Strangely, this prudent suggestion has met with howls of pain from some of the very people you'd think would be for it. But the correct figure for comparison is the loss of American cities and civilians that might be destroyed if we don't takeout this insurance policy. Moreover, Mr. Nunn's shield would serve other functions. Building even this limited system would be a useful testing ground for research on the S.D.I. program. It would also serve as a hedge in case Moscow decided to abrogate the 1972 antiballistic missile treaty.
Many experts say the Soviet Union has already violated the treaty.
Arms control advocates, meanwhile, fear that even a limited shield would put us on a slippery slope. America has deployed offensive missiles and bombers before, right up to the limits imposed by various treaties. No one suggests that we will break the limits just because we do things the treaties allow. The United States started building some multiwarhead missiles in the 1970's, yet this didn't commit us to build the MX missile later. Perhaps strangest of all, many strong supporters of a high-tech Star Wars shield oppose the Nunn plan, or at least are uneasy about it.