472
PARTISAN REVIEW
open literature concerning both antisatellite weapons and ballistic
missile defense. Unlike many of his colleagues in academia, Jastrow
does not reject out of hand President Reagan's call for a defense
against ballistic missiles. Instead, he has attempted to ascertain the
technological facts that lead the Reagan administration to believe
that a defense against ballistic missiles is possible. In addition, he
briefly discusses the strategic arguments that would lead one to
believe that a defense against ballistic missiles is desirable.
While Jastrow performs a valuable public service by explaining
the SDI in terms a layman can understand, it does seem to me that
in discussing "how it works," he has given the incorrect impression
that all the technical problems of ballistic missile defense are solved .
For example, Jastrow's (and the administration's) SDI scenario relies
to a great extent on beam weapons or electromagnetic rail guns
mounted on low altitude satellites . To my knowledge, the question
of how these satellites are to be defended against antisatellite
weapons is still open. Until this question is resolved it cannot be
assumed that the defense against ballistic missiles advocated by
Jastrow is technically feasible . Actually, what President Reagan asked
for is a research program, and it is premature to imply that the
technical problems of ballistic missile defense are solved.
On the other hand, neither can it be claimed that the technical
problems of ballistic missile defense are insurmountable, as many of
the critics of SDI have done. As Jastrow points out, the Union of
Concerned Scientists' original estimate of the number of low altitude
satellites needed for a strategic defense was too high by an order of
magnitude - an enormous error. I have also looked at the technical
arguments of the Union of Concerned Scientists and agree that
many of them are invalid . Evidently, this is a case of people desper–
ately trying to find technical arguments to support their political
ideals.
J astrow's discussion of the political justification for ballistic
missile defense seems to me quite plausible. This book is a pleasant
contrast to the writings of such arms control "experts" as George
Kennan, Robert McNamara, and the Union of Concerned Scien–
tists. The arguments presented by these authors in opposition to the
strategic defense initiative are, in general, tortured and rather im–
plausible . It is fortunate that a scientist ofJ as trow's caliber is willing
to provide simple counterarguments to these ideological opponents
of a defense system .
My main disappointment in the present book is that it is not
