WASHINGTON -- Dr. Carl Sagan, astronomer and author, argued Thursday that if the United States pursues the Strategic Defense Initiative known as 'Star Wars' it will soak up major resources and drive the Soviets to try to keep up.
Sagan squared off with Lt. Gen James Abrahamson, head of the SDI research project, in a debate sponsored by the American Astronautics Society.
Sagan estimated the eventual cost of the SDI project to be in the order of $1 trillion dollars, which, he said, would be nearly one-quarter of the current value of everything in the United States - 'factories, houses, refrigerators, everything except the land.'
In addition, he said, it would use up resources from every other scientific project, including military research, while it would 'drive the other side to do the same thing.'
Abrahamson said the current budgeting of SDI is less than 1 percent of the U.S. defense budget and the point of the project 'is to change Soviet behavior, to drive them in another direction' from the current arms race.
Sagan argued that the Star Wars defense, even if it were successful, would simply drive the arms race into other forms, which would not be stopped by the space-based defense.
The said that would include so-called 'suit-case bombs' or weapons flown into the United States aboard small airplanes in the same way that drugs are now smuggled from Latin America.
Abrahamson responded that such a threat is not the kind of coordinated, military threat that would likely be launched and the real threat remains Soviet land-based missiles, which could be deterred by an effective SDI system.
Sagan said that the Chernobyl and space shuttle disasters are relevant in showing that the SDI system is basically unworkable.
The potential for disaster was underestimated by both the U.S. and Soviet scientists in the case of the space shuttle and the nuclear reactor, he said, and there would be no way to judge the effectiveness of a Star Wars system because it would not be able to be tested realistically.
Sagan said the SDI 'could be overwhelmed and outfoxed' by the Soviets and a better alternative would be a verifiable cut in offensive arms on both sides.
Abrahamson argued that such a cut would 'be wonderful' but it has not occurred, nor is it likely to.
