COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	n119  2211  25 Feb 85
C00014 ENDMK
C⊗;
n119  2211  25 Feb 85
BC-AUTHORS 2takes
(Science Times)
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
c.1985 N.Y. Times News Service
    NEW YORK - Science-fiction writers are engaged in a war of words
over whether governments should stress peace or war in the
development of space.
    What makes their debate of more than literary interest is that
writers of science fiction have been so prescient. Over the past
century they foretold the advent of radio, television, tanks,
helicopters, atom bombs, moon rockets, computers, robots and
satellites.
    Now they are split into camps that either support the Reagan
administration's Strategic Defense Initiative, the so-called ''Star
Wars'' defense against intercontinental missiles, or urge
alternatives such as cooperation in space with the Soviet Union.
    As befits their status as 20th-century seers, they and their
opinions are being accorded careful attention by powerful individuals
in and out of government, including President Reagan. ''People are
listening to science-fiction writers more than they did,'' said James
Gunn, an expert in the genre at the University of Kansas. ''An
element of soapbox missionary work has existed in science fiction
back to the days of H.G. Wells and Jules Verne. But today authors
like Asimov, Clarke and Heinlein have become credible advocates
because, as Asimov says, we live in a science-fiction world and
people are just starting to realize it.''
    Recently the authors Robert A. Heinlein and Jerry Pournelle have
been promoting the ''High Frontier'' proposed by army Lt. Gen. Daniel
O. Graham, retired, in which hundreds of orbiting battle stations,
some manned, would be used to shoot down enemy missiles.
    In addition, Pournelle and Dean Ing are co-authors of a recent book,
''Mutual Assured Survival,'' an outline for space defense that Reagan
hailed as ''addressing with verve and vision the challenges to peace
and to our national security.''
    On the other side of the debate is Arthur C. Clarke, who has
testified in Congress against ''Star Wars'' and on behalf of peaceful
missions with the Russians to such places as Mars. A colleague who
has joined his crusade is Isaac Asimov, who recently quit the board
of governors of the L-5 Society, a space lobbying organization,
because it would not take a firm stand against missile defense.
    ''I don't think 'Star Wars' is feasible and I don't think anybody
takes it seriously,'' Asimov said in an interview. ''It's just a
device to make the Russians go broke. But we'll go broke too. It's
very much a John Wayne standoff.''
    By some estimates, space-based defense could cost as much as $1
trillion, about five times as much as recent federal budget deficits.
    ''The community is divided over this thing,'' said Dr. Robert A.
Collins, editor of Fantasy Review, a magazine devoted to the study of
science fiction.
    The dispute centers on the Reagan administration's proposal to spend
$30 billion over five years for research into the feasiblity of
creating a defense to shoot down enemy missiles. Its forerunner was
Graham's ''High Frontier'' proposal, first put forth in 1982.
    Science fiction authors are divided not only on the feasibility of
the idea but also on how space in general should be developed,
according to Collins, a professor at Florida Atlantic University.
Advocates of ''Star Wars'' believe that the best way to speed the
evolution of all kinds of space technologies is with the aid of the
military, he said.
    Detractors see such military involvement as soaking up all the money
for real space exploration. ''They think of space as a pioneering
thing,'' Collins said. ''They don't see a ring of weapons as anything
more than a barrier to that.''
    Clarke, author of such books as ''2001: A Space Odyssey'' and
''2010: Odyssey Two,'' called plans for a space shield ''technolgical
obscenities'' and said that instead the American government should
emphasize cooperative missions with the Soviet Union. ''I am not so
naive as to imagine that this could be achieved without excruciating
difficulty and major changes in the present political climate. But
those changes have to be made, sooner or later.''
    One of the more outspoken ''Star Wars'' advocates is Pournelle,
co-author with Larry Niven of such books as ''Lucifer's Hammer'' and
''The Mote in God's Eye.''
    ''The historic role of the military is to build roads to new
frontiers and protect early settlers,'' Pournelle said in an
interview. ''Today this is one of the best ways to get into space.
This is the deepest pocket. But I support SDI for lots of other
reasons than that.''
    ''The strategy of assured survival is better than assured
destruction,'' he said, meaning that it is better to try to shoot
down attacking missiles rather than to have the superpowers held
hostage to the destructive power of each other's missiles.
    ''If we had 100 of General Graham's boost-phase interceptors in
orbit with five or six American service people aboard each one,''
Pournelle said, ''we would have a much less ambiguous warning system
of attack on this country. I keep hearing all this talk about not
militarizing space. But the oceans have been militarized for a long
time and that hasn't forestalled their use by civilians.''
    Recently the debate over ''Star Wars'' spilled into Science Fiction
Chronicle, a magazine that publishes the reflections of
science-fiction authors.
    ''Over the last year or two I've heard a good many of my colleagues,
including some who in previous encounters seemed quite sane, tell me
that they really thought this 'Star Wars' thing was a pretty good
idea,'' wrote Frederik Pohl, author of such books as ''Midas World''
and ''The Space Merchants.''
    In a subsequent issue, Pournelle replied, ''We all love Fred Pohl,
but I do wish he'd stop talking nonsense.''
    In an interview Pohl said that what upset him ''is that most of the
authors supporting 'Star Wars' are not cold warriors but people who
want to trick the military into spending money on space.''
    ''I do wish we had not canceled some of the space program,'' Pohl
added. ''We should have a base on the Moon, a manned landing on Mars
and cooperative programs with the Soviets.''
    Not all authors are taking sides. ''I'm somewhere in between,'' said
Ray Bradbury, author of such books as ''Fahrenheit 451'' and
''Illustrated Man.'' ''We're trapped by circumstance, aren't we?
Everybody has forgotten that Russia helped start the Second World
War. And she's occupied all those countries for more than 40 years.
Those are realities. That puts us pacifists in a quandary.''
    
nyt-02-26-85 0112est
***************