SDI does not need to eb perfect to accomplish its objectivesIf the Devil, the boss of the Evil on this earth, gave a talk, I would not miss it, expecting the Devil's views to be unique, misunderstood and misrepresented. Those who view Lt. Gen. James A. Abrahamson '55, director of the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization, as the Devil have already got it: I attended the General's talk last Thursday at Faneuil Hall. Now, I was not disappointed in my expectation that his views would be unique, often misunderstood and misrepresented...
Many now view the Strategic Defense Initiative as a chimera. Yet, it is the General's opinion that, in fifteen years from now without SDI, the Russian leaders might view our second-strike system as the chimera. Working towards it is the Russian accumulation of always more numerous, always more powerful, and always more precise atomic missiles. This endless accumulation, which makes our second-strike system increasingly vulnerable, makes no sense ... unless the Russians are trying to reach the certitude that, by striking first and to the point, they will then neutralize us, and win without risk.
Excessive simplification has led some of the public, opponent or partisan of the project, into viewing it as the quest for this terrible mythical Force that is supposed to make you invincible. To turn the future credibility of our second-strike system into "a very difficult probability problem for the Russian" is instead the stake of the SDI. Because a potential danger is enough to deter the Russians, the Strategic Defense system is unlike "The Force:" it is not supposed to be perfect as even if it isn't, it will still be operative.
It took me years to turn my math education into a very realistic perception that, in many instances, between 0 and 1 stands one-half. Now one-half, .9, .99 or 1 ... the difference does not always count: they are all infinitely bigger than 0; in the case of "Star Wars," this seems to me what matters; and this has brought me to a strong personal reconsideration of certain concerns I heard expressed.
Pierre Gasztowtt G->