Editorial Doomdoggle

"There is one comforting conclusion," said G. H. Hardy in his 1940 A Mathematician's Apology, "which is easy for a real mathematician. Real mathematics has no effects on war." Whether that was true even then is debatable; but it is certainly not true now. Indeed, both of Hardy's examples, relativity and number theory, have military applications--the first to nuclear weapons, the second to cryptography.

More and more basic research is being funded by military agencies, less and less by civilian agencies. While it can be argued that this diverts resources, effectively beating swords into ploughshares, it has the potential to distort the pattern and priorities of research, and can as easily lead to ploughshares being beaten into swords. At the very least, a proposal to develop a new ploughshare will necessarily contain a paragraph on its sword-modification capability. That potential soars to heights undreamed of in the Strategic Defense Initiative, in common parlance, "Star Wars."

The SDI is highly controversial. As I write, over half the members of the best 14 physics departments in U.S. universities have signed petitions refusing to accept SDI money. Other petitions urging a boycott of the project continue to circulate. Opponents of SDI see it as a uniquely ill-conceived enterprise which manages to reconcile two apparently contradictory features: it won't work, and it is hideously dangerous. To begin with, it is questionable whether the project is technically feasible. In order for the system to function, some dozen or so new technologies, each requiring an effort comparable to the Manhattan Project, must all come to fruition. The software controlling the system must be written, and debugged, by computers: it is far too complex for human comprehension. If these were the only objections, it might appear that the best bet is to wait while America falls flat on its face. But the mere possibility of success, however remote, is destabilizing. Moreover, if the system does work, it can easily be circumvented. All methods of circum- venting it lead to a dangerous escalation of weaponry. At least 10% of missiles will get through however well Star Wars works, so the most direct response is for the Russians to deploy more missiles. Space mines could wreck the system, and decoys deceive it. Against other delivery systems, such as cruise missiles or suitcase bombs, it is useless. Its development arguably contravenes the letter of existing treaties and undoubtedly contra- venes the spirit of them. Its dep loyment would breach agreements to keep nuclear weapons out of space (for example, its X-ray lasers are to be powered by nuclear explo- sions). If deployed, it would give the U.S. a first-strike capability, the prospect of which is hardly likely to improve international relations, and could trigger World War III. Money spent on Star Wars is money not spent on something else, including wider issues such as the Nuclear Winter.

Proponents of SDI have not, as one might hope, dealt adequately with these arguments. Instead, they have concentrated on propaganda, red herrings, and money. Their most cogent argument is that SDI will benefit the American economy and generate new tech- nology. This is probably true; but isn't there a less risky way to achieve the same ends? Nor should this argument carry any weight outside the U.S.

But above all, the main source of momentum is money. Money by the barrow-load. Some $20 billion for the initial research phase; at least $2 trillion for deployment. (And a good rule is that all estimates triple by the time the project is comple ted--or abandoned.) That much money buys a lot of silence. Not many months back the European members of NATO were uniformly against Star Wars - -no t least since it is Europe that is vulnerable to cruise missiles. Today they are engaged in a mad scramble to grab as big a slice of the action as they can. Britian wants $1.5 billion--that 's $30 per head. Silver dollars would seem the appropriate coin.

THE MATHEMATICAL INTELLIGENCER VOL. 8, NO. 1 �9 1986 Springer-Verlag New York 3

I can stomach scientists, who truly believe that SDI is a good idea, accepting Star Wars money for their research--if they genuinely consider it to be relevant to the project, and if they have a rational response to the case against SDI. They may be wrong-headed, but they're honest. I applaud those scientists who believe Star Wars is dangerous, have com- mitted themselves not to touch its money, and are campaigning to convince their col- leagues to do likewise. They are people of principle, and they will no doubt suffer for those principles. What I find hard to take is the growing attitude that the SDI means lots of boodle for anyone smart enough to con the U.S. government into giving them some of it, whether or not their work is relevant, so let's all grab it while the going is good. Not only individuals, but entire agencies, are taking this attitude. "Take the money and run" may be all very well; but money has little attraction for a corpse, and when the bombs start to fall there will be nowhere left to run.

Ian Stewart

4 THE MATHEMATICAL INTELLIGENCER VOL. 8, NO. I, 1986