ould someone please put Frances FitzGerald WAY out to pasture? She has written a brick of a book entirely around the 1980s cliche that "Star Wars" won't work. The New York Times Book Review gave the book a sweetheart front-page review recently, and the paper handed her about half of its op-ed page Sunday. In her lengthy op-ed piece, FitzGerald develops the argument that . . . well, actually she develops nothing — her piece is a masterpiece of illogic and unfounded assertion.

She flat-out states that missile defense is unworkable, and "has never been about reality." On what evidence? "One of the two [recent] tests has failed." Well, doesn't that mean that one SUCCEEDED? Doesn't that in itself make a case against the A PRIORI impossibility of the defensive system that FitzGerald asserts?

In fact, six out of seven recent tests have succeeded. We now know that it is possible to "hit a bullet with a bullet," the technology that SDI critics pronounced impossible a decade ago. When two objects collide at a combined speed of 15,000 mph, 140 miles above the earth, it is no accident.

FitzGerald's "impossibility" argument depends primarily on there currently being no system deployed. This is logic that would have supported the idea that human flight was an impossibility in 1902, a year before Kitty Hawk. Her other favorite tack is pointing out that we have spent $60 billion on missile defense without yet developing a seamless system, ERGO it's all a waste of money. Would she conclude that all funds spent on cancer research have been ill-spent as well?

In most people's minds, the goals of defending American cities and curing a horrid disease would be equally desirable. Throughout FitzGerald's piece is embedded the notion that the popularity of missile defense is the product of some sort of collective delusion on the part of Americans. But is it really crazy to want protection from nuclear or biological or chemical attack?

If FitzGerald were being honest, she would at least mention that former Soviet officials cite SDI as one of the pressures that helped bring the Soviet Union to its knees. She doesn't, of course. She instead holds out the prospect of yet another arms race, with the Russians madly building missiles again — ignoring the fact that the Drunk Man of Europe can't afford to maintain the missiles it has now.

Finally, she dismisses Bush's proposal to radically reduce U.S. missile forces. Why exactly is unclear. If FitzGerald wants to eliminate missiles — presumably she does, if she fears a new "arms race" — why shouldn't she welcome a proposal to get rid of them, even if it happens without inking new deals with the Russians? In the end, FitzGerald is a really perfect example of the liberal critics of missile defense — she loves arms control more than she hates nuclear warheads.