Bishops speak out on morality of SDI

I

I'.

By Julia Gargiulo A recent updating of the Catholic bish­

ops' position on the morality of nuclear weapons contains some strong statements on the Strategic Defense Initiative, or Star Wars, defense system. , First announced to the public by Presi­dent Reagan in 1983, and still touted by him as the answer to the threat of nuclear attack by the Soviets, Star Wars has be­come a permanent part of the projected warfare strategy of this nation. Thirteen billion dollars have already been spent over the past five years, and more funds are .e~rmarked for the future, despite o~ POSlhO~ .~y some scientists questioning Its feasibility and peace groups question­ing its defensive purpose.

The Catholic bishops addressed the program in June of this year because its supporters have made the claim that SOl is morally superior to the existing nuclear policy of the superpowers, known as Mu­tual Assured Destruction, or deterrence. Deterrence states that nuclear weapons are justified only in order to prevent the other side from using theirs. Each, there­fore, maintaIns its arsenal to threaten the other side with massive retaliation should an attack be attempted. . The bishops, in their earlir pastoral let­ter of 1983, had given their "conditioned a.cceptanceH t,o this policy as morally jus­tified by addmg the qualifier that deter­

rence was inadequate as a long-term policy. Deterrence was viewed as permis­sible, but only within the larger context of C?ndemning any actions that directly ini­tiate nuclear war and measured against the long-term goal of ultimately avoiding any recourse to nuclear weapons.

The recent June report, updating that pastoral letter on its fifth anniversary, is a reassessment of their conditional acce~ tance of deterrence, particularly in view of the new c1ima:e of progress towards disarmament, as ~xpressed by the INF Treaty and other actions between the two superpowers to reduce their nuclear arse­nals - a climate they regard as a "new opportunity." In their report the bishops welcome and endorse the INF Treaty, they applaud the efforts towards reduc­tions - particularly in the strategic nu­clear arsenals - they endorse the limits of Salt I and II, and urge a comprehensive test ban treaty to prevent the develo~ ment of new nuclear weapons. While pleased with the new climate ofadvances towards peace, the bishops decry the de­ployment, by both superpowers, of "first strike" weapons, those which because of their speed and accuracy, ~ight tempt ~ne sid~ to attack the other in a pre-em~

.live stnke. Such weapons as our MX and the D-5 submarine missile, and the Rus­sians' SS-18s and SS-24s, are singled out for particular condemnation.

But it is the SOl, or Star Wars, defense

Green\\'ich 11lne BOARD OF CONTRIBUTORS

-Peter Abbott Richard G. Abell Louis F. Bantle Charles Bonner Derek Boothby Peter Briggs Jerome F. Brodlie Stephen F. Brophy Robert Button Charles Campbell Paul Campbell George Cardini Janet Caulkins Frank Coyle Peter Crumbine Tony DiPreta LV Dodge George Dodson William F. Douwes Jerry Dumas Patrick J. Durkin Philip Ewald William Bragg Ewald Jr. John F atteross Peter H. Friedlander

Julia Gargiulo Nancy Godfrey Pierre Gousseland Nicholas Guild William G. Harrington Lucy H. Hedrick Paul B . Hicks III Morton D. Hull Barbara Hoyt James Hyde . Pyke Johnson Jr . Patricia Kane William F. Kenny AI Kestnbaum Robert G. Lacey Tim Lanigan Arlene J. Mark

. Bob McGonagle Kathy McKnight Jeffrey B. Mead Shaw Mudge Joan and John Murphy Stephen A. Myers The Rev . David Norris

Gunilla Norris Chester L. Posey Joseph Verner Reed John Robben David Ross The Rev . T. Merton Rymph

. Phyllis H. Schreiber Robert Schwartz James E, Seitz Anne Wingfield Semmes Albert Sims . Ruth L. Sims Emerson Stone Barbara Strelton Mary B . Sullivan Barbara W, Tuchman George Ubogy AI Varner Don Walton Sandra N. Waters Thomas J . Watson Jr. John Winthrop Linda R. Young Sherry Young Carole Yudain

program which comes in for most criti­cism by the bishop5, occupying almost half of their report, since it is a "signifi­can.t c~ange in the area of technology and

. pohcy but, more particularly, because of the administration's claim to the moral superiority of SOl over deterrence. The ~ment for this purported moral supe­nonty has to do with what the adminis­tration states is the goal of SOl to ultimately eliminate all nuclear weaPons and to replace them ·vith defensive ones, or, at the least, to reorient the war-fighting strategy of both superpowers to one where, theoretically, weapons and not pe~pl~ are targeted. -:be bishops, howev­er, InSist the purported moral superiority of defenses versus offenses must be viewed in a broader context than stated goals, one which col15iders (I) whether a space-based defense [;ystem is feasible at all, (2) whether the lisks such a system poses. t~ the strategic stability currently pertammg between the superpowers are not too high, and (3) whether the econom­ic costs such a system represents in an increasingly debt-ridden budget are not too great in the face (If the poverty of the poor.

When discussing whether SOl is feasi­. ble, the bishops quote the recent report of

the American Physical Society which states that at least a decade or more of in­tensive research is re::}uired before an in­formed decision on ~;ome projected Star Wars weapons could even be attempted. Such defensive sY5tems depend on "knowledge that doe'; not yet exist." .

When evaluating SDl's threat to stabil­ity, the ~ishops cite those reports which

. have POIn~ed out the grave dangers SOl poses dunng the announced "transition period," when bot 1 sides would be theoretically converting their postures to defensive ones, i.e., having cut down their offensive arsenals a great deal, they both then would deploy large numbers of de­fensive systems. It is at such a time that a . crisis is likely because ofeither side's fear that the deployed defenses could sudden­ly be used offensively (a possibility point­ed out by many scientists), or because the tremendous costs ofthe systems might tip the choice towards cheap decoy~ on the part ofone side in order to overwhelm the other's new systems. The potential vul­nerability of the side whose technology is not equal to the other's could create a fear of a first strike. In either case, stability would be seriously tllreatened.

Th-: third criterion ofcost eifecti veness which the bishops use to determine the morality of SOl also proves too strong a standard: any program which "fails to at­

"

• Greenwich Time

tract a clear consensus on technological­strategic grounds should not be allowed to command resources at a time when other human needs go unfulfilled." They point to the pope's recent papal letter on economics, "Economic Justice For All," in which he focused on the persistence of poverty within the United States. De­fense spending must not be allowed to absorb so much of the national budget, as it has in the '80s, that concerns for hous­ing, health care, food and nutrition are eclipsed, the bishops conclude. They urge that strict criteria be established for SOl spending which measure it against other legitimate defense needs, such as for con­ventional, non-nuclear forces, and against the needs of the poor in our country and the world over.

Finally, the bishops recommend that SDI be maintained only as a research and development program and that it not be "pressed into deployment." Nor should the ABM Treaty, which has since 1972 prohibited space-based anti-ballistic mis­sils from being developed, be set aside or "overridden" - a direct reference to this

LOS ANGELES TIMES ILLUSTRATION BY ED FRESKA

administration's efforts to redefine that treaty in order to allow for SOl deploy­ment.

In conclusion, and after considering the arguments pro and con, the bishops add their voices to those who have

. warned against the risks of an SOl pro­gram. Because SOl poses an obstacle t9 arms control, because it can be used to attack and not just to defend, and because it tilts the already delicate deterrence rela­tionship of the superpowers towards a possible first-strike posture during the transition period - for all of these rea­sons, the bishops conclude that SOl is morally unacceptable. ­

For a reprint of the June report of the Catholic bishops, any reader can contact the Office of Communications of the Oiocese ofBridgeport, The Catholic Cen­ter, 238 Jewett A venue, Bridgeport, Conn. 06606. ­

Julia Gargiulo. a social worker and psy­chotherapist in Greenwich. is a member oj the Greenwich Nuclear Freeze Group.

Wednesday. September 14. 1988 - A1S