"STAR WARS": THE POLITICS OF DEFENSE
559
taken out 150 million people, because of the destruction of offensive
missiles on the first strike, could not be nearly as effective as a first
strike ; therefore , there would be only twenty million dead . Is that
what you said?
JOHN PIKE: Ten to twenty million tops, depending on the breaks .
DENNIS WRONG: Even though the defenses were equal, it would
still give an advantage to the first striker.
JOHN PIKE: Now I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed.
DENNIS WRONG: I wasn't clear about that.
JOHN PIKE: That's the whole point . Leaky defenses increase in–
centives to strike first, because , as the buzzphrase goes, "A leaking
umbrella is more effective against a drizzle than a downpour." The
leaky defense is going to have to defend
~gainst
a massive first strike ,
but a ragged and greatly reduced second strike .
WILLIAM PHILLIPS: But a leaky umbrella doesn't create a down–
pour.
LIONEL ABEL : However, our leaky defense would be less leaky,
according to you, than the Russian defense because we're ahead .
JOHN PIKE: That's a different argument. One of the real questions
in this whole debate is, whether there is a compelling case for Ameri–
can strategic superiority over the Soviet Union. That's really what the
issue is . And, you know, I frankly find it very curious that the advo–
cates of this are being so incredibly coy about the case for it . Because
if you went back twenty years, George McGovern, of all people, in
one of his maiden speeches in Congress, gave a ringing endorsement
of American strategic superiority. I think there are a lot of silly things
about the SDI , but probably the best case one can make for it is that ,
given the fact that most of the Soviet nuclear forces are on land where
we can blow them up with Trident II, given the fact that their sub–
marines are as noisy as old washing machines and we can sink most
of those with our strategic ASW forces, given the fact that we've got
stealth bombers that can go through their air defense like a hot knife
through butter- while they have clunky old bombers and we'd be able
to shoot most of them down - and given the fact that our ballistic
missile defense technology is five to ten years ahead of theirs and our
countermeasures technology is much further ahead than theirs, and
given the fact that SDI is going to put us far ahead of them, I would
say that it is not implausible, that it cannot be excluded, that if we go
ahead and do all of this, that we could create a situation some time in
the mid-to-Iate 1990s where we could blow up the Russians and there
wouldn't be too much they could do about that, if we struck first.
