(Archived document, may contain errors)
4/24/87 158
WHY THE PHYSICISTS" SDI STUDY IS FIAWED
A study released last week by some members of the American Physical
Society seems to cast doubt on the technical feasibility of the
Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). In reality, the study casts
doubt on itself. It contains a number of serious flaws. For one
thing, it makes unsubstantiated assertions about how a space-based
strategic defense system would not be survivable. For another, it
draws misleading conclusions about the SDI program as a whole even
though the. study deals only with directed energy weapons. Most
serious, = erhaps, is the study's failure to substantiate its
claims about how long it Will take to elop missile defense
technologies. This 18-month study w@s. completed by 17 members of
the A merican Physical Society, a U.S. organization of physicists.
Entitled "Science and Te 0 0 of Directed Energy c"*_ + We@pons,"
the study concludes that '.'significant gaps" remain .. . @-
"scientific and engineering understanding of many issues associated
w ith the development" of directed energy weapons for use in a
strategic defense system. The panel then.asserts that "a decade' or
more" of research is required before a decision can be taken
regarding the effectiveness and survivability of laser, particle b
eam, and microwave weapons. As a result, these conclusions
predictably cheer SDI s critics. Venturing Beyond Science. The
panel did a respectable job in outlining the scientific nature of
problems associated wdth evelo * directed energy weapons and even m
a de some good suggestions on how to go about reso i tgemmg. Then,
curiously, the panel ventured far beyond its scientific findings to
draw gener conclusions about strategic defense. These conclusions
understandably are seriously flawed. Examples: . ** The s tudy
covers only directed energy technologies. As a result, the
physicists overlook the most promising of all near-term defense
technologies--kinetic ener weapons. T"hese not only could
constitute the first phase of SDI deployment in t9e 1990s but very
li kely would carry much of the strategic defense burden even after
lasers were deployed. Thus the physicists' study in no way weakens
the case for deploying effective strategic defenses based on
kinetic energy weapons in the 1990s. d Ivmg al
The Stu says v e7 little that is new about the timetable of
directed energy research. Scientists wor g on SD long have known
and said that it would take at least ten years to develop some
irected energy weapons for a strategic defense system'. The panel
fails to substan t iate its non-physics conclusions. This study
contains no serious analysis of the nature of the Soviet threat,
Soviet strategic defense counterme res, weapon, systems
engineering, nor military tactics for a space-based defense. Des
ite this, the panel mana g es to conclude that the survivability of
a space-baused efense is "highly questionable." Such a conclusion
requires analyzing' --------------- problems far beyond the realm
of physics. :------------------- , ___ ** The panel paints the
progress of directe d ener$y research with too broad a brush. The
work to be done on a neutral particle beam accelerator, for
example, is much different than that required for a free electron
laser. Yet these scientists talk about "orders of magnitude"
improvements being need e d across the board, as if all lasers are
the same. They are not. ** The panel's judgments on how far
directed energy research programs have to gR @pparently are not
based on any clear understanding of the rapid progress U.S.
strategic defense research has been making. The performance of the
neutral particle beam accelerator, for instance, has been much
greater than expected. Other directed energy technologies are no
different. It thus is highly possible that the U.S. can reach
research goals on some techno l ogies faster than the ten years
envisioned by the physicists' panel. The study by some American
Physical Society members is'basically good physics--as far as it
goes. But that does not mean that the study can say much, if
anything, aD011t such essential i s sues as whether a space-based
defense will be survivable or whether an SDI system can be deployed
in the 1990s. This requires a study of near-term strategic defense
technologies such as kinetic ener weapons. also requires an
in-depth analysis of military s ystems engineening prob7cems,
militarlyt tactics, and the nature of the Soviet threat. The
physicists' study chose not to deal with these problems in a
serious way. As such, the physicists' conclusions cannot bear
seriously on the debate about strategic d efense Cleployment.
Kim'R. Holmes Deputy Director of Defense Studies
F or further information.
Report of the Technical Panel on Missile Defense in the 1990s,
George C. Marshall Institute, 1987.
Kim R. Holmes, "Technology Speeds the StrategicDefense Initiative
Timetable," Heritage Foundation BackU.Qunder No. 557.
Kim R. Holmes, 'Me Case for Deploying SDI in the 1990s,m Heritage
Foundation Ba&-V-ound No. 570. dy kin d
asu.
}}