In making his "moral argument" for SDI, Coffey speaks of a just-war philosophy and the limitation of war. These concepts may have meaning when dealing with comparatively harmless conventional weapons, but the idea of "limiting" nuclear war is absurd.
Indeed, in a "limited" nuclear exchange, I don't believe the thousands of people residing near ground zero would discern the difference between this acceptable "limited" nuclear exchange and a full-scale nuclear holocaust. "Thank goodness this is just a limited holocaust, Martha!"
The attempt to draw a parallel between Britain's defense against World War II bombers and SDI is ludicrous. In the 1930s, the British had no choice. The bombers were coming. They built up the Royal Air Force and heroically defended their country. But some bombs got through. The destruction these simple explosives caused was terrible.
Now, in Coffey's mind, SDI will play the role of the RAF, limiting the number of successful incoming missiles to a small percentage of the total missiles launched, thereby saving the day. Right? Would Coffey have us put nuclear warheads in the same category as World War II buzz bombs? What of the bombs that get through?