University of Virginia Library

The ABM

Senator McCarthy was right this week
when he assessed President Nixon's endorsement
of a limited anti-ballistic missile system
as "The President's first serious mistake." By
opening the door to an entirely new weapons
system, Mr. Nixon displayed a callous
disregard for the urgent needs his government
must attend to, and lent fresh credibility to
speculators who maintain that his party is too
closely allied with the "military-industrial
complex" to lead the nation through the
difficult years ahead.

Our cities are bankrupt, our public
education system is failing to meet the needs
of the people, especially the underprivileged.
The quality of life in the nation is stricken
with crime and poverty and pollution. The
war in Viet Nam is draining $30 billion per
year away from needed domestic projects.
Surely this is not the time to spend $7 billion
on a weapons system of dubious value. And
the history of arms spending indicates clearly
that $7 billion will be far from enough in the
end.

For even more certain is the inevitability
of new systems to supplement the present
one. The Pentagon is never satisfied unless it
has a new toy to play with. Once its wishes
gain substance it will want more and more,
until perhaps the nation is so secure that the
military will become obsolete. Not even a
pigeon would be able to get past our defenses,
although it is highly unlikely that an
intelligent pigeon would want to, given the
encroachment of air pollution.

We freely admit our ignorance of the
technical capabilities of the proposed ABM
systems. Several things, however, appear clear.
The first is that it will upset the present
balance of nuclear terror. An ABM that fails
to protect people cannot be considered a
defensive weapon. Its purpose is to protect
United States missile sites, insuring that even
if we all die, we'll have the satisfaction of
knowing we wiped them out, too. It upsets
the present balance which relies on early
detection. Supposedly, our early detection
system is still operative, and our Polaris
missiles and SAC bomber sites still have the
power to destroy half the civilized world.
Theoretically, the ABM would protect our
ability to strike twice, which is somehow not
very comforting in view of the consequences a
first strike would entail.

Nor does it take an expert to realize that
technology will inevitably make the present
system obsolete, adding to the present
breakneck pace of the arms race. Perhaps
more offensive missiles would be needed to
guarantee penetration, causing the need for
more ABMs, causing the need for more
offensive missiles, etc. In effect, it would
double the present rate of missile construction.
Equally as probable is that technological
progress would soon render the ABMs of
today useless against the missiles of tomorrow,
necessitating newer, more sophisticated
and more expensive missiles and anti-missiles.

Moreover, we doubt that any missile
system could make the country really safe, so
long as the circumstances which lead to
international conflict continue to plague the
world. The story about the Chinese smuggling
bombs into the country in trucks and
detonating 50 of them in key cities is perhaps
far-fetched, but frightening and possible
nonetheless.

Obviously, dreams of security through
weaponry are damaging self-delusions. Men
have responded to danger from without from
the beginning of history as the Nixon
administration did this week. As surely as the
bullet followed the arrow, something new will
replace the ABM and we will have gained
nothing. The supposed durability of weapons
will again be proven mythical, and the
opportunity to produce truly durable goods in
the fields of education and domestic welfare
will have been squandered forever.

R.B.C.