Science: Missiles Away

• Share

(8 of 8)

Besides such considerations, there is the real possibility that the ICBM is "the weapon least likely to be used." All parties in a war may decide to keep their birds in their nests, fearing with good reason the devastating effect of thermonuclear attack and retaliation against population centers. Such forbearance would be a missile-armed extension of the U.S. policy of deterrence now based on LeMay's bombers.

Atomic Defense. So far in warfare, every new weapon has brought forth a counter-weapon. Missilemen suspect—they even hope—that this will happen again. Their best hope is in atom-armed birds, whose fireballs may be more de-tructive in space than in the atmosphere. Some believe that they can even destroy an ICBM striking at 16,000 m.p.h. Such missiles can be tracked by their heat and ionized trails, and their trajectories determined. The "reaction time" will be frighteningly short—only a few minutes.

The missilemen are not happy, however. Both civilian and military, they know too well the potential effect on the earth of thermonuclear warfare. They fear that some small, irresponsible nation may get hold of a missile or two and blot out the capital city of a nation that it hates. Or perhaps when the great nations are armed to the teeth with long-range missiles and nervously watching each other, some quick mistake will be made. An innocent meteor may be mistaken for an invading missile. There will be no time to check or debate, and the decision to fire "in retaliation" will be made by some low-ranking officer. Retaliation may result in counterretaliation, and in a few more minutes all the world's missiles may fly.

But missilemen also have a hope that supports them: the ultimate weapon may produce the ultimate stalemate, a world in which all factions are afraid to start a war, and will take measures to keep it from starting accidentally.