Search  About Salon  Table Talk  Newsletters  Advertise in Salon  Investor Relations

 
 

Salon.com

[Arts & Entertainment][ Books ][ Comics ][ Mothers Who Think ][ News ][ People ][ Politics ][ Sex ][ Technology ][ Audio ]

Article Finder
Books


 


Secret weapons
Frances FitzGerald talks about the Bush administration's commitment to national missile defense, the "son of Star Wars" scheme no one seems to understand.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Suzy Hansen

Jan. 23, 2001 | In testimony at their Senate confirmation hearings, Secretary of State Colin Powell and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld indicated that the new Bush administration would spend billions on what is already the most expensive research project in the history of the United States government -- an antimissile defense system.

President Ronald Reagan's "Strategic Defense Initiative," or "Star Wars," has cost the United States $60 billion since the mid-1980s. Congress most recently financed SDI in 1999, when, quietly and with bipartisan support, $6.6 billion was doled out for further development of national missile defense. Yet it hasn't always been clear where the money goes, what has been developed so far or whether any of these systems will ever work.



Way Out There in the Blue: Reagan and Star Wars and the End of the Cold War

By Frances Fitzgerald

Simon & Schuster
592 pages
Nonfiction

Buy it



Print story


E-mail story


View Salon privately with SafeWeb


According to Powell, national missile defense, like the Internet, is essential to America's future. Rumsfeld, who was secretary of defense from 1975 to 1977 under President Ford, explained in his testimony that defense shields "work without being fired" because "they alter behavior." Both men also have declared the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972 to be virtually obsolete.

Frances FitzGerald, historian and Pulitzer Prize-winning author of "Fire in the Lake," offered an in-depth account of SDI under the Reagan administration with her acclaimed work "Way Out There in the Blue." Heralded for its clear and elegant style, FitzGerald's book unveils the daunting complexities surrounding missile defense, from its bizarre scientific origins to Reagan's thorny personal motivations to its role in the arms race.

Salon spoke with FitzGerald about what lies ahead for missile defense.

Now that the Republicans are in office, missile defense is a hot issue. But it seems as if "Star Wars" and all its progeny are still shrouded in mystery.

No one ever knew quite what it was. It was a bunch of research programs. Reagan promised it would protect us, like a roof over our heads. It always had to do with weapons in space.

How did it change with the Bush and Clinton administrations?

There have been many "sons of Star Wars." They're mostly just ideas too. The first Bush administration supported "Brilliant Pebbles," the notion that these things rattling around in space would intercept missiles.

Clinton, though, was developing a ground-based system. They built various sorts of prototypes. Missile defense isn't one thing -- it's radars and all kinds of stuff. It's not a scientific problem -- having it all work at once is the problem. And Clinton's system has various problems; two out of three tests have failed. A big issue is whether or not the system can deal with decoys.

What was the Clinton administration's rationale for it?

Rationales change all the time. The Clinton administration rationale was to protect us from "rogue states" -- which did not mean Russia or China. It meant Iraq, Iran and Korea. Then, they decided that they weren't "rogue states" and Madeleine Albright started talking about "states of concern."

But all of those countries have unique considerations.

The problem with China is that, essentially, it has ICBMs [Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles], but it only has 20 of them. We kept trying to reassure them that our system wasn't aimed at them. But if it actually worked, it might suppress their deterrent force. Therefore, if you build anything bigger, it might definitely affect them. So what choice do they have but to build up more ICBMs of their own?

With Russia it's another problem. They have something like 6,000 strategic warheads. They want to bring strategic warheads below 2,000, but they're not so keen on doing that if we're building up our defense.

. Next page | Colin Powell must know NMD won't work
1, 2





 



Don't get sunburned!  Cover up with a Salon T-shirt this summer.




Extra goodies and great services in
Salon Plus

____
 




 
 
____
 
   
 
____
 
  Current Stories
  • The history boy The 9-year-old narrator of the heartbreaking "When We Were Romans" flees family chaos through literature.
    By Laura Miller
  • How to read the James Wood way The fiercely talented critic takes us on an illuminating tour of fiction -- but there's a hole in his plot.
    By Louis Bayard
  • The good humor man Who invented jokes, and why do we laugh at them? Jim Holt discusses the history of funny.
    By James Hannaham
  • Answering terror with terror In "The Dark Side," Jane Mayer chronicles the terrible, destructive decisions the Bush administration made in the name of fighting terrorism.
    By Louis Bayard
  •  

    shim shim shim shim shim shim shim
    shim
    shim

    Maya Angelou reads from "The Heart of a Woman"

    shim
    shim



    Salon  Search  About Salon  Table Talk  Newsletters  Advertise in Salon  Investor Relations


    Arts & Entertainment | Books | Comics | Mothers Who Think | News
    People | Politics | Sex | Tech & Business and The Free Software Project
    Letters | Columnists | Salon Plus | Salon Shop


    Reproduction of material from any Salon pages without written permission is strictly prohibited
    Copyright 2005 Salon.com


    Salon, 22 4th Street, 16th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103
    Telephone 415 645-9200 | Fax 415 645-9204
    E-mail | Salon.com Privacy Policy