NEWS ANALYSIS : Vote Dramatized Erosion of ‘Star Wars’ Support : Experts Say a Basic, Ground-Based System Is Likely Choice for Near Future

A surprise Senate vote to limit funding for the “Star Wars” missile defense program reflects a dramatic erosion of political support that may rule out U.S. deployment of anything other than a rudimentary, ground-based system in the foreseeable future, members of Congress and defense experts said Wednesday.

Both supporters and opponents viewed Tuesday’s night’s 66-34 vote as an important milestone in the program’s history--a signal that a majority in Congress no longer views “Star Wars” technology as a feasible way to bring a halt to the arms race, as it was once portrayed by former President Ronald Reagan.

“Star Wars” opponents were clearly ecstatic about the Senate action, which is expected to bring about the first cut in funding for the program since Reagan first embraced the concept of the Strategic Defense Initiative in 1985.

Many opponents predicted that the program ultimately would receive about $3.5 billion in funding for fiscal 1990, which begins Sunday, or about $500 million less than in the current year. The Senate rejected a proposal to increase funding to $4.3 billion.

Steady Decline

Like many liberal Democrats who oppose “Star Wars,” Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said that the cut foreshadows a steady decline in funding over the next few years that will render “Star Wars” as nothing more than another government-funded research program.

“I doubt very much there will ever be deployment of a space-based anti-ballistic missile system,” Levin said. “It is going to be slowed down considerably.”

Likewise, even SDI’s staunchest supporters acknowledged the vote as a setback that would foreclose deployment of the elaborate, space-based system originally envisioned by Reagan and many conservative Republicans.

“It’s very unfortunate,” said John Kwapisz, director of the Center for Peace and Freedom, a pro-SDI group. He said that the funding shortfall “is basically preventing the possibility of any deployment in the next decade.”

And Army Maj. Gen. J. Milnor Roberts of Americans for the High Frontier, another pro-SDI lobbying group, said that depending on where the cuts are made, the Administration will be forced to sacrifice either the near-term deployment of “Star Wars” or development of exotic long-term technologies such as space-based lasers and particle-beam weapons.

But Roberts and other “Star Wars” proponents held out hope that the level of funding ultimately approved by Congress still might permit the United States to deploy a ground-based system effective against an accidental launch of missiles by what he termed a “rogue nation.”

“We’re not talking about exotic weapons, but technologies we already have today,” Roberts noted.

Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that he still would support “some kind of a limited system,” even though he acknowledged that “Star Wars” had become a “perishable commodity” in Congress. He said that the original concept is simply too vague and too costly.

But Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), a liberal who is active on defense and arms control issues, predicted that support for a lesser system also will diminish for many of the same reasons that the more expensive program has faltered. “My instinct tells me that people will say: ‘Is this really worth doing?’ ” he said.

Bush Administration officials previously have said that they no longer expect “Star Wars” technology to provide an “Astrodome” defense against incoming missiles, as Reagan envisioned. But they continue to hold out the possibility that the research program will produce something more than a simple system to guard against an accidental launch.

At the same time, Lt. Gen. George L. Monahan Jr., director of the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization that oversees “Star Wars” research, has estimated that a funding cut like the one Congress is expected to make will preclude Bush from making an “informed deployment decision” by 1994, as he has promised.

In a detailed, written analysis outlining the impact of such a cut, Monahan said that initial deployment “would be delayed until well after the year 2000, with no provision for follow-on systems to offset Soviet countermeasures to the initially deployed system.”

Sen. J. Bennett Johnston (D-La.), a leading “Star Wars” critic, estimated that it would require a commitment of about $9 billion a year to allow Bush to make a decision about deployment in four years. “There is no way we’re going to fund it enough for a deployment decision by 1994,” he said.

Observers faulted Bush for failing to defend “Star Wars” adequately against funding cuts by Congress. Unlike Reagan, who refused to compromise his vision of an impenetrable nuclear defense system, Bush has declined to endorse any technology that might be produced by “Star Wars” research.

Rep. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), who has been the program’s biggest defender in the House, said he was disappointed with the efforts of Administration officials. “They believe strongly in SDI,” Kyl said. “But they assume everyone knows that. They need to be stronger.”

Others attributed the shift in congressional sentiment to a number of factors beyond Bush’s control--including the improvement in U.S.-Soviet relations, congressional interest in spending more money to combat drugs and the lack of any major “Star Wars” research breakthroughs.

Defense Secretary Dick Cheney blamed the Senate vote on competition for federal funds. “SDI . . . like a lot of our other programs, is affected by the overall climate on Capitol Hill, the desire to cut the defense budget to use the funds for other purposes, whether it’s drug programs or aid to Poland,” he said.

Gathering Momentum

Rep. Les Aspin (D-Wis.) said that the Senate vote only dramatized a drop-off in support for the program that has been gathering momentum for more than a year. “It’s losing support, there’s no question about that,” he said. “I think it peaked in the spring of 1988.”

Peter Clausen, director of research for the Union of Concerned Scientists, agreed.

“It has been clear for at least the last year that the steam has gone out of the program, mainly because Reagan is gone and he was pumping it up,” he said. “It was his enthusiasm for it and the political reluctance to cross him that kept the program as inflated as it was.”

The Senate vote was particularly noteworthy because that chamber has always defended “Star Wars” funding against severe cuts made in the House.

The Senate voted to set the funding level at slightly less than $4 billion, about what the program received this year. The House earlier voted to provide only $3.1 billion in funding. In the past, the two chambers have reconciled their differences on “Star Wars” funding by simply splitting the difference.