barry@ames.UUCP (Ken Barry) (08/31/84)
[==----------*ZAPP!!!!] I'd like to throw an idea out for general comment and reaction. Let's suppose, first of all, that we come up with some Star Wars space defence that looks reasonable enough on paper to make it worth building. Those unable to seriously entertain such a concept may as well stop reading, here, and go on to the next article. OK, let's say our best estimate is that it could stop 75% of the incoming in a massive nuclear strike - could we not then eliminate 75% of our offensive capability unilaterally, without the seemingly impossible task of getting both US and USSR to agree to an arms limitation treaty? The idea, obviously, is that if only 25% of their incoming can get through, we then need an offensive force only 25% of theirs to maintain parity. The same logic would apply whatever the estimated effectiveness of the defense was - plug in your favorite percentage. So, OK, it's not a perfect formula for disarmament; a Soviet space defense would complicate things if they didn't also make a voluntary cutback on offense along with it. And further buildups of Soviet offense would require the same from us, if we couldn't increase the stopping-power of our defense. But it would at least scale things down somewhat, wouldn't it? The political practicality of such a unilateral reduction in offensive capability is perhaps arguable, but I can cite some grounds for believing in the possibility. First, the present administration's distaste for arms reductions is irrelevant; it will take a good deal longer than another 4 years to build a sizeable space defense, and Reagan will be long gone. Public approval for reduction of the nuclear arsenal seems, if anything, to be growing, and a practical plan for such reductions which would not leave the country defenseless should get wide popular support. And, finally, there's the matter of cost. Any credible defense against atomic attack is bound to be large-scale, and quite expensive. What could be more natural than cutting back our large expenditures on offensive weapons as a way of getting the money to build the defense? So, the question I'm asking is this: if you are opposed to the Star Wars defense notions, would you still oppose it if: 1) It DID seem technically feasible, and; 2) It was tied to a build-DOWN of our offensive nuclear weapons. Comments? [The opinions expressed herein are my own foolishness, and do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone that matters.] - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Electric Avenue: {dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry