A Shield in Space?: Technology, Politics, and the Strategic Defense Initiative : How the Reagan Administration Set Out to Make Nuclear Weapons impotent and Obsolete and Succumbed to the Fallacy of the Last Move

A Shield in Space?

A Shield in Space?

Technology, Politics, and the Strategic Defense Initiative

How the Reagan Administration Set Out to Make Nuclear Weapons Impotent and Obsolete and Succumbed to the Fallacy of the Last Move

Sanford Lakoff and Herbert F. York

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS Berkeley • Los Angeles • London

California Studies on Global Conflict and Cooperation, 1

University of California Press

Berkeley and Los Angeles, California

University of California Press, Ltd.

London, England

© 1989 by

The Regents of the University of California

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Lakoff, Sanford A.

A shield in space?: technology, politics, and the strategic defense initiative: how the Reagan Administration set out to make nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete and succumbed to the fallacy of the last move I Sanford Lakoff and Herbert F. York.

p. cm.—(California studies on global conflict and cooperation; 1)

Bibliography: p.

Includes index.

ISBN 0-520-06650-2 (alk. paper)

1. Strategic Defense Initiative. 2. Nuclear arms control.

I. York, Herbert F. (Herbert Frank) II. Title. III. Series.

UG743.L33 1989

358’. 1754—dc20 89-4888

CIP

Printed in the United States of America 123456789

Preface

Acronyms and Abbreviations

CHAPTER I Why SDI?

The Soviets, like some domestic critics, also see SDI as a calculated effort to force them into a competition with the U.S. economy. Such an effort would confront them with the handicap of their relative backwardness in technology and production, imposing expenditure burdens that would make it impossible to meet growing demands for an improved standard of consumption as well as improved performance in the civilian sectors of the economy. It is also possible, however, that the Soviet leadership is deliberately exaggerating the threat it sees in SDI. The technological challenge of SDI serves a useful domestic purpose in making Gorbachev’s economic reforms seem critical to national security. By claiming that the United States aims to militarize space, the Soviets can divert attention from their own considerable efforts to exploit space for military purposes in the hope of inciting opposition to the United States in Europe and elsewhere. The Soviets may also be preparing the ground for a negotiating strategy whereby they would offer to accommodate SDI by accepting a broader definition of the ABM Treaty provisions on research in exchange for U.S. acceptance of Soviet activities now considered violations of existing treaties or perhaps for even more valuable concessions.

CHAPTER 2 The Elusive Quest for Strategic Defenses Lessons of Recent History

CHAPTER 3 Measure for Measure The Technological Prospect

CHAPTER 4 A Defense Transition? SDI and Strategic Stability

CHAPTER 5 Don’t Ask the Soviets. Tell Them SDI and Arms Control

CHAPTER 6 A Maginot Line of the Twenty-first Century? SDI and the Western Alliance

CHAPTER 7 Deploy or Perish SDI and Domestic Politics

CHAPTER 8 Calculating the Costs and Benefits

CHAPTER 9 Security Through Technology An Illusory Faith

Notes

Select Bibliography

INDEX

Preface

The subject of this book is the research project begun in 1983 and officially known as the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) or, more popularly, as Star Wars. We have attempted as comprehensive a review of the project and its implications as the record of the past five years allows. We have also tried to be objective, but we have not hesitated to advance our own judgments when they seemed called for and to draw conclusions in the final chapter.

Our general findings can be stated simply: SDI is a classic example of misplaced faith in the promise of technological salvation. The project was initiated on the basis of political rather than scientific judgment in a deliberate effort to bypass the ordinary process by which innovations in military technology are proposed, reviewed, and adopted when they are considered feasible and appropriate. A popular but technically uninformed president made the decision without consulting his own cabinet or the two agencies of government with primary responsibilities for military and foreign policy, the Defense and State departments, in the hope of promoting advanced technologies that would remove the need to rely indefinitely on nuclear deterrence. So far the project has demonstrated, as informed observers knew from the start, only that comprehensive defenses will not become available in the foreseeable future. Further, even if they eventually do prove feasible, they will probably not be sufficiently impervious to countermeasures to inspire confidence that defenses alone can deter a massive nuclear attack. To suppose that there can be a last move in a technological arms race is to succumb to a patent fallacy.

In view of these realities, to allow the mere hope for a shield in space to influence defense planning or to prevent the negotiation of radical reductions in offensive arsenals would be an act of the gravest folly. In our view, the only realistic path toward secure and lasting peace is the one that begins with the achievement of greater strategic stability between the superpowers and leads to more elaborate forms of international integration and cooperation. We hope that those who read this book will become convinced, if they are not already, that to place so much faith in prospective military technology is to surrender to a dangerous illusion.

Our collaboration in this enterprise has been made possible by a generous grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. We are grateful to the president of the corporation, David Hamburg, and to his board for recognizing the importance of topics such as this, and to Frederic (Fritz) Mosher for shepherding us through the grant process and the completion of the work. The grant was supplemented by assistance from the University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation (IGCC), headquartered on our campus, and we are pleased that this book is being published as the first of what we hope will become a series published by the University of California Press in cooperation with IGCC. We are grateful to William J. McClung of the University Press for his encouragement, to Marilyn Schwartz for her editorial supervision, and to Kristen Stoever for her superb copyediting.

The Carnegie grant and IGCC support have also led to other publications written or edited by ourselves and several collaborators: Gerald M. Steinberg, who was a visiting research fellow during the project; Randy Willoughby, who worked with us while completing his doctoral dissertation; and G. Allen Greb, associate director of IGCC. The resulting publications are listed in the bibliography and have been drawn upon freely in the following chapters. We thank our colleagues for their invaluable work and counsel.

In the course of the research, we were also stimulated by the contributions to our understanding of SDI made by many visitors and associates. Some presented lectures to the faculty seminar on international security at the University of California, San Diego. Others took part in special SDI workshops or a conference on SDI and NATO sponsored jointly with the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, ably represented by Peter Schulze. Still others called our attention to valuable materials or com mented on various drafts of particular chapters. We list them all with warmest appreciation:

Gordon Adams, Harold Agnew, Worth Bagley, Jack N. Barkenbus, Joel Bengston, Hans Bethe, Maj. Gen. David Bradburn (USAF, ret.), Harvey Brooks, Rep. George E. Brown, Jr., Harold Brown, Robert W. Buchheim, Gregory H. Canavan, Albert Carnesale, John Cartwright, M.P., William Colglazier, Ernst-Otto Czempiel, Robert S. Cooper, Steve Cohen, Jonathan Dean, Richard DeLauer, James Digby, Sidney Drell, Freeman Dyson, Ralph Earle II, David Elliott, James C. Fletcher, President Gerald R. Ford, Lawrence Freedman, Edward Frieman, Richard Garwin, Peter Goudinoff, Thomas Graham, Jr., Patrick W. Hamlett, François Heisbourg, John P. Holdren, Cecil I. Hudson, Jr., Lothar Ibrugger (member of the Bundestag), Michael D. Intriligator, Bhu- pendra Jasani, Frank Jenkins, Gerald W. Johnson, John A. Jungerman, F. Stephen Larrabee, Richard Ned Lebow, Pierre Lellouche, Franklin A. Long, Frank E. Manuel, Steven Maaranen, James J. Martin, Michael M. May, Robert S. McNamara, Seymour Melman, Giancarlo Monterisi, Harold Mueller, Michael Moodie, Benoit Morel, David L. Pamas, Stanford S. Penner, Richard Perle, Theodore Postoi, George Rathjens, Edward L. Rowny, Elie Shneour, Alan B. Sherr, James Skelly, Alan Sweed- ler, Walter Slocombe, Dennis Smallwood, John Steinbruner, Jeremy Stone, Trevor Taylor, Edward Teller, Sheila Tobias, Maj. Gen. John C. Toomay (USAF, ret.), Brigitte Traupe (member of the Bundestag), Achim von Heinitz, Dean Wilkening, John Wilkinson, M.P., Roy D. Woodruff, David S. Yost, and Lord Solly Zuckerman.

Any mistakes or doubtful judgments that may remain in this book, despite their efforts to enlighten us, are solely our responsibility.

We also thank the staff members and students at UCSD who pitched in to help: Arlene Winer, Sue Greer, and Helen Hawkins of the IGCC staff; David Bernstein, Brian Bouchard, Brian Burgoon, David Geddes, and Brett Henry, our student researchers; and Anita Schiller, who unfailingly located uncatalogued materials for us in the Central Library. Above all, we are grateful to Kelly Charter Escobedo for patiently and promptly turning countless illegible drafts into neatly printed chapters.

Our debt to a host of scholars, journalists, government officials, and polemicists on all sides is recorded most fully in the notes and bibliography, but we would be remiss in not making special mention of certain sources that we have all but plundered: the three studies (one by Ashton Carter) issued by the congressional Office of Technology Assessment; the evaluation of directed-energy technologies by a committee of the American Physical Society; explorations of the economics of SDI by the Council on Economic Priorities, the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), and Barry M. Blechman and Victor A. Utgoff; Raymond L. Garthoff’s account of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty negotiations; three Senate staff reports on the progress of SDI; a report on the origins of SDI by Frank Greve in the San Jose Mercury News; the chronicle of events and comments provided in the Arms Control Reporter; survey data from the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research at the University of Connecticut; and the work of John E. Pike, specialist òn space policy at the FAS.

One of us (York) has long been acquainted with the technical and policy issues involved in the development of strategic defenses, having served as first chief scientist of the (Defense) Advanced Projects Agency and then as the first director of defense research and engineering during the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations. He also took an active part in the debate over deployment of anti-ballistic missiles in the 1960s. His coauthor became intrigued with prospects for space weapons when they became a controversial issue at a conference he attended in 1981 in Aspen, Colorado, which was convened by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics to consider the future of space exploration. Our subsequent discussions led us in 1982 to formulate a project to study warfare in space. The announcement of the SDI in 1983 made that the focus of our study. Finally, we should perhaps also thank the first director and the staff of the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO), without whose diligent and sometimes remarkably candid efforts to explain and defend the project we should have had a harder time finding information with which to criticize it.

La Jolla, California

Acronyms and Abbreviations

CHAPTER I

Why SDI?

Since the onset of the cold war, and particularly after both superpowers began to amass large arsenals of nuclear weapons, military planners in both the East and the West have encouraged efforts to develop defenses against nuclear attack. Both sides have made effective use of passive defenses, such as the hardening and dispersal of weapons systems likely to be prime targets of a preemptive strike and the provision of shelters for command authorities and for vital communications centers. Some countries, including the Soviet Union, have made significant investments in civil defense as well, even though it is generally acknowledged that, at best, population shelters and evacuation plans can provide only marginal protection in the event of a massive attack on civilian targets. Both sides have also tried, with far less success, to develop active defenses—that is, measures for intercepting attacking bombers and nuclear warheads that might be borne by ballistic or cruise missiles launched from air, sea, or land (at long or short range) and for finding and destroying submarines before they can fire their missiles.

Even though these measures have been undertaken at considerable expense and with great technical sophistication, all efforts against this varied and daunting challenge have so far been largely in vain. Every advance in active defense has been offset by compensatory improvements in offensive forces. Partly in response to Soviet deployment of anti-ballistic missiles (ABMs) in the 1960s, the United States developed and introduced multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs). The Soviets followed suit. As a result, the number of warheads that can be carried on the missiles fired from a given number of launchers was greatly multiplied and the overall cost per warhead lowered, while progress in guidance improved accuracy. As air defenses were improved, penetration aids were adopted to overcome them. Bombers were hardened to withstand the effects of nuclear explosions. The United States’ B-2 bomber, also known as the Stealth, or advanced technology bomber (ATB), now nearing deployment, will be less visible to radar than conventional aircraft owing to design changes that will give it a smaller radar cross section, to the substitution of composites for aircraft metals, and to the use of nonreflective coatings. A stealthed fighter aircraft, the F-19, is also being developed to penetrate enemy airspace and to shoot down airborne early-warning aircraft that detect incoming bombers. Electronic countermeasures now aboard aircraft enable pilots to spoof enemy radar. Air-launched cruise missiles (ALCMs) and smart, stand-off short-range attack missiles (SRAMs) enable pilots to release their payloads without having to penetrate enemy defenses. Attacking aircraft can also jettison decoys, which lure surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) away from the attackers. Submarines are now harder to detect and locate, and the new Trident II D-5 missiles are expected to provide virtually the same prompt, hard-target-kill capacity as the latest U.S. version of the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), called the MX, or Peacekeeper, missile. As a result, efforts to design effective and economical defenses against the threat of nuclear attack became exercises in futility. Defenses could be overwhelmed and evaded even when they were technically feasible, and the only sure result of deploying them was to invite the addition of ever more capable and complex offensive weapons.

The apparent futility of building effective defenses against missiles was in effect acknowledged by both superpowers in 1972 when they signed the ABM Treaty. The treaty limited the two countries to no more than one hundred ground-based ABM launchers—each with a single warhead and specified radar detectors and trackers—to be deployed either around a missile field or the national capitals. This severe restriction of ballistic missile defense (BMD) appealed to leaders on both sides. In the first place, they were compelled to recognize that the technology for an effective defense simply was not available. As former secretary of defense Robert S. McNamara said, in a remarkable address in 1967 that helped to pave the way for the treaty, While we have substantially improved our technology in the field, it is important to understand that none of the systems at present or foreseeable state-of-the-art would provide an impenetrable shield over the United States.¹ In addition, the United States and the Soviet Union both recognized that limiting defenses would reduce the incentive to add or strengthen offensive forces. The terms of the treaty, however, did not prohibit improvement of existing ABM systems or research that might lead to different defensive systems based on other physical principles (such as lasers) that were not part of ABM systems in use when the treaty was signed. Such research continued in both countries, but there was no substantial pressure on the part of weapons researchers on either side for a reconsideration of the technical premise on which the ABM Treaty was based.

It therefore came as a considerable surprise, even to the technical communities, when in a television address on March 23, 1983, President Ronald Reagan announced that the United States was embarking on a major new effort, subsequently called the Strategic Defense Initiative. The initiative would be designed to determine whether effective defenses could be built against nuclear attack. Shortly afterward, Reagan expressed the hope that the research would enable the United States to replace the strategy of nuclear deterrence with a protective shield that promised assured survival rather than assured destruction. The president repeatedly made it clear that he had in mind the protection of people, not merely of missile launchers or other military targets, and insisted that the aim was not to achieve military superiority by adding a partial defense to a strong offense but, rather, to make nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete. He invited the Soviet Union to cooperate with the United States in achieving this transition to defense, offering to share the fruits of the research effort so that both countries could join in protecting the world from the threat of nuclear war.

How did this dramatic change come about? What were the motives behind the president’s decision? Was it all but inevitable given the relentless advance of technology? Or was SDI more the product of other considerations—political, strategic, moral, economic?

SDI, the evidence suggests, was far from inevitable. Unlike virtually all other comparable weapons-innovation projects since World War II, this one reflected nothing so much as the mind-set of a single person— the president who enunciated it on the recommendation of a handful of like-minded political supporters. The decision was adopted without benefit of prior review by specialists in defense technology and strategy. It was not considered by the president’s formal cabinet, by leaders of Congress, or by U.S. allies. The policy attracted initial support because Reagan succeeded in making a direct appeal to U.S. public opinion. He sensed correctly that the initiative would strike a responsive chord among a majority of voters, especially because it promised to remove the threat of nuclear attack by relying not on the imperfect strategy of retaliatory deterrence nor on persuading the Soviets to accept meaningful arms control, but solely on faith in the national capacity for technological innovation. The peculiar circumstances surrounding the birth of SDI, however, may also contain the seeds of its undoing. As the president’s popularity declined and as his term neared an end, SDI became more and more vulnerable to attack from all the forces he had tried to bypass. Because it is so closely identified with the Reagan presidency, rather than with the coalitional consensus that sustains other major military programs, SDI is unlikely to survive Reagan’s term in office for very long—at least in the form of the high-visibility, high-priority program he tried to fashion.

THE NOVELTY OF SDI

In examining the grounds for the decision to embark on SDI, the history of weapons innovation offers some preliminary guidance. But this history provides no exact parallel, and none of the usual explanations adequately applies to the case of SDI. In previous weapons innovations, certain factors have been either essential or at least implicated. Two have been especially prominent: (1) fear of being put at a disadvantage if an adversary develops a new weapon first and (2) the assurance of technical specialists that the proposed innovation is likely to prove feasible. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s order to create the Manhattan Project had both of these elements behind it. Refugee nuclear physicists had persuaded Roosevelt and his advisors that Nazi Germany was certain to be developing a weapon that might affect the outcome of the war.² Similarly, President Harry S. Truman approved a crash program to develop the hydrogen, or thermonuclear, bomb out of fear that the Soviets might develop it first and use it to blackmail the West. Although Truman chose to disregard the advice of a key committee of experts, he acted on the advice of officials who favored the project and received strong encouragement from other prominent scientists; even those who opposed the project thought it had an even chance of succeeding within five years.³

Weapons innovation involves other factors, too. Rivalry among the armed services, in addition to other manifestations of bureaucratic politics—salesmanship on the part of defense contractors, the interest of well-placed members of Congress in obtaining procurement contracts for their districts, the findings of strategists and other technical experts, and the general interest of the Defense Department in promoting modernization—have all figured in decisions to develop and deploy new weapons.⁴ There is also some reason to suppose that innovation occurs because of an action-reaction phenomenon, iri McNamara’s phrase,⁵ except that the United States has usually been the initiator rather than the reactor. The United States tends to take the initiative not because it is any more aggressive than the U.S.S.R. or is less concerned about the dangers posed by nuclear weapons. The reason is, rather, that we are richer and more powerful, that our science and technology are more dynamic, that we generate more ideas of all kinds.⁶ This American penchant for innovation, however, has never been completely autonomous; it has been directed and channeled by a combination of technical and policy judgments.

On all these counts, SDI is different. The SDI decision was not reached on conventional grounds or in the conventional way. There was no reason to suppose that the Soviets were on the verge of achieving breakthroughs that had so far eluded U.S. researchers or that these breakthroughs would be sufficient to allow for a breakout from the ABM Treaty that would yield some tangible military advantage. Although Soviet scientists had done important research on various types of lasers and had continued to mount a major effort to exploit space for military purposes, including the development of a co-orbital anti-satellite (ASAT) weapon, they were not on the verge of developing radically new, more effective ballistic missile defenses. In 1977 Aviation Week & Space Technology carried sensational reports, based on information from a recently retired director of air force intelligence, Maj. Gen. George J. Keegan, that the U.S.S.R. was close to achieving an operational particlebeam weapon for BMD. These claims were reviewed by an air force— CIA intelligence panel and a panel of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, which rejected them as greatly exaggerated. But more credible reports began to appear, confirming Soviet research on beam weapons. So, after 1977, the DOD reviewed its assessment of Soviet progress at least once a year.⁷ A review conducted by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), a year before the president made his surprise announcement on SDI, concluded that there were no technical grounds for supposing that a more advanced BMD system could be developed—one, in any event, that could not be successfully countered and would not be more expensive to deploy than the offense needed to defeat it.⁸ There is little if any evidence that military contractors were actively promoting a new venture in defense, even though some have suggested in retrospect that contractors might well look to SDI to pick up the slack left as major offensive weapons reached maturity. The very few advisors whose opinions the president solicited were almost all predisposed in favor of SDI, although they certainly could not be said to represent a consensus within the technical community.⁹ Officials in the Reagan administration later sought to make a virtue of this neglect of expert opinion by citing instances in which eminent scientific authorities had proved unduly pessimistic.

More than any previous major decision on weapons innovation, SDI was very much a presidential decision. As experienced observers were quick to note, it was a top-down decision rather than one reached, as most have been, after prolonged gestation in the defense establishment and review by expert committees. From the»Truman administration onward, decisions of this sort have generally risen through the upper layers of a bureaucratic and advisory network until, if deemed viable, they are given the National Security Council’s imprimatur: an NSC directive. The first such directive was NSC 68 in 1950, which was the policy basis for a major increase in defense spending to meet a perceived Soviet threat. Later, President Dwight D. Eisenhower decided to approve the development of continental air defenses and to accelerate development of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) only after elaborate inquiries had been conducted by committees of experts drawn from within and outside of the government.¹⁰

SDI is an anomaly. It was a decision reached by the president without prior review by the defense establishment, in the knowledge that such a review would have been unfavorable, on the advice of an informal kitchen cabinet composed of political supporters, and after the president himself had begun to favor the project. It was not until after the March 23 speech and the issuance two days later of National Security Decision Directive 85 (Eliminating the Threat from Ballistic Missiles) that the president issued National Security Study Directive 6-83 (Defense Against Ballistic Missiles). The study directive authorized the creation of the Defensive Technologies Study (chaired by James C. Fletcher) and the Future Security Strategy Study (chaired by Fred S. Hoffman) and charged them with examining the feasibility and potential impact of proposals already approved. Although many assumed the president must have been given the idea for SDI by his advisors, Reagan himself scoffed at the suggestion: It kind of amuses me that everybody is so sure I must have heard about it, that I never thought of it myself. The truth is I did.¹¹

THE POLITICAL BACKGROUND

Although the decision to establish SDI did not come altogether out of the blue, the events that led to it were almost exclusively political and personal. The 1980 Republican platform had endorsed a hawkish congressional resolution that called for peace through strength. It included among other strategic goals the need to pursue more modern ABM technologies and to create a strategic and civil defense which would protect the American people against nuclear war at least as well as the Soviet population is protected.¹² In 1940, as a Hollywood actor, Reagan starred in a film entitled Murder in the Air, about a secret miracle weapon, an inertia projector, that could bring down aircraft by destroying their electrical systems. In the movie, after the weapon’s promoters announce that it will make America invincible in war and therefore be the greatest force for peace ever invented, Communist spies attempt to steal the plans, but a U.S. secret agent pursues them and uses the device to destroy their airplane in midflight. The role of the secret agent was played by Reagan.¹³ Almost four decades later, as a candidate for the U.S. presidency in 1979, he became aware of the country’s complete vulnerability to attack during a campaign visit on July 31 to the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) headquarters at Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado. After observing NORAD radars tracking thousands of objects in space, he asked the commander of the facility, Gen. James Hill, what NORAD could do to stop a Soviet missile once it had been identified as having been fired at a U.S. city. According to Martin Anderson, an aide who accompanied Reagan on the visit, the general replied that NORAD could only alert the officials of the city: That’s all we can do. We can’t stop it. On the flight back to Los Angeles, Reagan, still disturbed by what he had learned, shook his head and said, We have spent all that money and have all that equipment, and there is nothing we can do to prevent a nuclear missile from hitting us. What options would a president of the United States have, he wondered, in the event of a nuclear attack? The only options he would have, the future president reflected, would be to press the button or do nothing. They’re both bad. We should have some way of defending ourselves against nuclear missiles.¹⁴

Later in the campaign, Reagan reviewed what he had learned on his visit in an interview with a reporter:

We can track the missiles if they were fired, we can track them all the way from firing to know their time of arrival and their targets, and we couldn’t do anything to stop the missiles. … They actually are tracking several thousand objects in space, meaning satellites of ours and everyone else’s, even down to the point that they are tracking a glove lost by an astronaut that is still circling the earth up there. I think the thing that struck me was the irony that here, with this great technology of ours, we can do all of this yet we cannot stop any of the weapons that are coming at us. 1 don’t think there’s been a time in history when there wasn’t a defense against some kind of thrust, even back in the old-fashioned days when we had coast artillery that would stop invading ships if they came.

He went on to discuss Soviet efforts in civil defense and added, significantly:

1 don’t know whether we should be doing the same things of that kind but 1 do think that it is time to turn the expertise that we have in that field—I’m not one—but to turn it loose on what do we need in the line of defense against their weaponry and defend our population, because we can’t be sitting here—this could become the vulnerable point for us in the case of an ultimatum.¹⁵

Impressed by the candidate’s powerful reaction to the NORAD visit, Anderson drafted a policy memorandum on defense in early August 1979, which suggested that Reagan propose the development of a protective missile system:

Develop a Protective Missile System. During the early 1970s there was a great debate about whether or not this country should build an anti-ballistic missile system. The ABM lost, and is now prohibited by SALT agreements. But perhaps it is now time to seriously reconsider the concept.

To begin with, such a system concentrates on defense, on making sure that enemy missiles never strike U.S. soil. And that idea is probably fundamentally far more appealing to the American people than the questionable satisfaction of knowing that those who initiated an attack against us were also blown away. Moreover, the installation of an effective protective missile system would also prevent even an accidental missile from landing. Of course, there is the question of reliability, especially with the development of multiple entry warheads, but there have apparently been striking advances in missile technology during the past decade or so that would make such a system technically possible.

If it could be done, it would be a major step toward redressing the military balance of power, and it would be a purely defensive step.

Taken in conjunction with a reasonable buildup in our conventional forces, and an acceleration in development of cruise missiles, laser beam technology, and conventional nuclear missiles like the MX, the development of an effective protective missile system might go a long way toward establishing the kind of national security that will be necessary in the 1980s.

The question of technical feasibility and cost are critical, but we should be able to get a good evaluation of the concept from the group of national defense experts we have working with us.

Although Reagan embraced the principle of a missile defense wholeheartedly, Anderson recounts that Michael K. Deaver, a senior campaign advisor, vetoed the proposal that it be made a campaign pledge. Deaver liked the idea in principle, but not the timing of the proposed statement, afraid it would be used by demagogic opponents to make Reagan look like too much of a hawk for proposing such a radical change in strategic doctrine.¹⁶

Although Deaver’s advice prevailed and Reagan did not make public his belief in the need for a strategic defense program during the campaign, other evidence suggests that he was already strongly in favor of such a program. Another of his campaign advisors was a retired army officer, Lt. Gen. Daniel O. Graham. Although not a technologist, Graham had been head of the Defense Intelligence Agency and was already an outspoken champion of the military need to seize the high ground of space before the Soviets did. Graham, along with other military men and space enthusiasts (space cadets to their critics), was strongly convinced that just as warfare had earlier spread from land to sea and then to the air, so it was also bound to expand into outer space. An air force Space Master Plan, setting objectives for the end of the century, would later call for a space combat capacity aimed at protecting air force assets and denying the enemy free access to space.¹⁷ For Graham, as for many air force officers, the question was not whether the United States and the Soviet Union were competing for military control of space, but which side would win. He has recalled that Reagan, during the 1980 presidential race, often objected to the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), referring to it as a Mexican standoff. He said it was like two men with nuclear pistols pointed at each other’s heads, and if one man’s finger flinches, you’re going to get your brains blown out.¹⁸ Reagan, who is known for his tendency to repeat favorite images of this sort, drew a similar analogy in explaining SDI to reporters shortly after he announced it.¹⁹

After the election, Graham set about building support for a space defense among the president’s staunchest supporters. Early in 1981 he published an article in Strategic Review calling for the deployment of space-based defenses that would use off the shelf technology.²⁰ Later that year he founded High Frontier, an organization committed to the view that the United States should aim to achieve military superiority over the U.S.S.R. by making a technological end run on the Soviets. Space would be the key arena in which this technological edge would be exploited, at first using kinetic-kill technology—systems designed to shoot projectiles, or smart rocks, at missiles, destroying them on impact—and later, as they became available, more advanced systems incorporating beam weapons. By taking this bold approach, the advocates of High Frontier contended, the United States would not have to be content with restoring a balance in offensive systems, but could achieve superiority by adding defenses to offenses. The cost of deploying the proposed system was estimated to be on the order of $24 billion in constant 1982 dollars. The ultimate aim would be to replace assured destruction with assured survival.²¹ Among the contributors to High Frontier were four members of the president’s California kitchen cabinet: brewer Joseph Coors, retired industrialist Karl R. Bendetsen, investor and longtime Reagan friend William A. Wilson, and Jaquelin Hume, like Wilson an elderly businessman.

At the urging of Reagan appointees, High Frontier’s proposal of a three-layer global ballistic missile defense (GBMD) consisting of terminal, midcourse, and boost-phase systems was examined by specialists at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), a Defense Department organization in charge of research in the general area of future technologies. DARPA found that the proposed system would be ineffective against the present Soviet missile force, vulnerable to countermeasures, and considerably more expensive than High Frontier claimed. In testimony before Congress, DARPA Director Robert S. Cooper reported on the agency’s findings, noting that its researchers had worked with representatives of High Frontier:

We do not share their optimism in being able to develop and field such a capability within their timeframe and cost projections. We have conducted several inhouse analyses and have experienced some difficulties in ratifying the existence of off-the-shelf components or technologies to provide the required surveillance, command and control, and actually perform the intercepts within the orbital and physical conditions described. Our understanding of the system’s implications and costs would lead us to project expenditures on the order of $200 to $300 billion in acquisition costs alone for the proposed system.²²

On the recommendation of the General Accounting Office (GAO),²³ however, the DOD in 1982 set new priorities for the research on strategic defenses and put the relevant activities under the guidance of DARPA.²⁴

Also promoting strategic defenses was a laser lobby in Congress headed by Sen. Malcolm A. Wallop (R., Wyo.) and his legislative assistant, Angelo Codevilla. In 1979 both men drafted and sent to Reagan an article that called for immediate deployment of space-based defenses featuring chemical lasers. Reagan returned the draft with comments and annotations.²⁵ At Wallop’s urging, the Republican-controlled Senate voted in 1982 to provide additional funding for laser defenses by a margin of 91 to 3. In the House there was some enthusiasm for the X-ray laser, as Science magazine reported in a story in its issue of June 4, 1982, entitled Laser Wars on Capitol Hill. Another Republican senator, Pete Domenici of New Mexico, published an article in the conservative Strategic Review that called for a new program to develop spacebased defenses.²⁶ But there were countervailing pressures. In 1982 both houses voted to deny $350 million requested by the Defense Department for research on ABM systems, and a joint resolution was introduced in the House of Representatives, signed by ninety members, calling on Reagan to negotiate a ban on all space weapons; a similar resolution was introduced in the Senate.

THE ROLE OF EDWARD TELLER

Although the specialists at DARPA were clearly unimpressed by the case for a high-priority program in strategic defense, the cause received influential support from the nuclear physicist Edward Teller. A former director of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and at the time a kind of physicist-in-residence there, Teller had been encouraging a group of proteges—many of them brought to the laboratory under a fellowship program of the Hertz Foundation, in which Teller has long played a key role²⁷ —to investigate a third-generation nuclear device (incorporating fission and fusion weapons but focusing the energy of their explosions in a powerful beam of X-rays) that might have military applications. In 1967 Teller had met Reagan, when he was governor of California, and had given him a tour of Livermore Laboratory.²⁸

Two Teller proteges, Lowell J. Wood, Jr., and George A. Keyworth II, also played key roles in promoting SDL Wood, a physicist, was the leader of the Excalibur project team investigating the X-ray laser at Lawrence Livermore. Later, he would often appear with Teller in congressional hearings and otherwise played an active role in lobbying for SDI in general and the X-ray laser in particular. Keyworth, then head of the physics division at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, became a strong advocate of his mentor’s views in general, even though he did not share Teller’s enthusiasm for the X-ray laser. On the recommendation of Teller and other leading Republicans, and after other candidates were also considered, Keyworth was appointed special assistant to the president for science and technology and director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) as of May 1981. (The fact that the post remained vacant for so many weeks into the president’s term was taken by many as evidence of the indifference and even suspicion with which the president and his immediate advisors regarded the scientific community. This attitude may have been a legacy from the Nixon administration, when the President’s Science Advisory Committee was dissolved after certain of its members were criticized for disloyalty to the administration and for being advocates rather than advisors.)

Teller had long been in favor of passive defenses in the form of civil defense, including the dispersion of population and industry, in order to limit damage from a nuclear attack. Now he pressed Keyworth to promote the development of active defenses, including research on third-generation nuclear weapons. With Keyworth’s encouragement and Teller’s active participation, the four members of the kitchen cabinet— Coors, Bendetsen, Wilson, and Hume—reportedly decided to act separately from High Frontier by forming an ad hoc subcommittee. They conferred at the offices of the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., and used their considerable influence to arrange a White House meeting with Reagan in January 1982 in which Teller took part. At that meeting they presented a report urging the president to establish a strategic defense program modeled after the Manhattan Project. On September 14, 1982, Teller met separately with the president and key advisors. Although he had been invited for a different purpose—Keyworth wanted his help in persuading the president to increase support for basic research—Teller used the opportunity (much to his protege’s annoyance) to lobby for more support for the X-ray laser project. He is reported to have warned the president that the Soviets were making significant progress in developing the new laser and to have advised him that a major breakthrough in the same effort had been achieved in the Excalibur project at Livermore.²⁹ Teller has said subsequently that because the Soviets are doing it, by now it is a question of life and death, and that the achievement of the X-ray laser would end the MAD era and commence a period of assured survival on terms favorable to the Western alliance.³⁰

Teller’s promotion of the Livermore project did not stem from a belief that the United States should deploy defenses only when the X-ray laser had been perfected. Nor did he propose that the United States adopt a space-based defensive system, either using kinetic weapons on satellites (like the High Frontier project) or relying on battle stations armed with laser weapons. Indeed, Teller specifically rejected the idea of satellite-based interceptors and declined to endorse the High Frontier proposals because they made use of this very basing mode. We are not talking about battle stations in space, he told the House Armed Services Committee. They are much too vulnerable. We should merely try to have our eyes in space and to maintain them.³¹ Teller’s support of strategic defense was general rather than specific, and he had long opposed any political actions—including treaties—that might hamper the development or deployment of defensive systems. In a book published in 1962, Teller was already campaigning for active defenses. A retaliatory force, he wrote, is important. A truly effective defense system would be even more desirable. It would be wonderful if we could shoot down approaching missiles before they could destroy a target in the United States. If the Soviets were to develop reliable defenses knowing that U.S. defenses were insufficient, Soviet conquest of the world would be inevitable.³² He opposed the 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty because it prevented development of nuclear-tipped ABMs, and the ABM Treaty because it prevented the United States from deploying more than one hundred ground-based interceptors. Teller continued to believe that such interceptors would be worth having, especially in view of advances in their design. And he believed this even though the interceptors could not promise complete protection and even though, in the long run, the X-ray laser would provide a much more effective defense (if it could be popped up from submarines on warning of an attack) by intercepting missiles in their boost phase without the vulnerability of space-based satellites.

In his meetings with the president, Teller evidently emphasized the long-term prospects offered by the X-ray laser, though he very likely also reiterated his long-held belief that some defense is better than none at all. Later, Teller was to react strongly against the conclusions of the Fletcher committee. He objected on the grounds that the Fletcher report called for deferring deployment until research into all possible alter natives had been completed and because the report anticipated the deployment of a layered defense requiring some space-based systems. The spirit is willing, Teller punned, but the Fletch is weak.³³

BYPASSING THE ESTABLISHMENT

Teller’s technical judgment was given practical application as a result of meetings involving the kitchen cabinet, Graham, and a small group of White House officials, none of whom had major responsibility for foreign or defense policy. On September 14,1981, Bendetsen, Graham, and Teller met in Meese’s office with White House Counselor Edwin Meese III; Keyworth; Anderson; and Meese’s assistant, Edwin W. Thomas. The outside advisors agreed to prepare a report for the president recommending that U.S. policy be redesigned tó emphasize both defense and offense. There was general agreement, according to Anderson, that a major part of a missile defense would probably be based in space. A second, smaller meeting took place in the White House on October 12, at which the group considered adopting the High Frontier designation for the project of Global Ballistic Missile Defense.³⁴

On January 8, 1982, a meeting was arranged for the members of the kitchen cabinet to present their report. In addition to the president, present in the Roosevelt Room—adjacent to the Oval Office—were Bendetsen, Hume, Coors, Teller, Meese, Keyworth, Anderson, and William Clark, then a member of the White House staff. The meeting was supposed to last only fifteen minutes but went on for almost an hour.³⁵ During the discussion, the question arose of whether an ABM system should be designed to rely on beam weapons. Some also asked if the system should be expected to provide an area defense to protect people or a point defense, which would protect only missile silos and other military targets. Bendetsen reportedly suggested that if one type of defense could be achieved, so could the other. The real need, he said, was to get on with the job. The president agreed. No one raised the question of whether the proposed defenses would be compatible with the obligations imposed by the ABM Treaty. The right way to proceed, the participants agreed, was for the president to issue a directive initiating a program on the scale of the Manhattan Project. For something that elaborate, Reagan observed, he would need a recommendation from the DOD. Bendetsen, who had been under secretary of the army from 1946 to 1952, observed that if that were the case, Reagan would have to talk the department into it.³⁶

The others at the White House meeting recognized the force of Ben- detsen’s point. They knew that if the president were to try to win approval through the usual channels, he would run into so much opposition that the proposal might never reach his TelePrompTer. Within the defense establishment, the opposition was likely to be keen, especially among those who had already examined the High Frontier proposal and concluded it was premature at best. Leaders of the various services were apt to fear that large appropriations for strategic defense might jeopardize modernization of offensive weaponry. Those mos* knowledgeable about advanced technologies and the costs of development would be either skeptical or strongly opposed.

On the very day the president made his Star Wars speech, the director of DOD’s Directed Energy Program told a Senate committee that although beam weapons offer promise of making major contributions’* to strategic defense, the relative immaturity of the technologies made it hard to know whether weapons employing them would be feasible or cost-effective. For the time being, he indicated, our goals in this area are rather modest. The research would be unlikely to affect force structure until the 1990s or beyond."³⁷ Richard DeLauer, under secretary of defense and in effect the highest-ranking technologist in the Pentagon, said later in the year that a deployable space-based defense was at least two decades away and would require staggering costs. To develop it, he added, eight technical problems would need to be solved, each of which was as challenging as the Manhattan Project or the Apollo Project.³⁸ And even if it could be developed, DeLauer was skeptical of its utility in the face of countermeasures: There’s no way an enemy can’t overwhelm your defense if he wants to badly enough.³⁹

The proposal would hardly have been any more welcome elsewhere in the executive branch or among most members of Congress. The State Department, if consulted, would certainly have warned that Western Europe would react adversely and that Soviet objections might undo the ABM Treaty. Arms-control specialists in the department and at the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency might have cautioned that the proposal would complicate arms-reduction negotiations with the Soviets. And, had the proposal leaked to Congress, those already skeptical toward the schemes of High Frontier and the laser lobby might well have mounted a campaign to head it off.

The president did not order further study of the kitchen cabinet’s recommendation or take action on it for some months. The issue of developing defenses came up again in the meeting with Teller in September and was also discussed in a meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) in December 1982. Apparently, it was only after this meeting with the JCS that the president decided to move ahead with the proposal.

The job of shaping the decision was assigned by Clark, who had succeeded Richard V. Allen as assistant to the president for national security affairs, to a small circle of NSC staff members headed by his deputy, Robert C. McFarlane. The basic strategy adopted, according to McFarlane, was to skirt Congress, the bureaucracy, and the media. Secretary of State George P. Shultz was not consulted but, instead, was handed an advance copy of the speech, two days before it was televised, marked eyes only—an injunction that prevented him from sharing it with arms control advisor Paul H. Nitze, who learned about the project the day the speech was given. Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger was alsQ not consulted. DeLauer learned of the decision nine hours before the speech. Fred C. Iklé, under secretary of defense for policy, was notified at the same time and pleaded for an opportunity to inform at least the leaders of the other NATO countries.⁴⁰ The process whereby the policy was formulated resembles the one later employed in the Iran- contra affair, in which the president also relied primarily on the staff of the National Security Council rather than on members of his formal cabinet and the relevant executive agencies.

Keyworth, who had been privy to the earlier discussions with Teller, was consulted only after the president had decided to act. He was informed of the decision five days before the date of the speech, when the NSC staff realized that the president could not announce a major hightechnology initiative in a nationally televised address without having informed his science advisor. Keyworth has said that the president asked him to determine whether the objective was attainable, and that he spent several days telephoning experts before he was able to give the president the assurance he wanted. He has admitted that his first reaction was to ask for time to consider the issue: "My God, let’s think about this some more. Let’s think