so-monumental questions as whether or not it is constitutional to require schoolchildren to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Nevertheless, there is still hope that the media may eventually get around to covering the differences between Vice President George Bush and Gov. Michael Dukakis on issues that affect the future of all Americans.

A glimmer of promise that this might occur came in late August when both candidates actually received coverage of their contrasting views on the Strategic Defense Initiative, or “Star Wars.”

You remember SDI: the program launched by President Reagan back in March, 1983, to render nuclear weapons “impotent and obsolete.” Here, in the summer of 1988, nuclear weapons are still with us--and so is Star Wars. Close to $15 billion has been spent on SDI research. For 1989, Congress allocated over $4 billion for SDI, making it the largest single program in the defense budget.

Still, that was not enough for President Reagan, who, at the urging of Bush and his future running mate, Sen. Dan Quayle, and over the objections of Secretary of Defense Frank C. Carlucci, vetoed the defense authorization bill, claiming it did not contain enough money for SDI.

Thus, SDI entered the 1988 presidential election as a bona fide issue. Alas, when presenting the candidates’ views, reporters have by and large stuck to portraying Bush and Dukakis as representing extremes: Bush in favor of SDI and Dukakis opposed. The result has been that when the candidates actually speak publicly about SDI, the American electorate becomes bewildered about what each really supports and where, exactly, all the money is going.

Between now and election day there are several questions about strategic defense that all voters should hope the candidates are asked.

For example, the Republican platform calls for “the rapid and certain deployment of SDI.” Bush said in March that, “as soon as it is ready, it must be deployed.” But which SDI is Bush and his party referring to, the one that protects missiles or people? While President Reagan keeps talking about rendering nuclear missiles obsolete, both knowledgeable supporters and critics don’t think that such a system is likely.

Meanwhile, the Strategic Defense Initiative organization has subtly shifted the program’s focus, away from the “Astrodome” defense that the President favored toward a “phased” deployment that would initially enhance nuclear deterrence, not replace it, by protecting our strategic bomber bases and land-based missiles.

This is a mission that was proposed for a missile defense system long before SDI came along, but found wanting. For example, the Soviets might respond by deploying their own limited ABM system, and we would lose confidence in our ability to penetrate their defenses. Moreover, it is a quite different objective to propose protecting missiles from other missiles than the one held out by President Reagan to the American people. How do the candidates feel about a more limited SDI system?

How much can we afford to spend on SDI? The Administration claims that the $4 billion it will get this year is not enough. To most taxpayers, $4 billion seems like a great deal of money, but it is still a drop in the bucket compared to what development and deployment of an actual strategic defense system would cost. The Strategic Defense Initiative Organization recently put a price tag on just the deployment of a partial defense (to protect missiles, not people) at $75 billion to $150 billion.

Such a huge investment would take place over a period when defense budgets are predicted to rise little, if any, and as the federal government scrambles to meet the Gramm-Rudman deficit reduction targets. Since our military commanders will be hard-pressed to maintain the size and readiness of our existing forces, do American taxpayers really want to take on this enormous additional expense?

Another issue: Bush, Quayle and others, including some Democrats, have expressed interest in a smaller SDI system to protect us against accidental or unauthorized missile launch. Its supporters claim that it could be deployed cheaply (only $15 billion), quickly (over the next five years) and would protect the United States from a renegade Soviet submarine commander or a nuclear terrorist. But even supporters now admit that an accidental-launch defense system would violate the anti-ballistic-missile treaty. Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said that the risk of accidental launch is already “very, very low.” And a terrorist bomb is far more likely to be smuggled into America like a bale of marijuana than launched from a ballistic missile. Does an accidental-launch protection system make any sense?

Finally, there is the relationship between space weapons and the ongoing strategic arms talks in Geneva. While arms control was removed as a potent campaign issue by Reagan’s signing of the treaty on intermediate-range nuclear forces, the major negotiation over strategic nuclear weapons is still taking place.

At those talks, the conflicting stance over strategic defense is the critical issue separating the two sides. But the dispute is not, as some suggest, over whether Washington must “give away” SDI in order to achieve 50% reductions. All that is required to complete an unprecedented reduction is a commitment to abide by the ABM treaty as it was signed in 1972.

Therein lies the rub. While the treaty does allow research and some testing of SDI components, the Administration claims it allows more testing of “exotic” weapons like lasers than previously believed.

Bush has said that he supports testing under the so-called “broad” interpretation--a position supported by the GOP platform. Dukakis argues that the traditional interpretation is the only correct one and that Bush’s real intention is the destruction of that treaty. Who’s right?

Between now and November, let us all hope that the candidates address such questions. Such a debate would truly provide the American people with an opportunity to reflect on the real issues facing the future of our nation.