When Ronald Reagan announced plans to design and deploy a missile defense system, the ridiculousness of the venture was intimated by its nickname: "Star Wars." It seemed clear to everyone involved that it would never work. Twenty years, numerous failed tests, and billions of dollars later, it still doesn't work, at least, on the level of seeming to have the potential ever to provide protection from missiles aimed at US territory.
That's assuming the goal of the program is to protect US territory from missiles. Other than what people in these two Administrations have told us, there's no further evidence to support that this really is the goal of Star Wars. I don't mean to suggest Reagan and Bush are unconcerned about protecting the US, nor that they have a perverse and morbid desire to put the nation in danger. I mean that the program is easier to explain as having a domestic (and perhaps international) political goal than a defensive one.
Exhibit A: By any cogent interpretation, Star Wars would violate the decades-old Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) the US signed with the Soviet Union as a key feature of Mutually Assured Destruction. In order to prevent either adversary from having a strategic advantage that would lead to greater confidence that a nuclear war could be "won," the ABM Treaty banned precisely the kinds of missile-destroying systems Star Wars is purported to be.
Placed in the context of Reagan's foreign policy, this makes a great deal of sense: Reagan consistently played the political game of saying the US should stop coddling the "Evil Empire" and basically ignore treaties in order to pressure the Soviets enough that they'd collapse. (I call this a game because the collapse of the Soviet Union seems to have had much more to do with fiscal policy and their habit of dabbling in too many military dalliances at once. Thank goodness the US government would never do that.)
Exhibit B: GOP=Tough Party; Dems=Weak Party. This has been the GOP's formula for Presidential politics since Eisenhower. Star Wars gives the GOP another way to pose as the Tough on Defense Party, just like the War on Drugs lets them pose as the Tough on Crime Party, and the Defense of Marriage business lets them pose as the Tough on Gays Party, and the new budget cutting 150 domestic programs while still adding close to $300 billion to the national debt lets them pose as the Tough on Spending Party. Whether the poses match the policies, and whether the poses or the policies match reality, is beside the point. Politically, it forces the Democrats to come up with a "positive message" that is so far notforthcoming.
And what could be a better use of $50 billion over the next five years?
That's assuming the goal of the program is to protect US territory from missiles. Other than what people in these two Administrations have told us, there's no further evidence to support that this really is the goal of Star Wars. I don't mean to suggest Reagan and Bush are unconcerned about protecting the US, nor that they have a perverse and morbid desire to put the nation in danger. I mean that the program is easier to explain as having a domestic (and perhaps international) political goal than a defensive one.
Exhibit A: By any cogent interpretation, Star Wars would violate the decades-old Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) the US signed with the Soviet Union as a key feature of Mutually Assured Destruction. In order to prevent either adversary from having a strategic advantage that would lead to greater confidence that a nuclear war could be "won," the ABM Treaty banned precisely the kinds of missile-destroying systems Star Wars is purported to be.
Placed in the context of Reagan's foreign policy, this makes a great deal of sense: Reagan consistently played the political game of saying the US should stop coddling the "Evil Empire" and basically ignore treaties in order to pressure the Soviets enough that they'd collapse. (I call this a game because the collapse of the Soviet Union seems to have had much more to do with fiscal policy and their habit of dabbling in too many military dalliances at once. Thank goodness the US government would never do that.)
Exhibit B: GOP=Tough Party; Dems=Weak Party. This has been the GOP's formula for Presidential politics since Eisenhower. Star Wars gives the GOP another way to pose as the Tough on Defense Party, just like the War on Drugs lets them pose as the Tough on Crime Party, and the Defense of Marriage business lets them pose as the Tough on Gays Party, and the new budget cutting 150 domestic programs while still adding close to $300 billion to the national debt lets them pose as the Tough on Spending Party. Whether the poses match the policies, and whether the poses or the policies match reality, is beside the point. Politically, it forces the Democrats to come up with a "positive message" that is so far notforthcoming.
And what could be a better use of $50 billion over the next five years?
No comments:
Post a Comment