js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (03/24/86)
> When choosing between building 50000 more missiles or SDI > (and I wish we needed neither) I am all for SDI. > Alex Zatsman. Congratulations. Your wish is true. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
mahoney@bartok.DEC (03/24/86)
---------------------Reply to mail dated 20-MAR-1986 14:29--------------------- >[Tim Sevener] >> Even according to Start Wars advocates like Lt. Gen Abrahamson, >> stopping 95% of *current* Soviet warheads is the *best* Start Wars >> can be expected to achieve. > > Main goal of Star Wars as I see it is not as much to win a war, >but to prevent it in the first place: it significantly reduces >benefits of the first strike for the opposite side, even >if the system is only 95% (or 20% for that matter) efficient. > > Ability to blow up enemy's missiles immediately *after* the >launch makes the first strike even less attractive for the >offender This makes perfect sense to me the following doesn't. > (it also makes less attractive counter-measure of building >more missiles to neutralize the system). Why is this true? Can you explain this to me. > > When choosing between building 50000 more missiles or SDI >(and I wish we needed neither) I am all for SDI. Personally I am aginst SDI I don't really see it as feasible. I did support at one time but in its present state (as envisioned) it would be far too complex. Plus there would be no real way to test the software's relibility. I must say though I am not totatly convinced that it may never be feasible. > Alex Zatsman. Brian Mahoney
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/24/86)
> > [Tim Sevener] > > Even according to Start Wars advocates like Lt. Gen Abrahamson, > > stopping 95% of *current* Soviet warheads is the *best* Start Wars > > can be expected to achieve. > > Main goal of Star Wars as I see it is not as much to win a war, > but to prevent it in the first place: it significantly reduces > benefits of the first strike for the opposite side, even > if the system is only 95% (or 20% for that matter) efficient. > > Ability to blow up enemy's missiles immediately *after* the > launch makes the first strike even less attractive for the > offender (it also makes less attractive counter-measure of building > more missiles to neutralize the system). > > When choosing between building 50000 more missiles or SDI > (and I wish we needed neither) I am all for SDI. > Alex Zatsman. This is the major reason I oppose Start Wars. It is the main obstacle to a nuclear arms agreement which would *prevent* either side from deploying more nuclear weapons. Freeman Dyson, the physicist and author of "Weapons and Hope" came to Bell Labs and gave a very interesting talk on the problems of *space* based defense. A major problem which is the major one stalling the current arms talks is the threat to sovereignty of space-based weapons systems over another country's territory. You can be sure that if the Soviets were talking about deploying *ANY* kind of weapon system "defensive" or not over American territory that American hawks would be howling hysterically : "They *say* it's defensive! But then why are they continuing to build first-strike weapons? Why do they continue nuclear testing? Why would they deploy a "defensive" system which offers no defense against the next major stepup in the nuclear arms race, cruise missiles? Why are they planning on deploying 15,000 more nuclear weapons? You can't trust them!!!" Freeman Dyson said that besides this political problem with *space* based defense, that it also poses a huge technical liability. Namely that such a system negates the defensive advantage of shortened communications links and increased information by extending communications links and leaving such a defensive system itself as a sitting duck. The system itself becomes very vulnerable. Dyson said that defensive systems based upon one's own territory do *not* threaten anyone's sovereignty and also offer advantages for communications and information. (e.g. you can know precisely where your defenses are deployed) Thus while ABM-type systems may make sense, space-based systems make no sense at all. Thus this very day both sides are building more nuclear weapons. The problem is that right now we aren't getting a choice between building more missiles, facing more Soviet missiles and Star Wars, we are getting them all. The US plans on building 15,000 new nuclear weapons, the Soviets will shortly develop nuclear-equipped cruise missiles to match this increase, and there we go again. Meanwhile a space-based defense does *not* defend against low-flying cruise missiles, but primarily against ICBM's. I.e. the *LAST* step in the nuclear arms race. Gorbachev has offered to reduce *ALL* nuclear weapons to ZERO by the Year 2000. Granted that this proposal is in part propaganda it at least represents a place to begin. I would feel far safer with verifiable agreements reducing nuclear weapons to a small percentage of their current levels which would save hundreds of billions of dollars than with a doubling of current nuclear arsenals and a space-based defense which is *supposed* to allow only a small percentage of those tens of thousands of nuclear weapons from reaching us. Remember the Maginot Line? tim sevener whuxn!orb