OPINION:
It is remarkable that 35 years after President Reagan’s introduction of a non-nuclear-defense program (SDI) commentary writers should still be arguing over the concept of space-based interceptors. In “Return of the MAD men” (Web, Dec. 27) Peter Vincent Pry criticizes Jim Miller and Frank Rose for their recent article “Bad idea Space-Based Interceptors and Space-Based Directed Energy Systems.”
Mr. Pry is correct to point out the deficiencies in the case for relying on the old concept of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) for our security. The concept worked during the decades of the Cold War and is likely to continue to work to prevent the use of nuclear weapons with regard to China and Russia. We can have far less confidence with regard to emerging nations, however, and none whatsoever should a terrorist group acquire the capability.
We cannot rely on MAD alone to provide deterrence. It must be combined with an effective defense capable of intercepting nuclear missiles targeting the United States, American deployed forces and allied territories. The criteria for an effective defense were outlined when SDI was developed, and included the need to intercept missiles of all ranges from wherever they were launched.
These criteria remain unchanged but are not being met. The only way they can be achieved is by having space-based interceptors as an integral part of our defensive system. The current mid-course and terminal interception systems currently in the American arsenal remain inadequate.
It is sad that authors writing on topics of national security overlook the fact that deterrence alone is insufficient to keep the peace we all desire.
STANLEY ORMAN
Rockville, Md.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.