Buchanan on ‘Space Wars’

Patrick J. Buchanan’s case for deploying a space defense composed of “Brilliant Pebbles” is as loopy as the orbital system he advocates (Column Right, June 19).

In one breath he makes the sweeping claim that by deploying 1,000 such Pebbles we could “destroy, over enemy territory, any missile attack aimed at us, or our allies.” In the next, he contradicts himself by admitting that this defense would not work against “an all-out Soviet attack.” It surely wouldn’t. If the Pebbles are to protect against an attack launched anywhere, they must girdle the entire globe. Only a fraction (10% at most) would be available to intercept a Soviet salvo.

But Buchanan’s statement contains an even more misleading claim that he doesn’t seem to recognize. As the Pentagon admits, Brilliant Pebbles would be ineffective dunces against low-flying missiles--all those with trajectories below 60 miles from ground level. This includes precisely the sort of short- and intermediate-range weapons likely to be used against U.S. allies, as well as similar, longer-range delivery systems, which could attack U.S. targets by underflying a space shield.

That is why the Pentagon is promoting a refocused Strategic Defense Initiative which would supplement the proposed thin space shield with a more elaborate ground-based defense. But that package (Global Protection Against Limited Strikes) is projected to cost $48 billion--not just the $1 billion Buchanan mentions for Brilliant Pebbles alone.

Lawmakers in both parties are resisting the proposal not only because of its cost but because there are much better options. By deploying a first-phase space shield, we would abrogate the ABM treaty and invite a renewal of the U.S.-Soviet technological arms race that neither side needs or can afford. By concluding even more far-reaching arms control agreements with the Soviet Union, we can safely reduce our defense budget and help sustain its political and economic transformation. This policy remains our best hope for avoiding a catastrophic nuclear war.

Rather than deploy an unnecessary, destabilizing, and inadequate space defense, we should conclude the START treaty and move toward regional arms control for conventional and unconventional weaponry, meanwhile supporting research into defensive technologies. That is exactly the approach supported by an overwhelming majority in Congress, if not by would-be space cadets like Buchanan.

SANFORD LAKOFF

Professor of Political Science, UCSD

Lakoff is co-author, with Herbert F. York, of “A Shield in Space?” (1989).