The controversial, sometimes emotional national debate over strategic defense has been overshadowed recently by other, even weightier national and global issues. Research programs for the Strategic Defense Initiative continue, however, and the debate is likely to resume as visible results of that research begin to compete for a share of the nation's budget. It is in the national interest that this debate proceed in an atmosphere of rational, objective analysis.
This study—by an experienced scientist and military expert—provides a basis for such analysis. Colonel Simon P. Worden, US Air Force, considers strategic defense in the context of four competing strategic theories: (1) deterrence through mutual assured destruction, (2) deterrence through nuclear warfighting, (3) deterrence relying on non-nuclear defense, and (4) disarmament. He points out misconceptions and exaggerations of earlier SDI debate, taking to task those in the scientific community who abandoned objective analysis to pursue a political agenda. His fundamental theme is that non-nuclear, space-based defense is not only feasible, but in some ways preferable to reliance on weapons of mass destruction. To support his case, he outlines the phases of a proposed actual system.
As Worden notes, the ultimate decisions on strategic defense are up to the American people and their representatives. Such decisions will no doubt take in a range of factors—economic, political, technical, and ethical—as all important national decisions should. Worden offers a reasoned case for strategic defense as an alternative strategy for deterring war.