"STAR WARS": THE POLITICS OF DEFENSE
535
tion was still: would it be a good idea? I'm now of the opinion that it
would be a good idea. The best argument against the Strategic De–
fense Initiative, is that this "policy of mutual assured destruction" has
kept the peace, or at least prevented global nuclear war for several
decades. But things are happening that are very disquieting and that
the United States should respond to. The first is the tremendous ex–
pansion of the Russian offensive nuclear forces, particularly for a first
strike . The second is the Russian violations of arms control agree–
ments. They blatantly violated the ABM treaty by building an ABM
Radar at Krasnoyarsk. And although the critics of American policies
apologize it away, it's quite clear that it was built for an eventual,
comprehensive ballistic missile defense system. They've violated the
SALT II agreements by developing two new types of mobile missiles,
and, incidentally, they violated agreements which they never had any
intention of obeying: the Helsinki Human Rights Accord and the
treaty to ban biological weapons. One might say the significance of
any or all of these things is not very great and
w~
shouldn't necessarily
respond to them. However, one of the most important points one
should keep in mind is that - and one reason that's absolutely clear
to me why Strategic Defense Initiative is a good idea- is that we
could never reduce our offensive forces significantly, at least in the
context of the present political atmosphere, without fearing that the
Soviet Union was going to escalate precipitously. Technically, as you
reduce the strength of offensive nuclear forces, the effectiveness of the
leverage of defensive systems increases dramatically. So, I would say
it's not a question of arms control
versus
strategic defense, I would say
that one cannot have arms control without strategic defense . And on
that point I agree completely with the positions of Secretary of State
Shultz and the administration. The third reason, in my mind, for
thinking that SDI is a good idea, is that the concept of mutual assured
destruction is not a very clear concept. We don't clearly understand
what motivates the Soviet leadership, what their policy is, and what
things they value. Therefore one can't be sure that we are designing
a military response which will deter them, particularly when we keep
in mind that it's always possible that someone can come to power in
the Soviet Union who is mad. And, I think that for all these reasons,
the Strategic Defense Initiative itself is a very proper, and, to my
mind, a timely political response to the Soviet Union . I'll leave the
question of technological feasibility for the discussion.
DANIEL ROSE : Thank you. Mr. John Pike is Associate Director
