banner@ubc-vision.CDN (Allen Banner) (04/05/85)
> SDI is necessary to keep MAD working.
You said it! The question is who wants to?!!
Al Banner
P.S. I wasn't aware that SDI was intended be effective against stealth
bombers, cruise missiles and the new mid-range ballistic missiles (I suppose
that one's not too far out of line). I think you have just hit the nail
right on the head!...SDI will be no defense at all...it will simply force
a shift in the sorts of offensive weapons which will be deployed!
P.S.S. Happy Easter!henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (04/07/85)
> ...I wasn't aware that SDI was intended be effective against stealth > bombers It's not, but conventional air defences will be, when augmented with sensors that can see the things. "Stealth" is a red herring; there is no stealth gadget that is very useful against lidar (laser radar), which will undoubtedly be developed as a military sensor now that stealth aircraft are becoming a big thing. > ...cruise missiles... Same comments. They make air defence harder by being smaller and more numerous, but there's nothing fundamental involved. > ...and the new mid-range ballistic missiles... SDI should do quite well against these, although the reaction times needed will be somewhat shorter than against ICBMs. > ...SDI will be no defense at all...it will simply force > a shift in the sorts of offensive weapons which will be deployed! By this argument, there is no such thing as a defence, anywhere, ever. Of course the mix of offensive weapons will shift to maximize their effectiveness against the defences, including SDI, but the net result will still be a major reduction in the effectiveness of offensive weapons. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry