The APS Report: The Flaws Remain

I would like to respond to the adverse comments made in these pages by Robert L. Park of the American Physical Society (APS) concerning my testimony before a committee of congressmen in May 1987 (September 7, 1987, P. 13). I believe the merits of the Strategic Defense Initiative program inevitably will emerge as its development proceeds—if it receives adequate funding as well as the technical and administrative support it deserves. The SDI organization (SDIO) does have a need, as does any similar enterprise, for an effective not-for-profit, federally funded research center—similar to the Lincoln Laboratory or the Aerospace Corp.—to give it wide access to various types of technological support. Along with others who have been deeply concerned about the security of the Free World and the Soviet Union’s aggressive buildup of space defense systems and offensive strategic weapons, I have urged Congress to authorize the creation of such a research center to serve the interests of the SDIO. Park states that the Pentagon reviewed and approved the technical aspects of the APS report on directed-energy weapons. Nothing could be further from the truth. The report was reviewed for security clear- ance, which is a very different matter. Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger expressed the views of DOD in a New York Times Op Ed piece (August 21,1987, p. A27) which said the APS report contains “important technical errors." Park also states that the APS has given adequate responses to Gregory Canavan and Lowell Wood’s severe criticisms of the APS report. In fact, the APS responses give only the appearance of addressing the substantial issues raised by Canavan and Wood. The report remains highly flawed by serious misstatements which, if corrected, would entirely vitiate the report’s pessimistic conclusions. If the APS had wanted a more accurate account of the technological aspects of SDI, it should have included well-informed experts in the field of strategic defense weapons, such as Canavan and Wood, in the preparation of the original report and in its review. Park incorrectly states that I have “served” the International Conference on the Unity of Sciences. I attended one or two of these conferences some 10 years ago, and found them to be interesting and addressed by outstanding scholars. The George C. Marshall Institute, in whose creation I played a role, according to its charter “develops educational programs relating to fields of science with an impact on national security and other areas of public concern.” While the institute’s board of directors inevitably has been drawn to issues surrounding SDI, it has also focused on other fields. For example, it is currently carrying out studies related to the role of manned versus unmanned operations in the national space program, the news media’s use of dedicated reconnaissance satellites, and the impact of new military technologies on the conventional balance of forces in the European theater. Perhaps my greatest concern about the APS report lies in the fact that the council of the society has used the report as an instrument for achieving political purposes. Nicolaas Bloembergen, the co-chairman of the APS committee, recently decried in the Harvard Crimson (July 21, 1987, p. 1) the APS council’s “politically oriented statement” on his committee’s findings. The health of science is not a matter that can take care of itself. When F. Wheeler Loomis retired as President of APS in 1950 he addressed the society on the topic “Can Physics Serve Two Masters?” That theme has an enduring significance. Seitz is president emeritus of the Rockefeller University, 1230 York Ave., New York, NY 10021, and chairman of the SDI Advisory Committee of DOD.

The APS Report: The Flaws Remain

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of