Reagan’s ‘Star Wars’ proves its worth
Missile defense critical against irrational enemies
When President Reagan launched the Strategic Defense Initiative in 1983, his political opponents came up with a litany of excuses for why missile defense wasn’t good for America. Let’s see if they were right.
Reagan’s initial proposal was lofty: to deploy a combination of ground-based interceptors and spacebased lasers capable of shooting down intercontinental ballistic missiles.
From the outset, SDI faced loud criticism. The day after the president’s televised announcement, Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy referred to SDI as “reckless Star Wars schemes.” Critics argued that it would lead to a new arms race, destabilize the balance of power and, in the end, not be technologically feasible.
Yes, SDI did compel the Soviets to develop more sophisticated weapons to counteract our defensive weapons. But forcing them to keep pace with U.S. military R&D eventually helped bankrupt their economy. That led not only to the dissolution of the USSR but also to a large reduction in each side’s nuclear weapons after the Cold War.
Regarding the balance of power, for decades mutually assured destruction formed the cornerstone of American foreign policy based on the premise that the U.S. and the Soviet Union were rational adversaries and, thus, would never start a nuclear war knowing that the costs of doing so far outweighed any benefit they could hope to gain.
That balance of power, however, has undergone a seismic shift, but not as a consequence of missile defense. Instead, the proliferation of nuclear weapons among smaller states has made the world less stable by increasing the possibility of a limited, accidental or rogue attack.
To adjust to these changing threats, research and development has focused more on land-based, truck-mounted interceptors such as the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), which uses missiles to shoot down other missiles. Instead of defending against hundreds of missiles, the system is geared for a more limited attack in which we can protect key population centers, troops in the field and U.S. allies.
The U.S. Army recently deployed THAAD to South Korea, a strategic move that accomplishes two important goals.
The first is to augment our deterrence capabilities. If North Korea knows there is a chance that its ballistic missiles, whether conventional or nuclear, will be shot down, the U.S. will be in a stronger negotiating position by creating doubt that assured destruction will be mutual if war breaks out.
But the second, and more important, objective is protection. What if deterrence fails? Bellicose statements from North Korea are nothing new, but President Trump is new to his role as commander in chief. Given the public posturing by both countries, it is not hard to see how each leader could misinterpret the other’s intentions, which could cause the situation to spiral out of control.
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un already possesses nuclear weapons and has threatened to attack if we try to prevent him from testfiring his long-range missiles or pre-emptively strike North Korea. He also faces internal pressure to legitimize his power, which could lead to more provocative behavior to appease hardliners in his government
China may be helpful in putting pressure on North Korea, but Beijing’s influence over its communist neighbor has waned in recent years. And given the multitude of contentious issues we face with China — from territorial disputes in the South China Sea to human rights to currency valuations — Sino-- American relations are anything but predictable.
THAAD’s track record in test simulations is not perfect, but since 2006 the system has had 13 successful intercepts in 13 attempts according to the Missile Defense Agency. The odds of success are still much greater than if we had no defense against ballistic missiles.
During his State of the Union address in 1984, Reagan passionately said, “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” Unfortunately, today not all leaders are rational, which is why missile defense critics should be glad that we have THAAD.