consist of plasma globs, made up of energized nuclei and electrons. These would be fired into space at the speed of light towards enemy missiles. (Winkler 1999, 205)While all of these programs sound high-tech and interesting, this is exactly the problem that was faced. The technology to create such programs had not been perfected or in some cases, such as Yonas and Tellers proposals, had not even been developed. The main problem with all of these programs, however, is that not a single one would be 100 percent successful. Supporters argued that this was better than nothing, but many, in-cluding world-renowned scientist Carl Sagan, was bitterly opposed to this. He likened the SDI program to that of a human contraceptive device. He wrote:A contraceptive shield that deters 90 percent of 200 million sperm cells is generally considered worthless 20 million sperm cells penetrating the shield are more than enough. Such a shield is not better than nothing; itis worse than nothing, because it might well engender a false sense of security, bringing on the very event it was designed to prevent. The same is true for the leakyshield of Star Wars. (Winkler 1999, 205-206)Even the scientist Edward Teller makes a similar statement in his book, Better a Shield than a Sword: Perspectives on Defense and Technology. He states:Any person with a humane point of view should be opposed to aggression, but why be opposed to defense?The most popular argument is that defense against nuclear missiles is useless unless it is 100 percent effectivethe damage would be enormous if only a fewof the rockets penetrated the defense. The arguments is correct, but it is an argument against defense, not against war. (Teller 1987, 8)Needless to say, President Reagans plan never quite got the support it needed to get past the research and development phases. There were far more critics and oppo-nents of his plan than there were supporters. Some of the lar...
