|
|
|
|
|
|
Resources |
|
|
|
Civil Defense in the SDI Era
| Article
# : |
13844 |
|
|
Section : |
CURRENT ISSUES
|
| Issue
Date : |
12 / 1988 |
3,356 Words |
| Author
: |
Richard E. Sincere, Jr.
Richard Sincere is a research associate at the Ethics and
Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., and co-editor with
Zbigniew Brzezinski of Promise or Peril: The Strategic Defense
Initiative, published in 1986. |
True or false? In an all-out nuclear attack against the United States, only 5 percent of our land area would be directly affected by blast and heat. (True.)
True or false? In an all-out nuclear attack against the United States, 60 to 80 million people will survive—even if no efforts are made to protect them. (True.)
True or False? The American commitment to human life and dignity has resulted in a civil defense program as good as the one in the Soviet Union. (False.)
These three simple facts alert us to a certain incongruity in Reagan administration defense policy. Few of us would accuse the administration of logical inconsistency in its approach to strategic issues. Since taking office in 1981, the president and his cabinet have emphasized the need for strengthening the strategic forces, the defense budget has grown, and since 1983 a new focus on strategic defense has developed.
But at the same time that the administration has redoubled its efforts to move the United States ever farther from the obsolete doctrine known as MAD—Mutual Assured Destruction—by emphasizing strategic defense, and despite an initial disposition to spend more money on civilian protection measures, it has made dangerous cuts in the nation's civil defense program, which at present is our only shield against nuclear destruction.
In a memorandum prepared for the Heritage Foundation, policy analyst Brain Green
... (1919 of 21064 Characters)
Read Full Article
|
|
