|
|
|
| Current Issue |
|
|
| Resources |
|
|
|
Strategic Defenses and Allied Security
| Article
# : |
11033 |
|
|
Section : |
MODERN THOUGHT
|
| Issue
Date : |
6 / 1986 |
9,508 Words |
| Author
: |
Robert C. Richardson III
Robert C. Richardson III is Deputy Director of High Frontier.
He is a retired Brigadier General of the United States Air
Force. |
In March 23, 1983, President Reagan announced a research effort aimed at changing the U.S. strategic concept of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD)--in effect since the mid-1960s--to one of Assured Survival. The new concept would be based on the development and deployment of layered, and primarily space-based, defenses against Soviet missiles.
This program, now officially called the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) but unofficially dubbed "Star Wars" or "Peace Shield," followed the recommendations of a study of its military desirability, technical feasibility, political acceptability, and economic viability initiated in 1981 under the name "High Frontier" (HF).
The difference between SDA and HF is that SDI is currently limited to "researching" the feasibility and implications of the new strategy, while HF advocates immediate deployment of a first-generation defense system not only for national security purposes, but also as an integral part of a bold, U.S.-led, move to exploit the commercial potential of space.
To evaluate the High Frontier/Star Wars proposals, one must first understand the circumstances that led to them as well as to the available alternatives for providing long-term security for the Free World in light of the growing Soviet threat and few, if any, prospects of valid arms agreements.
Background Of The Proposal
In 1981, the U.S. returned to the concept of "peace through strength." This concept makes adequate military strength the principal basis for deterrence instead of force levels guaranteed by arms control.
The adoption of Peace through Strength raised the question of how the United States should go about rebuilding and maintaining the military strength needed to implement this concept. As a result of reductions in U.S. spending during the 1970s and of self-imposed ceilings on such major weapons as missiles, bombers, and submarines, the strategic balance had been shifting in favor of the Soviets.
By 1981, some observers credited the Soviets with having achieved strategic nuclear superiority. The momentum in Soviet arms production far exceeded that of the United States. (There appeared to be no tendency toward a "leveling off" in their buildup of new missiles--SS-18s, SS-20s, etc.--or of Backfire bombers, fighters,
...
Read Full Article
Look for this article in Ask.com
|
|
