banner@ubc-vision.CDN (Allen Banner) (04/04/85)
> I repeat, the worst consequence of accidental initiation of an > SDI system is shooting down a manned space launch. This would be > regrettable, but surely we can live with the risk. Two points: - (less important of the two...) How long will it take to get an operational "SDI system" up there? If and when it happens (God forbid...) what sort of reaction times will we be looking at for various weapons systems? (since the development of offensive sys- tems is not likely to stand still until that umbrella becomes a reality) Given the trend right now, it seems that they will be short and will involve control by computers...possibly to full "launch on warning". It seems reasonable to assume that control systems for an SDI defensive system will end up talking to the control systems for offensive weapons to provide for a "compre- hensive command and control system". I don't see that we should discount the possibility of a bug in SDI starting a catastrophy. - (more important of the two...) SDI promises to be dangerously destabilizing long before it becomes operational. It also will distract resources (funds, human talent and labour) from projects which *could* lead to a more stable future. The issue is will the scientific community accept its responsibility to speak out publicly? For the record...have YOU, Henry, signed Ray Reiter's Declaration and are YOU promoting it?...please do! And while everyone is sitting at their terminal, consider banging out a letter to your favourite M.P. or one of the M.P.'s below. The address for all of them is (free postage): House of Commons Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6 - Brian Mulroney, Prime Minister - Joe Clark, Minister of External Affairs - Eric Nielsen, Minister of Defense - John Turner, Leader of the Opposition, Liberal Party Leader - Jean Chretian, External Affairs Critic, Liberal Party - Len Hopkins, Defense Critic, Liberal Party - Lloyd Axworthy, Disarmament Critic, Liberal Party - Ed Broadbent, Leader of the New Democratic Party - Pauline Jewett, NDP External Affairs Critic - Derek Blackburn, NDP Defense Critic Another potentially effective option would be to write an appeal to Mila Mulroney...she is near and dear to her husband...convince her and let her work on her husband... - Mrs. Mila Mulroney 24 Sussex Drive Ottawa, Ontario K1M 1M4
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (04/05/85)
> - (less important of the two...) How long will it take to get an > operational "SDI system" up there? If and when it happens (God > forbid...) what sort of reaction times will we be looking at for > various weapons systems? (since the development of offensive sys- > tems is not likely to stand still until that umbrella becomes a > reality) Given the trend right now, it seems that they will be > short and will involve control by computers...possibly to full > "launch on warning". Unsettlingly plausible. But this will happen regardless of SDI. SDI might even help avert this, since even a rather leaky SDI system makes it *very* hard for an opponent to be sure that he can knock out offensive systems underneath. > It seems reasonable to assume that control > systems for an SDI defensive system will end up talking to the > control systems for offensive weapons to provide for a "compre- > hensive command and control system". I don't see that we should > discount the possibility of a bug in SDI starting a catastrophy. You are assuming that *nobody* planning these systems has thought of that. The reason why none of the much-publicized "false alarms" in recent history has come anywhere near starting a nuclear war is that the people designing command-and-control systems for nuclear weapons have been quite paranoid about this sort of thing. I fail to see why an SDI system's "we are under attack" signal will be taken at face value, when nothing else ever is in these systems. > - (more important of the two...) SDI promises to be dangerously > destabilizing long before it becomes operational. Unfortunately true. But this isn't fundamentally unsolvable; one possible way is to link SDI deployment with major offensive-arms reductions. I'm not saying I have a complete solution to the problem, but it's not an inherent impossibility. > It also will > distract resources (funds, human talent and labour) from projects > which *could* lead to a more stable future. You mean, it will mobilize resources which -- IF MOBILIZED -- could do better things instead. Don't make the mistake made by the planetary scientists who were opposed to Apollo: they said "cut Apollo, for the money is better spent on us"; what they got, eventually, was budget cuts in Apollo *and* in their projects. Just because resources are not being used on project X, don't assume they will be used on Y. I think it far more likely that money not spent on SDI will be spent on worse things, like yet more nuclear weapons. > For the record...have YOU, Henry, signed Ray Reiter's Declaration > and are YOU promoting it?...please do! For the record, NO, because I think he's wrong. Or at least, not obviously right. There is much wrong with the way SDI is currently being tackled, and this worries me, but unconditional opposition strikes me as inappropriate. Especially when MAD gets more dangerous every year, and there is little evidence of any real progress on pleasant dreams like large-scale disarmament. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry