which is roughly similar to the Sprint.nThey have also built a massive phasednarray radar at Abalakova to direct ABM’snin violation of the ABM Treaty. Thisntreaty seems a dead letter as far as thenU.S.S.R is concerned. They have violatednit repeatedly since its inception. Thisngives the lie to Tsipis’s claim that the U.S.nand U.S.S.R. signed the treaty in thenmisguided belief that it was furtheringnarms control and detente. The Sovietsnsigned it in order to nip in the bud thendeployment of a technologically advancednU.S. defense screen designed tonprotect American forces from a Sovietnfirst-strike.nTsipis’s discussion of particle beamsnand lasers is also flawed. He maintainsnthat fiiel limitations would prevent theirnuse against large-scale attacks. This isnbecause he insists on using chemicalnfuels as power sources. Hauling threenmillion-plus tons of fuel into orbit tonsupply BMD satellites is absurd andnwould have killed instantly any fiartherndiscussion of space-based defensensystems if that had been the only alternativenavailable. But it is not. Nuclearnreactors capable of producing 150 kwnare considered adequate to power thenArmy’s White Horse particle-beam generator.nLos Alamos Scientific Laboratoriesnhas already designed a space reactornwhich produces 100 kw and reactors upnto 1,100 kw were considered feasibleneven 20 years ago. Another applicationnof nuclear power for lasers has beenngiven much attention. A small explosionnIn the Mailncould provide the energy pulse to fire upnto 50 lasers simultaneously at 50 differentntargets. This would be a one-time usenbecause the explosion would destroynthe satellite, but the trade-off of one lasernsatellite for 50 ICBM’s carryingup to 400nwarheads is very attractive. ICBM’s arenvulnerable during launch.nAs with the ABM, Tsipis again feils tonmention Soviet work in this field. ThenSoviets have conducted a series ofnexperiments at both their Semipalatinsknand Sarova sites involving particle beamsnas defensive weapons against missiles.nThey have used underground nuclearnexplosions to generate the massive flownof electricity needed to power a beamnprojector inside the atmosphere. Americannphysicists gave up on this problemnbecause they did not believe that thenexplosive generation of electricity wasnfeasible. Tsipis still does not think so, yetnthe Soviets have done it. Soviet backwardnessnis not something which can bentaken for granted.nTsipis exaggerates the vulnerability ofnspace systems to attack, particularly tonelectromagnetic pulses (EMP) fromnnuclear detonations. EMP can knock outnanything electrical, but it can also bendefended against. Research done at thenNational Defense University has estimatednthat components can be shieldednfrom EMP for a mere 10 percent increasenin cost. The use of Extremely High Frequencyntransmissions (EHF) can overcomenEMP disturbances in the com-nRenascence: Essays on Values in Literature, VoL 36, No. 4, edited by Joseph Schwartz;nMarquette University; Milwaukee, WI. What has Christ to do with Apollo? the Puritans oncenasked. In articles that combine literary scholarship and Christian witness, the contributors tonRenascence offer answers.nAxiology: The Science of Values, abbreviated edition, by Archie J. Bahm; World Books;nAlbuquerque, NM. Anyone who can cheerfiilly dismiss Plato and Logical Realism in a footnotenknows little about science or values.nBad News for Modem Man: An Agenda for Christian Activism by Franky Schaeffer;nCrossway Books; Westchester, IL. Mr. Schaeffer fears that the salt of evangelical Christianitynmay be losing its savor. He is probably right, but his impromptu agenda stops short of positivensolutions. •nlOinChronicles of Culturennnmunication links through the atmospherenand space while ground communicationsnusing fiber optics are free ofnEMP disruptions. None of these factorsnare mentioned by Tsipis.nTsipis also does not mention the HighnFrontier concept endorsed by PresidentnReagan. High Frontier does not dependnon nuclear power, lasers, or particlenbeams. It envisions a ring of satellitesncapable of spotting Soviet launches andnfiring an interceptor rocket whichnwould spray the ballistic path oT thenICBM with ceramic “buckshot.” Thisnbuckshot would rip the missile apart atn17,000 mph. It can be built with existingntechnology. The American lead in microelectronicsnand the Space Shuttle cannprovide a strategic advantage that thenSoviets carmot duplicate.nBesides the utility of a defense systemnin time of war, such a system would alsonstrengthen deterrence. Tsipis arguesnthat a first-strike is unlikely becausenthere are too many uncertain fectors tongive the attacker the necessary confidencento risk an exchange. If this is truenunder our “open skies” posture, thenuncertainties must multiply if a defensensystem is in operation. Why is there suchnopposition to missile defense? It seemsnillogical, given the fear of nuclearnannihilation which the public feels.nThe peace movement opposes activendefense measures for a variety ofnideological reasons. They oppose anynnew military system which may divertnhinds from domestic programs. Theynresist the idea of moving the arms raceninto the “pure” environment of space, asnif man could go somewhere withoutntaking his problems with him. But therenis another, less attractive reason. Beingnvulnerable to a Soviet attack makesnAmerican leaders timid. It acts as anrestraint on U.S. resistance to Sovietnexpansion out of a fear of confl:ontation.nThe Soviets know that the U.S. would notn(and could not, given current forcenstructures) strike first, so they are not asnrestrained. Many on the Left prefer thisnsituation either out of an ideologicalnaffinity for the Soviet Union or for then