mike@dolqci.UUCP (Mike Stalnaker) (05/01/85)
I'm probably going to get char-broiled for this one but
here goes.
With all the yelling and screaming and sabre-rattling etc by the
various factions for and against arms control and SDI, it often becomes
very hard to see the forest for the trees. I personally am not 100% for
or against arms control, and definatly 100% FOR SDI. Folks, look at the
facts objectivly for a minute. Is SDI an offensive weapons system?? No.
A great number of people seem to think that SDI==Nukes in space. This is
simply not the case. There IS some possiblity that someone will
eventually get around to putting some nukes in orbit, but I don't see
how SDI will increase this risk. (With Mirv vehicles now in the 1-5 ton
class, consider how easy it would be to slip a couple up on one of those
"secret" DOD missions on the shuttle. I agree, at least partially, with
those that say SDI may not be 100% effective. So what? even if it is 10
to 15% effective, (and current estimates are in the 80-90% range for
ICBM's, stratagically, it makes a whole lot of sense. The primary
reason for it making sense is simple. $$$. Historically, it is always
far more expensive to come up with a counter-measure than to come up
with the original measure, on an almost geometric scale. By putting SDI
into action, or at least continuing the development, we force the Soviets
to respond by coming up with some kind of counter-measure. (Their
current ASAT system would not work, as SDI would treat an ASAT just like
another ICBM and fry it.) In order to come up with an effective
counter-measure, they would have to do somthing. Spend LOTS of bucks
(rubles). This is one reason for having so many different weapons
systems for nuke delivery on BOTH sides. Each is forcing the other to
spend money to come up with defenses. Whether they want to admit it or
not, the Soveits are spending as much as they dare on defense now. Much
more, and it will completly cripple their economy. If we're going to
spend money for a new weapons system, why not for a DEFENSIVE one that
does not carry Nukes, rather than something else.
On arms control, I will simply say this. The Soviets have
repeatedly demonstrated that they are out for nothing less than total
domination of the world. (Look at Hungary, and Afganistan to name but
2). If they are willing to disarm, so am I. BUT IT MUST BE VERIFIABLE!!
I would trust a hungry shark not to bite me if I were bleeding before I
would trust that bunch of bomb-throwing anarchists. If they are willing
to enter into some mutually-verifable disarmament agreement, one with
teeth to see that it's enforced, fine, let's do it yesterday. To disarm
ourselves unilaterally is not even suicide, it would be genocide. In
evey case in the past, if the Soviets have felt an area could be taken
over by force with an "acceptable risk", they've done so. As much as I
wish we could play nice, I don't see how we can without baring our
throats to the Soviets.
--
Mike Stalnaker UUCP:{decvax!decuac,cbosgd,seismo}!dolqci!mike
AT&T:202-376-2593
USPS:601 D. St. NW, Room 7122, Washington, DC, 20213
"Never appeal to a man's better nature. He may not
have one. Appeal to his better interests instead"
--Lazarus Longgrl@charm.UUCP (George Lake) (05/06/85)
FLAME: Stalnaker has really given us a muddle on SDI to deal with. First: He argued that countermeasures are always more expensive, so we force th Russians to spend many Rubles on their own ABM system. This is nonsense. If the system isn't 100% effective (as Stalnaker suggests that it won't be), then they just spend more on cheaper missles. Or they diminish SDI efficiency to zero by increasing the power to weight ratio of their missles. This insures that their is insufficient time to draw a bead and fire in the thrust phase. OR, they just build more cruise missles, bombers and subs. SDI is only slightly effective for subs and COMPLETELY ineffective for cruise and bombers. SDI is a treaty violation, diplomatically a disaster and technically impossible.
mjk@ttrdc.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (05/06/85)
>From: mike@dolqci.UUCP (Mike Stalnaker) > >Folks, look at the facts objectivly for a minute. > OK, where are they? >Is SDI an offensive weapons system?? No. No facts here. Any weapon that can shoot down missiles can shoot down satellites. Satellites are relied upon for verification of arms treaties, early warning of attack as well as communications. To take out another's satellites is to effectively poke your opponent's eyes out. It would almost certainly lead to a massive attack by the side loosing its satellites, since one can only assume the worst. Furthermore, the side that deploys SDI has a perfect first-strike position: strike, anything you don't hit on the ground, you take out as it flies towards you. Again, I don't think the U.S. would launch a first-strike. But what I think doesn't matter; I'm not a Soviet strategist. They (and we) have no choice but to assume that if you have a weapon that can do X, you will use it to do X. They're policy changes accordingly, and the world is brought that much closer to nuclear war by your "defensive" system. >A great number of people seem to think that SDI==Nukes in space. This is >simply not the case. How the hell do you know? But more to the point, it doesn't matter whether it involves nuclear weapons or not. It is destabilizing. It increases the risk of nuclear war. If they do that with lasers, it doesn't make it less destabilizing. > I agree, at least partially, with >those that say SDI may not be 100% effective. So what? even if it is 10 >to 15% effective, (and current estimates are in the 80-90% range for >ICBM's, stratagically, it makes a whole lot of sense. The primary >reason for it making sense is simple. $$$. Historically, it is always >far more expensive to come up with a counter-measure than to come up >with the original measure, on an almost geometric scale. By putting SDI >into action, or at least continuing the development, we force the Soviets >to respond by coming up with some kind of counter-measure. This has been the rationale of the arms race for these past forty years, which has brought us to such nirvana. More of the same is a great idea. What the hell, we're getting a real bargain at $70 billion, eh? (That's the expected 10-year cost of an SDI system; one estimate is that it will in fact be a 13-year, $100 billion system. The current five-year Pentagon plan calls for in the range of $26 billion.) >Whether they want to admit it or >not, the Soveits are spending as much as they dare on defense now. Much >more, and it will completly cripple their economy. First, this is garbage. The major claim to legitimacy that the Soviets have is that they've effectively defended the country, and they will match the U.S. system for system to do so. If you have some fantasy about spending the Soviets into oblivion, please let us out of the car before you decide to play chicken. >If we're going to >spend money for a new weapons system, why not for a DEFENSIVE one that >does not carry Nukes, rather than something else. Why not spend the money on something we *need*, like education or health care? Why not use it to reduce the deficit? Why not use it to lower taxes? The argument that, "what the hell, we're going to spend $300 billion on defense anyway" is absurd. We should spend enough on defense to be secure. And SDI not only lessens our security, but it costs us an absolutely incredible amount of money to do so. > On arms control, I will simply say this. The Soviets have >repeatedly demonstrated that they are out for nothing less than total >domination of the world. (Look at Hungary, and Afganistan to name but >2). If they are willing to disarm, so am I. BUT IT MUST BE VERIFIABLE!! >I would trust a hungry shark not to bite me if I were bleeding before I >would trust that bunch of bomb-throwing anarchists. If they are willing >to enter into some mutually-verifable disarmament agreement, one with >teeth to see that it's enforced, fine, let's do it yesterday. To disarm >ourselves unilaterally is not even suicide, it would be genocide. In >evey case in the past, if the Soviets have felt an area could be taken >over by force with an "acceptable risk", they've done so. As much as I >wish we could play nice, I don't see how we can without baring our >throats to the Soviets. There has never (repeat, never) been negotiated by the U.S. with the Soviets an arms control agreement that isn't verifiable. Never. I doubt very, very much that there ever will be. Verifiability just isn't an issue. It really isn't. Who wants unverifiable agreements? That doesn't do anybody any good. It's living in a fantasy world like, well, like thinking that a shield can be built against nuclear weapons. As if they were spears, or something. A shield is a good term, too, since it evokes the quote from Einstein: "splitting the atom changed everything except the way we think." We still have Mr. Stalnaker here thinking he can *win this war*. And he's willing to be the planet on it. There is a very fundamental argument going on in America right now, and I hope everyone is tuned into it; its outcome may just change your life. The argument is between those who think we can "build the Soviets into oblivion" and construct nuclear-weapon security blankets over our heads, and those who believe that there is no technical solution to what is fundamentally a political problem. We are *not* going to destroy the Soviet Union; they are *not* going to destroy us. We are either going to destroy the *world* or we are going to live together. It really is co-existance or no existance. And until we wake up to the reality and start searching for political solutions, we are marching towards a cliff. As Pogo said, unless we turn around, we going to get where we're headed. Which will probably happen when enough people tell politicians who come up with ideas like SDI to get the hell back in their offices and figure out a way to end the arms race. Mike Kelly