What do you think?
Rate this book
The Phantom Defense: America's Pursuit of the Star Wars Illusion
In the past four decades, the United States has spent $85 billion pursuing the fantasy of an effective missile defense system to shield our nation against the threat of a nuclear attack. Recent public tests, while less exotic than some of the original Star Wars proposals, were spectacular failures and call into question the whole program's rationale. Neither the land-based system proposed by the Clinton administration, nor the alternatives proposed by earlier administrations, would ever work--regardless of how much R&D money is channeled into the project. Rather than enhancing national security, these doomed efforts would provoke a new arms race and alienate key allies. The authors apply their extensive insiders' expertise to argue that thoughtful diplomacy is the only real answer to meet America's national security goals.
Like President Reagan with his Star Wars program, President Bush has again made national missile defense (NMD) a national priority at a cost which may exceed $150 billion in the next ten years. Defense experts Eisendrath, Goodman, and Marsh contend that recent tests give little confidence that any of the systems under consideration--land-based, boost-phase, or laser-driven--have any chance of effective deployment within decades. The interests of the military-industrial complex and the unilateralist views of the Bush administration are driving NMD, not a desire to promote national security.
Rather than increase U.S. security, the plans of the current administration, if implemented, will erode it. NMD will heighten the threat from China and Russia, alienate key allies, and provoke a new arms race and the proliferation of nuclear weapons, all in response to a greatly exaggerated threat from so-called rogue states, such as North Korea and Iran. Thoughtful diplomacy, not a misguided foreign policy based on a hopeless dream of a Fortress America, is the real answer to meeting Americas security goals. Designed to stimulate interest and debate among the public and policy-makers, The Phantom Defense provides solid facts and combines scientific, geopolitical, historical, and strategic analysis to critique the delusion of national missile defense, while suggesting a more effective alternative.
Like President Reagan with his Star Wars program, President Bush has again made national missile defense (NMD) a national priority at a cost which may exceed $150 billion in the next ten years. Defense experts Eisendrath, Goodman, and Marsh contend that recent tests give little confidence that any of the systems under consideration--land-based, boost-phase, or laser-driven--have any chance of effective deployment within decades. The interests of the military-industrial complex and the unilateralist views of the Bush administration are driving NMD, not a desire to promote national security.
Rather than increase U.S. security, the plans of the current administration, if implemented, will erode it. NMD will heighten the threat from China and Russia, alienate key allies, and provoke a new arms race and the proliferation of nuclear weapons, all in response to a greatly exaggerated threat from so-called rogue states, such as North Korea and Iran. Thoughtful diplomacy, not a misguided foreign policy based on a hopeless dream of a Fortress America, is the real answer to meeting Americas security goals. Designed to stimulate interest and debate among the public and policy-makers, The Phantom Defense provides solid facts and combines scientific, geopolitical, historical, and strategic analysis to critique the delusion of national missile defense, while suggesting a more effective alternative.
216 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2001
14 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
September 22, 2016
Overall, I thought this was an excellent book. It comes across as an extensive opinion piece with a good backup of reasons and data, rather than a comprehensive review of the ballistic missile defense programs from inception through the end of the Clinton administration (when it was published). I believe that is appropriate based on the overwhelming evidence the authors' conclusions are correct, and the fact that in reaching a large and varied audience, the shortest while sufficient approach is best, as long as supporting material is available.
More than 15 years have passed since this book went to press, and nothing has changed to alter the strong conclusions presented by the authors.
I had a lot of quibbles with details in places, partly based on my technical knowledge of having worked in this area as an engineer in the 1980s. But, these are details primarily of presentation and emphasis, and they do not affect the big picture*. Events in the Bush2 and later era could modify the emphasis of the story somewhat, but only in ways that reinforce the authors' position on these programs.
Note I review this as a book on a specific subject which is largely political, and also technological. It is not a science/technology book written to give pleasure of knowledge to the reader, i.e. it is not a fun book for anybody I can think of.
*I would have put more emphasis on the cruise missile threat, which the authors' downplayed, possibly because they put too much faith in adherence to treaties, something USA tends not to do in matters of war. Secondly, the cost issue was, if anything, underestimated, in my opinion.
More than 15 years have passed since this book went to press, and nothing has changed to alter the strong conclusions presented by the authors.
I had a lot of quibbles with details in places, partly based on my technical knowledge of having worked in this area as an engineer in the 1980s. But, these are details primarily of presentation and emphasis, and they do not affect the big picture*. Events in the Bush2 and later era could modify the emphasis of the story somewhat, but only in ways that reinforce the authors' position on these programs.
Note I review this as a book on a specific subject which is largely political, and also technological. It is not a science/technology book written to give pleasure of knowledge to the reader, i.e. it is not a fun book for anybody I can think of.
*I would have put more emphasis on the cruise missile threat, which the authors' downplayed, possibly because they put too much faith in adherence to treaties, something USA tends not to do in matters of war. Secondly, the cost issue was, if anything, underestimated, in my opinion.
Displaying 1 of 1 review