By Kevin D. Williamson
Sunday, June 11, 2017
Ronald Reagan is owed an apology.
In 1983, President Reagan gave a speech in which he
called for the development of a missile-defense system. The project was called
the Strategic Defense Initiative, but Democrats and their media cheerleaders
mocked it as “Star Wars,” its announcement coming, as it did, shortly after
Reagan’s equally detested “Evil Empire” speech. Reagan laid out a broad vision
for a long-term investment in technological development, possibly involving
everything from satellites to lasers.
Reagan’s critics especially hated the lasers. They
thought he was just a goofy old man who’d spent too much time in the movies.
In a recently authored memo, the Pentagon’s chief
weapons-tester (the acting director of Operational Test and Evaluation),
upgraded our current missile-defense system from “limited capability” to
“demonstrated capability.” This followed a successful test of the system, in
which it was used to intercept and destroy a dummy intercontinental ballistic
missile. The small change in wording represents a big change in confidence.
A missile-defense system is a textbook public good, which
is to say, non-rivalrous and non-excludable in consumption: If a missile is
stopped from hitting San Francisco, the benefit is not apportioned according to
user fees. It is
also a long-term project necessitating substantial investments in basic science,
which means spending a great a deal of money following a great many promising
ideas to a great many dead ends, which is how a great deal of science is done.
Put another way: Developing a missile-defense system is precisely the sort of
thing that the federal government exists to do. It is the opposite of the “free
false teeth” school of government.
The path from “Star Wars” to the current system was not
straight — there was never any good reason to suppose it would have been. Big
ideas about space-based laser shields were displaced by an old-fashioned
engineering approach: hitting an inbound missile with a faster outbound
missile. The Clinton administration changed the name of the Strategic Defense
Initiative Organization to the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization in an
effort to cleanse the stain of Reaganism from the project. It is now the
Missile Defense Agency, which is an avis very rara indeed: a federal agency
that is generally regarded as both responsible and effective. It would like $8
billion in the next budget to continue its work. We ought to oblige — how much
would we be willing to pay if we could somehow undo 9/11?
“Would it not be better to save lives than to avenge
them?” Reagan asked. “Are we not capable of demonstrating our peaceful
intentions by applying all our abilities and our ingenuity to achieving a truly
lasting stability? I think we are. Indeed, we must.”
SDI was mocked in the pages of the New York Times as an expression of “anti-Communist paranoia.” As
recently as 2000, Alan Brinkley wrote in the Times that SDI represented a “convergence of political crisis and
scientific hubris.” Senator Ted Kennedy made killing SDI a priority, and
Senator John Kerry called the program “a cancer.” They were wrong, of course,
and wrong in part because they misunderstood Reagan’s motivation. They
caricatured him as a warmonger, but he was in reality the great peacenik of his
time. He was horrified by the then-current thinking about nuclear deterrence,
which went by the evocative acronym MAD — “mutual assured destruction.” Of
course pushing the Soviets into a technological-development race that their
backward economy could not sustain was tempting, but there is no need to be too
clever about it: Stopping missiles from hitting American cities is good in and
of itself.
The same critics who scoffed at “Star Wars” are scoffing
at its progeny now. Echoing those who chided Reagan for seeking to move beyond
MAD, Eric Gomez complains in The Diplomat
that “expanding the quantity and quality of U.S. homeland missile defense
systems could prompt negative countermoves by other nuclear powers.” Alex
Locke, writing in Business Insider,
points out that a state with a sufficiently large arsenal of missiles could
overwhelm our interceptor system with decoys. That’s all true, and beside the
point. A missile-defense system is a defense against one kind of threat. That
it is likely to be an imperfect defense against that threat and that it is not
a defense against every other kind of threat is not much of an argument for
scrapping it.
The politics are worth considering, too. North Korea is a
basket case, something from the political oddity shop, but attention must be
paid to it because it has a nuclear weapon or three. Missile defense changes
the math for would-be nuclear-blackmail artists: The costs of developing
nuclear capability and missile capability remain the same, but the benefits go
sharply down. And not every scenario involves a confrontation with a
nation-state: The situation in Pakistan points to the very real possibility of
non-state actors’ getting control of nuclear-capable missiles. Being able to
block one missile or a dozen missiles would be in that case very valuable. But
that is not a capability that can be developed overnight. It has been decades
in the making.
What’s been accomplished is remarkable, but there remain
improvements to be made and innovations to be explored. In August, military
officials announced that they believe they are on the verge of a new
technological breakthrough that could change the missile-defense model
radically: Lasers,
of course.
May the Force be with them.
No comments:
Post a Comment