|
|
|
| Current Issue |
|
|
| Resources |
|
|
|
The Patriot and SDI: Changing Images
| Article
# : |
19835 |
|
|
Section : |
CURRENT ISSUES
|
| Issue
Date : |
5 / 1991 |
2,696 Words |
| Author
: |
Stephen Aubin
Stephen Aubin is John M. Olin Research Fellow at Boston
University's Center for Defense Journalism and managing editor
of the center's newsletter, Defense Media Review. |
"It's back," warned an editorial in Newsday on February 1. What is back? "The Strategic Defense Initiative--Star Wars. With the success of the Patriot missile in knocking Iraqi Scud missiles out of the sky, there is a renewed cry from the Pentagon that the United States should start pouring billions of additional dollars into the SDI program."
Newsday went on to give all the reasons why the Patriot success has nothing to do with SDI.
On the opposite side of the spectrum, a January 23 Wall Street Journal editorial declared triumphantly, "The strategic-defense debate ended about 3 a.m. last Friday, Saudi Arabia time. That's when the now-famous Patriot system slammed into a Scud missile, the first of many interceptions now occurring daily."
For its boldness, the Wall Street Journal, along with other "right-wing propagandists," drew fire, on January 27, from the New York Times' former national security writer and editor-turned-columnist, Leslie Gelb. Gelb called the connection between SDI and the Patriot "pure baloney," stating, "Yes, indeed, the Patriot and Star Wars are both intended to intercept missiles. But the similarity ends there. It's like saying that since people and elephants both have ears they can equally enjoy Mozart, and the elephants should be encouraged to do so."
Perhaps Gelb failed to read the Wall Street Journal's argument closely, for in its second paragraph the editorial noted: "Yes, the Patriot isn't full-blown 'Star Wars.' But the principles of intercepting missiles before they hit civilians is what most SDI supporters, including us, have been promoting all along."
For his part, New York Times columnist William Safire provided a different twist. In a March 7 column, he maintained that the Patriot missiles did indeed intercept Scuds but that they often only struck the Scud's fuel tanks, allowing the warhead to get through and wreak its random destruction where it fell.
Clearly the SDI debate has been ignited once again. Judging from the fierce reaction to the Patriot episode by SDI critics, proponents of the program seem to have struck a raw nerve. Unfortunately, the debate may once again lapse into the less significant details and miss the real issue: Does the United States need some form of strategic defense?
Since its
...
Read Full Article
Look for this article in Ask.com
|
|
