dlo@drutx.UUCP (OlsonDL) (03/27/86)
[] > > > Meaning they have, in effect, great incentive to produce 20 times as > > > many missiles. > > > > One can have the incentive, but lack the ability. > > David Olson >Unfortunately, David, the Soviets do *have* the ability to deploy hundreds >more weapons than they currently have deployed. I agree with you, and hundreds are hundreds too much. But, that can hardly amount to the "20 times as many" as they have now. >They are restrained >from doing so by the SALT treaties according to a report by the >Federation of American Scientists. Which is one reason the Joint Chiefs >of Staff urged Reagan to continue complying with the unratified SALT II treaty. But even without the treaties, I still don't believe they would be able (given the state of their economy) to build and support all the many thousands more that many people purport that they would have to have in order to cancel the effects of SDI. >The analogy is *not* like locks on a house - locks on a house do not >threaten anyone's extinction. My point is exactly that they don't. But, the *lack* or *unuse* of them can. In Denver couple of years ago, almost an entire family was murdered in their sleep; their house was not locked. > tim sevener whuxn!orb My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. David Olson ..!ihnp4!drutx!dlo